« first day (18 days earlier)      last day (32 days later) » 

NotThatGuy
NotThatGuy
4:16 AM
@ vsz You're more than happy to assert that I'm wrong and I'm lying and I'm basing my opinion on pop-culture. When I point out that what I say is a summary of Wikipedia, you desperately flail about to avoid the obvious logical implication of what you're saying, which is either (1) those accusations must apply to Wikipedia, or (2) I'm misrepresenting Wikipedia. You're happy to allude to #2, yet you've made no attempt to actually engage with what Wikipedia says to point out where I'm wrong.
Wikipedia isn't necessarily right and it's not a primary source, but this isn't a research paper and Wikipedia provides useful, in-depth, well-referenced summaries for colloquial discussion. You also keep alluding to me misrepresenting Wikipedia, so... pick a lane (or make a concrete case for both position, instead of vaguely alluding to both possibilities).
If you have any interest whatsoever in engaging honestly (and backing up your accusation of me "cherry-picking wikipedia quotes" and that "the Wikipedia article you linked does not support your claims"), I expect the very next thing you say to be one of the following: (or both)
1. A firm assertion that Wikipedia is wrong or is incomplete by quoting specific sections of Wikipedia (which I was summarising, i.e. the "Controversy over heliocentrism" section), pointing out how that is incorrect and what that is missing with a specific reference (not just vaguely handwaving to a primary source, but an exact quote). Better yet, correct Wikipedia yourself, since anyone can do this, and others can also then verify what you say.
If you go this route and not the other route, I'd also expect an apology for all your personal attacks against me, since me quoting Wikipedia correctly, but Wikipedia itself being wrong, would invalidate a lot of your accusations against me of me being dishonest and whatnot.
2. A firm assertion that I'm misrepresenting Wikipedia by quoting specific parts of what I've said and quoting specific parts of what Wikipedia says and showing how those 2 things don't line up.
I don't expect you'd do this, because you seem to have no interest whatsoever in engaging honestly. But this is the bare minimum of backing up all your personal attacks against me, and this is a very clear request that would allow you to conclusively back up what you say and prove me wrong.
You can handwave away this request, and you can keep throwing out lies and misrepresentations and strawmen and insults, and you can keep vaguely alluding to Wikipedia not being a primary source, but then you'd make it clear to everyone that you have no interest whatsoever in engaging honestly.
And yeah, I'm also getting bored with pointing out every time you lie and misrepresent and strawman and insult. But you do it in every single reply that you write to me. I like having respectful discussions with people (see my discussion with GratefulDisciple above, for example). But respect is mutual and I'm not going to submissively sit back while you lie and bully to try to score imaginary debate points.
NotThatGuy
NotThatGuy
4:37 AM
Also, just to get ahead of you trying to change the subject to me not backing up accusing you of lying: I've very specifically shown how you've lied in literally every single reply I've posted to you in this thread. Also, much of your bad-faith accusations and lies depend on it being the case that I've misrepresented Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia being wrong, so that ultimately just boils down to what I said above.
 
