15-year old Catholic schoolboy stabbed in the heart by "refugee" in Sweden

MoonlessNight · Jan 28, 2016

katerinah1947 said:
Most of those claims on theoretical grounds are invalid on the basis of one experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions.

Furthermore, evidence trumps all opposition, with scientists.

What happened there is not real science from what I can tell.

At the time of Galileo, there was no experimental evidence for heliocentrism. The first experimental evidence for the theory came in the form of the stellar aberration, which was discovered in the early eighteenth century.

katerinah1947 said:
In just that sort of evidence, I present, and only politics and power incorrect wielded can remove me, which happened once to me, but my findings still held true.

In my case like in Galileo's case, some knew I was right but did not stand up for my rights,,and politics not truth prevailed.

I AM A SCIENTIST, My head did roll once. I was not wrong, other than saying I should have lied.

No one is making this personal but you. If you want to view Galileo as a martyr who bravely told the obvious truth in the face of political pressure because you view yourself in the same mold, that is a consequence of the chip you carry on your shoulder.

You are not Galileo. If Galileo was a hot head who provoked others to act against him (even if those actions were unjustified in their extent), that says absolutely nothing about you.

katerinah1947 said:
To suggest that Galileo should have been censored is incorrect, but. But, I will look through your evidence to see if there is any merit to it.

I have not suggested any such thing, and have even noted that the actions taken against Galileo were more about his abrasive personality and poor political choices than the scientific theories he advanced. I am only saying that the narrative that you and others present about Galileo being a selfless martyr for science is wholly inconsistent with the actual history, and that Galileo wasn't even making the argument supported by the best science and evidence of the time. If that offends you then you are interested in secular hagiography, not in science.

katerinah1947 said:
Non scientists, and poor scientists, even unproven scientists, should never be allowed to decide the fate of a scientist.

The suggestion that the scientists who disagreed with Galileo were poor is absurd. Tycho Brahe was a leagues better astronomer than Galileo ever was. Galileo attacked Kepler over his use of the telescope, does that make Kepler (who was also a heliocentrist, and whose models are essentially the same as the current models) a poor scientist? The thought too that scientists are beyond the judgment of non-scientists is also absurd. If a scientist comments outside the field of science, he is open to criticism from experts in that field. Thus when Galileo interpreted scriptures, he was open to criticism from theologians (though it should not have resulted in his house arrest), just as when Stephen Hawking claims that the Universe could come from nothing because it could naturally arise from the laws of physics, philosophers and anyone who knows what the word "nothing" means can tell him that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

katerinah1947 said:
Look at what those types did to Goddard. It is not much different. In this case, even The New York Times printed an eventual retraction. He, Goddard gad to run away.

Should Galileo have run away? What would Jesus do is a Great Guide.

Jesus would have taken the abuse by those church officials, no matter what they did to him.

Galileo did much of what Jesus would have done, in that he knew the truth, Galileo did, and he almost totally never backed down from it.

Earlier I said that you are interested in secular hagiography, where hagiography is the treatment of the lives of saints. That is, you are making Galileo a saint in the scripture of SCIENCE!, turning a historical political squabble into a holy war between science and the Church. If there was any doubt before that this is what you were interested in, it vanishes when you explicitly compare Galileo to Jesus, making his house arrest the same sort of action as Jesus's sacrifice upon the cross for the redemption of mankind. That's a ridiculous praise of any historical figure, and bordering on blasphemy.

Besides, Galileo most certainly did not know "the truth" in its entirety. He infamously claimed that the tides proved that the Earth moves, and ridiculed those who drew a connection between the tides and the phases of the moon. We now know that the primary cause of the tides is in fact the gravitational pull of the moon. The only reason that he didn't get into trouble for this is because he didn't find a way to use this theory to interpret scripture. If we look at Galileo's life, which is full of arguments with other astronomers over priority, characterizations of those who disagreed with him as idiots, and above all else a constant sense of absolute confidence in all of his results; it seems certain that if he had somehow gotten into a dispute with the Church over the tides he would have bravely said that the tides had nothing to do with the moon. Would that be standing up for "truth?"

