Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
#31
well Logic is over retarded. um rated.
Logic //
//=get drink.
=sip sip

yeah ok I like it.


Reply
#32
LaRoza Wrote:
alaric Wrote:
LaRoza Wrote:
alaric Wrote:Maybe that last sentence of yours  alone reinforces the notion of his "over-ratedness".
How can the average imbecile understand what a genius has written down?

Because Truth is beautiful and ultimately simple but it takes a great mind to discover it, and a greater mind to express it simply.

Logic is for everyone or do you think the scientists in their high towers should dictate to the masses what to believe without every proving it because the average person would not understand?
Not to be heretical here, but, isn't that the same explanation of the Trinity by the Church? The so-called mystery?

I think the whole position of scientists in regards to the Church is indeed logic and not some esoteric ideas based on faith and mysticism.

Yes, it is. That was my point. scientists are not on the level of the Church and should never be taken on Faith.

Read the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part 1, Article I.

That is the point. Kepler was able to show evidence and logic for his conclusion. Einstein's theory was not easy to formulate, but it is easy to explain for those who truly understand it. Galileo could neither prove his conclusion nor show evidence for it. All evidence was taken on the faith he had in his conclusion.
It is not my intention to pit 16th century astronomers and scientists against each other or their conclusions.
I don't understand why you would consider Galileo's Hypothesis "foolishness" when even Einstein considered him the "Father of modern science" and  is highly recognized by Stephen Hawking himself as well as our present Pope.
 



Reply
#33
He was foolish to believe his hypothesis should be taken up when he couldn't explain it in a way that people could understand.  Instead of demanding people accept it, he should have convinced them of its truth.

He was impatient and brash.  That's really what got him in trouble - not his hypothesis.

Reply
#34
QuisUtDeus Wrote:He was foolish to believe his hypothesis should be taken up when he couldn't explain it in a way that people could understand.  Instead of demanding people accept it, he should have convinced them of its truth.

He was impatient and brash.  That's really what got him in trouble - not his hypothesis.
And yet, history (and science) proved him to be correct.........

Brilliant minds tend to be a little arrogant, impatient, and brash, this does not make them any less brilliant or at the very least, "foolish".
Reply
#35
alaric Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:He was foolish to believe his hypothesis should be taken up when he couldn't explain it in a way that people could understand.  Instead of demanding people accept it, he should have convinced them of its truth.

He was impatient and brash.  That's really what got him in trouble - not his hypothesis.
And yet, history (and science) proved him to be correct.........

Brilliant minds tend to be a little arrogant, impatient, and brash, this does not make them any less brilliant or at the very least, "foolish".

I think if I say it like this, it may be more clear:

Their approach to furthering their hypothesis can be foolish.

And a foolish approach can interfere with the acceptance of a good idea.  Being smart is no excuse for being an ass, and it interferes with science.

Here's an extreme example:

Paracelsus is the father of modern medicine.  He was so bad, that he was given the title Bombastus.   If he had been less a jerk, the Galenists would have killed a lot less people because his ideas would have gained ground much sooner.

A man can be both a genius and a fool.  Another example is Tesla.  Complete genius, lost to Edison et al. because he was foolish when it came to business.

History is full of smart fools.


Reply
#36
alaric Wrote:It is not my intention to pit 16th century astronomers and scientists against each other or their conclusions.
Neither is it mine.

Quote:I don't understand why you would consider Galileo's Hypothesis "foolishness" when even Einstein considered him the "Father of modern science" and  is highly recognized by Stephen Hawking himself as well as our present Pope.
 

Yes, he deserves that credit, but the works, Two New Sciences, he wrote which gained him those admirers were done while on house arrest after the incident. I am only talking about the Galileo affair for which he is so famous. His work after that was worth study, but before...Galileo deserved what happened.
Reply
#37
alaric Wrote:And yet, history (and science) proved him to be correct.........

Brilliant minds tend to be a little arrogant, impatient, and brash, this does not make them any less brilliant or at the very least, "foolish".

Actually, Kepler at that time had proved him to be incorrect and history has shown this. His work which got him in trouble has no scientific value.
Reply
#38
QuisUtDeus Wrote:A man can be both a genius and a fool.  Another example is Tesla.  Complete genius, lost to Edison et al. because he was foolish when it came to business.

History is full of smart fools.

No, I would say Tesla was taken advantage of by Edison. Edison did not pay him for his work which he promised and paid him chicken scratch for the groundbreaking work Tesla did with the expectation of being paid as promised.

Tesla and Kepler are the scientists I admire, not Edison and Galileo.

However, I see the past few posts are confusing the issue.

The work which the Church took issue with was not only wrong scientifically, Galileo showed much pride and arrogance towards the Church who would have allowed him to publish it if he took several measures. Kepler had already published works which are much more scientific and Galileo rejected them.

In this matter, Galileo was not only scientifically wrong, he insulted the Church. I see nothing laudable scientifically or morally with his actions at this time and it is for this I (rashly) called him a fool. His work after this was not problematic and it was this work which has earned him the praise of knowledable men.
Reply
#39
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
alaric Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:He was foolish to believe his hypothesis should be taken up when he couldn't explain it in a way that people could understand.  Instead of demanding people accept it, he should have convinced them of its truth.

He was impatient and brash.  That's really what got him in trouble - not his hypothesis.
And yet, history (and science) proved him to be correct.........

Brilliant minds tend to be a little arrogant, impatient, and brash, this does not make them any less brilliant or at the very least, "foolish".

I think if I say it like this, it may be more clear:

Their approach to furthering their hypothesis can be foolish.

And a foolish approach can interfere with the acceptance of a good idea.  Being smart is no excuse for being an ass, and it interferes with science.

Here's an extreme example:

Paracelsus is the father of modern medicine.  He was so bad, that he was given the title Bombastus.   If he had been less a jerk, the Galenists would have killed a lot less people because his ideas would have gained ground much sooner.

A man can be both a genius and a fool.  Another example is Tesla.  Complete genius, lost to Edison et al. because he was foolish when it came to business.

History is full of smart fools.
Hence the term "smart-ass"........[Image: tongue.gif]

It's a shame pride and hubris can hold back the contributions of  some of the pure genius's, but some tend to have these character defects to offset an overwhelming array in  brilliance.
 
Nobody's perfect I suppose.
Reply
#40
LaRoza Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:A man can be both a genius and a fool.  Another example is Tesla.  Complete genius, lost to Edison et al. because he was foolish when it came to business.

History is full of smart fools.

No, I would say Tesla was taken advantage of by Edison. Edison did not pay him for his work which he promised and paid him chicken scratch for the groundbreaking work Tesla did with the expectation of being paid as promised.

Tesla and Kepler are the scientists I admire, not Edison and Galileo.

However, I see the past few posts are confusing the issue.

The work which the Church took issue with was not only wrong scientifically, Galileo showed much pride and arrogance towards the Church who would have allowed him to publish it if he took several measures. Kepler had already published works which are much more scientific and Galileo rejected them.

In this matter, Galileo was not only scientifically wrong, he insulted the Church. I see nothing laudable scientifically or morally with his actions at this time and it is for this I (rashly) called him a fool. His work after this was not problematic and it was this work which has earned him the praise of knowledable men.
The "insult" wasn't against the Church, it was a misrepresentation of a view in a book that the Pope felt slighted in that wasn't  Galileo's intention but was perceived that way in public ridicule. It became a personal issue between the two men who were once Friends, now became antagonists and eventually lead to his having to stand trial for heresy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)