Historians serve the interests of the ICAR have used a number of fallacies, half truths and rhetorical tricks to fake (in Newspeak Catholic "review") the reality on the Galileo case to expose what has happened immediately:
1) Galileo was a brawler type, proud, vain, arrogant and bad temper that caused an unnecessary conflict with the Catholic Church on the subject of heliocentrism, she wanted to avoid at all costs, only for pride intellectual a man who always "right" and at the end, I did a disservice to the church and the same science that became atheist by his arrogance left. Critical
: Here we see that the "argument" is nothing more than revisionist a distracting ad hominem fallacy ABUSIVE that focuses only on the subjective character (which is irrelevant in a discussion wise), not arguments either (ad rem) it should be. On the other hand, it is true that Galileo would trigger hostilities against the Church for the heliocentric, as the Church itself triggered the war against the heliocentric theory by burning at the stake to the philosopher Giordano heliocentric Bruno in 1600 (16 years before the first trial of Galileo). And on the pride and vanity that is credited to Galileo (which may well be true) I would not use it much as a weapon, because after all also Pope Urban VIII, who condemned Galileo in the second trial, was described by his biographers as a pompous, proud and vain Pope who said "I know more than all the cardinals together" and who, on one occasion, ordered to kill all birds near the Vatican because the noise bothered him ... they made (do not think that Pope is an idol of the humane society, precisely ;-)).
2) Galileo did not show the heliocentric theory, which was only subsequently demonstrated by Kepler, and the Church had no reason to believe in a theory before being verified. Critical
: New error, as Galileo did demonstrate the Copernican theory to verify observationally, with the telescope, the phases of Venus that were predicted by Copernicus. And if a theory is corroborated verify predictions derived from it, and that made Galileo, Galileo ergo it verified the Copernican theory. Moreover, Galileo's discovery of the satellites or moons of Jupiter served to dispel the objection that the planets geocentrist should revolve around the earth as we see the moon does, but as the moon is a satellite of the earth could not expect otherwise, and it does not follow that because the moon revolves around the earth around the planetary system should, too. That the Catholic Church did not believe in the theory of Copernicus during his lifetime was reasonable given that Copernicus did not show it, but do not accept at the time of Galileo, Kepler and Newton (XVII and XVIII centuries) when the theory was solid foundation is only blindness (as the worst blind is the one who will not see) and faith-driven irrationality, as the "infallible" Church just accepted it, reluctantly, in the year ... 1835 (sic).
3) Galileo was never tortured and never was subject to imprisonment as say detractors of the Church. Critical
: Error, if Galileo was subject to imprisonment, treated with indignity, and death threats amounted to mental torture and, to top it off he was forced to an old poor and nearly blind, pronouncing knees humiliating withdrawal following: "I, Galileo, sixty years old, with POW and he knelt down to your eminence, having before my eyes the Holy Gospel, on which I put my hands, abjure, curse and detest the error and heresy of the movement of the earth "(The struggle between dogmatism and science at the heart of Christendom by Andrew White).
4) The Catholic Church does not burn when Galileo showed great indulgence that honor. Different would be the case if it had fallen into the hands of the evil Protestants such as Calvin, who, without further ado, I would burn at the stake and burned at the stake the scholar Miguel Servet. Critical
: No doubt that Galileo had been roasted by fans in Geneva if he had fallen into their clutches, but it seems that these "historians" have a fragile historical memory, as Giordano Bruno to defend, among others, Copernicus's theory as fans toasted Catholics with such "indulgence" as the Protestants Servet.Por other hand, if Catholics are not roasted to Galileo was because 1) Galileo was recognized internationally and have been a disaster of "public relations" toast to the eminent scientist, especially if we Realizing that this murder had served as propaganda trick for Protestants in their campaigns anticatólicas.2) Galileo was not retracted toast because (unlike the brave Bruno), but if he had not retracted as Bruno had been burned and many others and you would witness the "lenient" may be the ICAR when someone does not bow to their whims dogmatic.
5) Pope Urban VIII was advised by the best astronomers and had as an argument against the theory of the astronomer Galileo T. Brahe who defended geocentrism with new arguments. Critical
: If the pope was so well advised and had so many "scientific" arguments against Galileo, why did not refute rationally rather than submit to threats of death if he did not recant?. Resort to violence to settle scientific arguments is only one AD baculum fallacy that nothing shows. And in the trial of Galileo were conspicuous by their absence, the test sound (or any Brahe), but plentiful, yes, the Bible verses .. (sic) who were the ultimate "test" against Galileo as evidenced by this excerpt from the decision of the Inquisition :"... the opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun is contrary to scripture, and therefore can not be sustained and defended. " (The scientific perspective of Bertrand Russell) What good be so good "advice" if it resorts to vulgar fallacy of argument from authority to "refute" Galileo?.
6) Galileo was condemned for heresy, but contempt and disrespect for the pope. Critical
: Although Galileo did not comply with the prohibition of trial in 1616 and apparently put into the mouth of a character of some objections Diálogollamado Simplicio Pope him in person, which upset over the pope, is an argument that turns against Urban VIII as this implies that the pope condemned for 200 years and outlined a theory to Iglesiaa accusations of obscurantism and if unscientific ... just a mere child tantrum against Galileo personal (sic). On the other hand, this charge is not sustained by the rulings of the inquisition that clearly say "heresy" and not "Default". Then the "plot" has no evidence base.
0 comments:
Post a Comment