Galileo was a hothead whose primary skill was in popularizing scientific theories. He had the misfortune of misplaying the political game, and the fortune of having his fall be over a theory which happened to be correct despite being supported by no evidence during his time. If he had been censored over one of his incorrect theories, no one would care about him at all.

katerinah1947 · Jan 28, 2016

MoonlessNight said:
The first link I gave gives more documentation than you'd ever need to know what happened in the Galileo affair. If you want to know what happened, dig through that. The situation is complicated. The Church did stumble, but not because it was actively opposing science. Rather, it got involved in petty squabbles when it should have been above that.

Or you could keep believing the theme park version where Galileo was obviously right and the Church was obstinately wrong in the face of SCIENCE!

Some people honestly believe that before Columbus people thought the world was flat too.

Hi,

I have now read your article twice.

ONE EXPERIMENT IS WORTH A THOUSAND EXPERT OPINIONS

When, no one really knows in science or in virtually any field, especially it is true when conversations have been going on for a long time, it is ONE EXPERIMENT, that changes everything.

As an example, and my whole life is like this, one day I am told to go to a meeting of engineers, after I had completed something for my boss. ONE EXPERIMENT.

I was not told why. I was told to go. The debates and arguments were raging. The most angry person there after the meeting was over I detained him. I asked him why he was so upset.

In short he said they won't believe me. He had mountains of data supporting an answer. It suggested that he was right statistically. In simple terms, by a 6 to 4 margin, he was probably right.

The next week as asked of me, I gave a presentation of my work, my experiment, or the one my boss had me do us a more accurate statement.

Amazingly, these Bachelors degree people, and Masters degree level people did not mind, me giving them a freshman course on the subject of resistors.

I presented my Method of experimentation to them, like Galileo's telescope.

I told them of the approximations math wise that I used. I am sure Galileo did the equivalent.

I then showed them by a method they had never used before, equivalent to Galileo's Telecopic observations, my results as compared to what the other gentleman, (and he is that), had been saying.

My results agreed with his, but mine put the accuracy at 98% or so compared to the guy who had been right, for the past six months.

Typically, in science that is what ONE EXPERIMENT does. Prior to my boss Ara G. , telling me to do a certain experiment, Everyone just guessed really.

Galileo's telescope results should have been enough.

In all the cases, when one experiment after another proved this or that, I could have been given a lot of questions and might not have been able to answer them. If I was questioned, always, rather than my results looked at, I would have been tossed out on my ear, similar to Galileo.

Those who looked through Galileo's telescope Dane to believe in his work.

The problem is, they did not put their lives on the line, like Jesus did for us. They all caved, knowing the truth.

Fear won. We all list.

Fear is what is used in terrorism. Fear is what is used in politics. Fear is what is used in Religion when Religion is wrong.

All the words of the Apologists, and the debaters, change nothing in science nor in the words of Jesus, that mean people tell lies about Him, and He said at the time they are here now.

That Parable, Matthew 7:15-16, ignore it if you wish, but it applies possibly to the decision makers in Galileo's time.

If it is not that, then they didn't understand the Bible, that they said they were inerrant on.

LOVE,

katerinah1947 · Jan 28, 2016

MoonlessNight said:
At the time of Galileo, there was no experimental evidence for heliocentrism. The first experimental evidence for the theory came in the form of the stellar aberration, which was discovered in the early eighteenth century.

No one is making this personal but you. If you want to view Galileo as a martyr who bravely told the obvious truth in the face of political pressure because you view yourself in the same mold, that is a consequence of the chip you carry on your shoulder.

You are not Galileo. If Galileo was a hot head who provoked others to act against him (even if those actions were unjustified in their extent), that says absolutely nothing about you.