16 hours later…
vsz
vsz
9:03 PM
@NotThatGuy Look, I'd be very happy to focus only on the topic, but as you keep slandering me I will have to keep addressing it (I don't know what you expect, that people who stumble upon our conversation later will blindly believe your accusations without looking them up?) So, for the record, again, I only ever attacked your arguments, never your person or personality.
You, on the other hand, have done personal attacks multiple times, calling me vile, inhuman, incapable of being a decent person, etc. etc. I never used foul and derogatory language against you, but you did against me. Yet you still insist on the strategy of using personal attacks against me and falsely claiming that I'm doing it to you instead.
Even in this most recent conversation, I merely brought up points about Aristotle, about models of gravity, and about what astronomers in Galilei's time were writing. Yet you somehow still interpreted this as "bullying". If you want me to stay on topic, and you want a meaningful conversation, it's easy, just stop with your accusations and personal attacks, and I'll be happy to continue to talk only about verifiable and falsifiable historical facts.
So, this being out of the way, let's focus on the facts. Our entire past conversation about Wikipedia (which I don't know why you are bringing up, as I was now addressing Aristotle and Riccioli and models of gravity) was about the claim that Galilei did get in trouble with the Inquisition. But this is not something I ever denied! I only countered your motte and bailey strategy where you used a true small claim to try to allege something bigger.
You mentioned that Galilei had two dealings with the inquisition, which I never denied, I just added context from the same Wikipedia article you quoted but you conveniently left out, that they gave him formal authorization and papal permission to continue his work and publish his book. "formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission" says right there in the very article you quoted.
And when I brought this up, you called me a liar and started insulting me, falsely claiming that I've been insulting you.
This entire new conversation sprung up around me and GratefulDisciple talking about the turf war problem. The only part where I was addressing you, was your comment about a hypothetical, that if Galiei behaved differently, the Church would still have ordered him to stop doing science. I merely disagreed with your hypothetical, as I see no evidence pointing in that direction, yet plenty of evidence disagreeing with it.
I'll list that evidence shortly in a numbered format, so that if you disagree you'll have to point out exactly what you disagree with, instead of broadly saying I'm lying without saying what exact factual statement of mine you consider a lie.
...
So, the overarching topic I've been discussing, is that there is a popular misconception, **that in medieval and early modern times, the Church was in general hiding or suppressing scientific knowledge in order to hold back human progress, that mankind would be more advanced today if it wasn't for Christians holding it back, and more specifically that the pre-modern Catholic Church was opposed to the concept of the Earth orbiting the Sun with the deliberate purpose of hindering scientific progress and to keep the world in ignorance.**
Now, @NotThatGuy, if this is not a position you are holding, you now have the opportunity to clearly say so. Then we will avoid all the unnecessarily bickering about accusations of strawmanning. I'm attacking the above presented position, not anyone personally, and if it is not your position then there is even less reason to take it personally.
I'll now summarize most of the arguments I already presented. They are not all necessarily retorts to comments made in this chat, many of them are there to give more context, so don't take anything personally. These arguments are not about you, or any other person. They are about the historical context.
1. The Church founded the universities, hospitals, and laid down the basics of modern science. Even the scientific method itself was founded by Catholic monks. Most of the early modern scientists were not just paying lip service, but were devoutly religious. Roger Bacon (one of the earliest forefathers of the experimental method), Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Leibniz, and many many others. Even Copernicus, Galilei, and Kepler.
Had Christianity "held the world back" scientifically, then the rest of the world would have advanced ahead as they were largely uncontacted by European…
2. There were a small number of controversies, which even if they were as bad as presented in pop-culture, do not invalidate point #1, them being rare exceptions. But if we study them deeper and in context, we will find it's much more complex than the "boo, the church wanted to keep knowledge suppressed because they were afraid of the truth". The core of the debate about heliocentrism was not about whether the Bible is right or wrong, but whether Aristotle was right or wrong.
3. There is not a single hint in all the contemporary discussions about heliocentrism that it would disprove the existence of God, or that geocentrism is necessary for asserting the existence of God or the correctness of Christianity. Not. A. Single. One.
4. Had the Church considered the idea of heliocentrism a threat to faith, and were really wanting to suppress it, they would have suppressed it from the beginning. Yet they not only tolerated Galilei, but even financed his research, despite knowing he was a heliocentrist from the beginning. The heliocentrism-geocentrism debates were common among astronomers of the day, and were not hindered, but even encouraged by the pope.
Yes, later relations got sour with Galilei, but Galilei made some really bad mistakes, political ones, and he also insisted on having authority in religious matters, and finally he mocked the Pope, creating a character based on him named "Simplicio" (stupid, fool, simpleton).
Yes, some Church authorities then overreacted by claiming heliocentrism to be heretic, but if someone who is not a member of the clergy insists on having authority not only in worldly scientific matters but also in religious ones, no wonder there was a pushback. But if science in general, or heliocentrism in particular, would have been the main problem for them, they would have banned it right from the beginning, instead of only after this controversy with Galilei broke out.
5. Galilei was by far not the only one debating the heliocentrism topic or bringing forwards argument in support of it. It was a widely discussed topic. Religion played a very minor and insignificant role in the general heliocentrism-geocentrism debate. One of the best examples is Riccioli, who wrote the kind of book the Pope originally wanted Galilei to write, to list all the arguments pro and contra.
Riccioli was devoutly religious, and leaned towards geocentrism, yet among the 126 arguments he listed in his book, only 2 were theological in nature, and he brought up strong counterarguments against them. The debate was definitely not one between science and ignorance. We have to resist the temptation of comparing the geocentrists of that time to the arguments modern flat-earthers and some young-Earth creationists bring forth.
6. Interestingly, it was usually heliocentrists who needed to insert God into the equations, because they did not have a good model for gravity yet. They used Aristotle's model: matter has the natural tendency to move towards the center of the Universe. But if the Earth is not the center, then why are things pulled towards the center of the Earth? "A miracle of God", said heliocentrists, including Galilei. Geocentrists were much less reliant on such explanations.
7. The entire concept of suppressing the "scientific truth" regarding the motion of the Earth is anachronistic. In that time heliocentrism simply was not yet possible to prove. Both because of a lack of a good model for gravity, and becasue instruments were not good enough to measure stellar parallax yet.
For example, one of Galilei's major arguments was that water in a barrel is still, but if you put it on a moving cart it will slosh around, and the tides are just water sloshing around due to the Earth's movement. Others correctly stated tides are caused by the Moon, which Galilei dismissed and even ridiculed.
And finally, a closing disclaimer: I'm not a Catholic. I have no personal stake in defending Catholics. I'm just fighting against common misconceptions about the past (some I were personally guilty of when I built up my image of the past based on pupular culture before digging in deeper), because I hold the view that we should study the past as it was, objectively. I care about the truth and historical authenticity, and about studying past events within the broader context.
I sincerely hope this will make it much clearer what my arguments were about, and you'll realize they were not about you as a person.
NotThatGuy
NotThatGuy
9:47 PM
@ vsz So... I made a very clear request for you to back up your personal attacks and lies, that would prove that you're engaging honestly. You just entirely dismissed that, in favour of shifting the discussion away from that, demonstrating that you indeed have zero interest in engaging honestly. Yeah... no thanks. I'm not going to entertain you trying to play the victim, and I'm not going to pretend as if this isn't just a continuation of the bad-faith tactics you've demonstrated thus far.
If you want to call me a liar, which you've done, if you want to say Wikipedia doesn't support what I've said, which you'd done, if you want to say I'm cherry-picking Wikipedia, which you've done, then I'm going to insist that you back up those accusations (or that you take them back and apologise). Your refusal to do so speaks volumes.
And just to get ahead of you trying to pretend you never called me a liar: you said what I've said is "a devious lie". And here you claimed that Wikipedia doesn't support my claims, and here you claimed I'm cherry-picking Wikipedia. So, you made accusations, now back them up.

« first day (18 days earlier)      last day (32 days later) »