I have not suggested any such thing, and have even noted that the actions taken against Galileo were more about his abrasive personality and poor political choices than the scientific theories he advanced. I am only saying that the narrative that you and others present about Galileo being a selfless martyr for science is wholly inconsistent with the actual history, and that Galileo wasn't even making the argument supported by the best science and evidence of the time. If that offends you then you are interested in secular hagiography, not in science.

The suggestion that the scientists who disagreed with Galileo were poor is absurd. Tycho Brahe was a leagues better astronomer than Galileo ever was. Galileo attacked Kepler over his use of the telescope, does that make Kepler (who was also a heliocentrist, and whose models are essentially the same as the current models) a poor scientist? The thought too that scientists are beyond the judgment of non-scientists is also absurd. If a scientist comments outside the field of science, he is open to criticism from experts in that field. Thus when Galileo interpreted scriptures, he was open to criticism from theologians (though it should not have resulted in his house arrest), just as when Stephen Hawking claims that the Universe could come from nothing because it could naturally arise from the laws of physics, philosophers and anyone who knows what the word "nothing" means can tell him that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Earlier I said that you are interested in secular hagiography, where hagiography is the treatment of the lives of saints. That is, you are making Galileo a saint in the scripture of SCIENCE!, turning a historical political squabble into a holy war between science and the Church. If there was any doubt before that this is what you were interested in, it vanishes when you explicitly compare Galileo to Jesus, making his house arrest the same sort of action as Jesus's sacrifice upon the cross for the redemption of mankind. That's a ridiculous praise of any historical figure, and bordering on blasphemy.

Besides, Galileo most certainly did not know "the truth" in its entirety. He infamously claimed that the tides proved that the Earth moves, and ridiculed those who drew a connection between the tides and the phases of the moon. We now know that the primary cause of the tides is in fact the gravitational pull of the moon. The only reason that he didn't get into trouble for this is because he didn't find a way to use this theory to interpret scripture. If we look at Galileo's life, which is full of arguments with other astronomers over priority, characterizations of those who disagreed with him as idiots, and above all else a constant sense of absolute confidence in all of his results; it seems certain that if he had somehow gotten into a dispute with the Church over the tides he would have bravely said that the tides had nothing to do with the moon. Would that be standing up for "truth?"

Galileo was a hothead whose primary skill was in popularizing scientific theories. He had the misfortune of misplaying the political game, and the fortune of having his fall be over a theory which happened to be correct despite being supported by no evidence during his time. If he had been censored over one of his incorrect theories, no one would care about him at all.

Hi,

I from a science point of view, cannot see Galileo's actions as contrary to what some scientists do, who are right and know it somehow.

I fought a guy once on something. There was no way he was right. I coached him though. I showed him how to present his idea. I told him the standard way it should be done. With a prototype.

He made a prototype. Guess what happened?

He was right. I was wrong. I could not understand what he was saying, because he is not great at verbalizing.

Like Galileo he hung in there.

In my profession, credentials mean nothing compared to results.

Quoting the words of other scientists, of credentials and worth, does not trump experimental results and Galileo had those.

LOVE,

MoonlessNight · Jan 28, 2016

It's rather telling that your defense of Galileo has far more to do with your personal life than history.

But I'll say something about the one substantial statement that you made:

Galileo's telescope results should have been enough.

Galileo was not tried for claiming that other planets had satellites. His observations of the phases of Venus could be equally well explained by the geocentric Tychonic model. So telescopic observations, while valuable for Astronomy in other ways, did nothing to argue for the heliocentric model. Worse, they seemed to confirm that there was no stellar parallax (since the actual parallax is really, really small and thus could not be detected even by these new instruments), and the lack of a stellar parallax disproves the heliocentric model.

But that's my last word on the matter. It's off topic anyway, and I only chimed in that the start because the false narrative about Galileo is one of my personal pet peeves. But it's clear that you don't care about what actually happened and instead want to keep the simple narrative so you can be a great hero like the mythical Galileo, so there's no point in continuing to discuss the matter, even if it was on topic.

katerinah1947 · Jan 28, 2016

MoonlessNight said:
At the time of Galileo, there was no experimental evidence for heliocentrism. The first experimental evidence for the theory came in the form of the stellar aberration, which was discovered in the early eighteenth century.

No one is making this personal but you. If you want to view Galileo as a martyr who bravely told the obvious truth in the face of political pressure because you view yourself in the same mold, that is a consequence of the chip you carry on your shoulder.

You are not Galileo. If Galileo was a hot head who provoked others to act against him (even if those actions were unjustified in their extent), that says absolutely nothing about you.

I have not suggested any such thing, and have even noted that the actions taken against Galileo were more about his abrasive personality and poor political choices than the scientific theories he advanced. I am only saying that the narrative that you and others present about Galileo being a selfless martyr for science is wholly inconsistent with the actual history, and that Galileo wasn't even making the argument supported by the best science and evidence of the time. If that offends you then you are interested in secular hagiography, not in science.

The suggestion that the scientists who disagreed with Galileo were poor is absurd. Tycho Brahe was a leagues better astronomer than Galileo ever was. Galileo attacked Kepler over his use of the telescope, does that make Kepler (who was also a heliocentrist, and whose models are essentially the same as the current models) a poor scientist? The thought too that scientists are beyond the judgment of non-scientists is also absurd. If a scientist comments outside the field of science, he is open to criticism from experts in that field. Thus when Galileo interpreted scriptures, he was open to criticism from theologians (though it should not have resulted in his house arrest), just as when Stephen Hawking claims that the Universe could come from nothing because it could naturally arise from the laws of physics, philosophers and anyone who knows what the word "nothing" means can tell him that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Earlier I said that you are interested in secular hagiography, where hagiography is the treatment of the lives of saints. That is, you are making Galileo a saint in the scripture of SCIENCE!, turning a historical political squabble into a holy war between science and the Church. If there was any doubt before that this is what you were interested in, it vanishes when you explicitly compare Galileo to Jesus, making his house arrest the same sort of action as Jesus's sacrifice upon the cross for the redemption of mankind. That's a ridiculous praise of any historical figure, and bordering on blasphemy.

Besides, Galileo most certainly did not know "the truth" in its entirety. He infamously claimed that the tides proved that the Earth moves, and ridiculed those who drew a connection between the tides and the phases of the moon. We now know that the primary cause of the tides is in fact the gravitational pull of the moon. The only reason that he didn't get into trouble for this is because he didn't find a way to use this theory to interpret scripture. If we look at Galileo's life, which is full of arguments with other astronomers over priority, characterizations of those who disagreed with him as idiots, and above all else a constant sense of absolute confidence in all of his results; it seems certain that if he had somehow gotten into a dispute with the Church over the tides he would have bravely said that the tides had nothing to do with the moon. Would that be standing up for "truth?"

Galileo was a hothead whose primary skill was in popularizing scientific theories. He had the misfortune of misplaying the political game, and the fortune of having his fall be over a theory which happened to be correct despite being supported by no evidence during his time. If he had been censored over one of his incorrect theories, no one would care about him at all.

Hi,

Note. You have some valid statements.

I hold my views based on my Own work, from what I have read.

He was contrary to scripture.

It was not possible for the church to be wrong on scripture. They said that.

But, they were wrong on Scripture then. They were.

On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[39] The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[40]

From that they said this:

to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.

— The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[3]

Even though this was said:

Dr. Boscaglia had talked to Madame [Christina] for a while, and though he conceded all the things you have discovered in the sky, he said that the motion of the earth was incredible and could not be, particularly since Holy Scripture obviously was contrary to such motion.[15]

And this:

My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.[7]

LOVE,

Yes, I claim some insight. I understand and have dealt with both schools of thought.

Galileo acted as any normal scientist would.

He was perceived by the religious community just like scientists are, and I have been treated as.

I survived my heresy calls. My present heresy call is also survived, but is being ignored by the Vatican.

Everyone acted normally. All that happened is truth was lost for years.

Did the church error, in apologizing?

LOVE,

Science, what God has provably done, and goes into government laws, has an equal footing with God.

So yes, Galileo because he fought and lost, for what is correct, doctored the church., He made it better.

I cannot budge just because someone did not like his methods.

LOVE,

katerinah1947 · Jan 28, 2016

MoonlessNight said:
It's rather telling that your defense of Galileo has far more to do with your personal life than history.

But I'll say something about the one substantial statement that you made:

Galileo was not tried for claiming that other planets had satellites. His observations of the phases of Venus could be equally well explained by the geocentric Tychonic model. So telescopic observations, while valuable for Astronomy in other ways, did nothing to argue for the heliocentric model. Worse, they seemed to confirm that there was no stellar parallax (since the actual parallax is really, really small and thus could not be detected even by these new instruments), and the lack of a stellar parallax disproves the heliocentric model.

But that's my last word on the matter. It's off topic anyway, and I only chimed in that the start because the false narrative about Galileo is one of my personal pet peeves. But it's clear that you don't care about what actually happened and instead want to keep the simple narrative so you can be a great hero like the mythical Galileo, so there's no point in continuing to discuss the matter, even if it was on topic.

Hi,

Please no longer insult me on wanting to be a great hero.

I hold my views. If I am wrong and you are right I am sorry.

I just looked at all you have said, all your references so far, and can see no logic in what you say scientifically, nor experimentally.

I can see lots of statements about him being a better scientist than he was a theologian.

To say that I am glorifying myself, rather than possibly very wrong, is an insult.

LOVE,

simonpeter · Jan 28, 2016

It could also be a love triangle. Two guys fighting over a girl etc.

chevyontheriver · Jan 29, 2016

Mikhael Disciple of Christ said:
How can one hijack what one has created or owns?

Ha!
My point was that original Islam practiced by the founder IS what so many politically correct folks now say is 'originally peaceful' Islam hijacked by militants.

katerinah1947 · Jan 29, 2016

chevyontheriver said:
Ha!
My point was that original Islam practiced by the founder IS what so many politically correct folks now say is 'originally peaceful' Islam hijacked by militants.

Hi,

Interesting. Thanks for saying that. If, you are right, that is significant.

LOVE,

RKO · Jan 30, 2016

The idea that I could take an isolated incident like this, justify my prejudice and hatred for over 1 billion human beings, and then believe its what God wants me to do sounds very much like what people "hate" all muslims for.
Religion and politics seems to gather these people on the fringes. "I'm so against your beliefs (as I think I understand them, usually poorly) that I wish you dead." And then to believe that the authority, whether that is Allah, Jesus, et al, sanctions these beliefs is the height of insanity.
No wait, the height of insanity is when I can't see the similarity.

chevyontheriver · Jan 30, 2016

katerinah1947 said:
Interesting. Thanks for saying that. If, you are right, that is significant.

I say that having known and lived with many Muslims who are just excellent people, peaceful people, friendly people. People who have real sorrow for the violence other Muslims engage in. People who I could entrust my life to and have no worries. People whose memories evoke happiness.

I would like to see a reformation within Islam, one that reformed it away from Mohammad, or at least censored the violent part of Mohammad from the rest of him. Those who long for a more original Islam will have to recognize the violence at the kernel of Islam. The peace-loving Muslims need to stand up and reform Islam. Telling us Christians how peaceful Islam is misses the point. Telling other Muslims that violence is intolerable is the thing whose time has come.

Christians have had some violent episodes, and happily we are coming to grips with them. Some of them have been defensive, and there is a place for that. But some have been things we can repudiate. Christianity was founded in violence, violence done against Christ and other Christians. We are in kernel a peaceful religion, even when we have had moments of violence. Islam was born in conquest. It needs big changes to become a peaceful religion at it's core even though many members are peaceful.

Search

Search

15-year old Catholic schoolboy stabbed in the heart by "refugee" in Sweden

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio

More options

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member

More options

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member

More options

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio

More options

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member

More options

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member

More options

simonpeter

Newbie

More options

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member

More options

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member

More options

RKO

Member

More options

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member

More options

Similar threads