Why the Arabic World Turned Away from Science

[billvon 3,120]

>Galileo's science was NOT what caused the problem.

Well, according to the Church it was. Here's the decision of the Inquisition:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form we will prescribe to you."

It pretty clearly states that the doctrines "the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west" and "the earth moves and is not the center of the world" are what he was sentenced for, since they violated Church doctrine. Nothing about any _other_ reinterpretations of Scripture. Indeed, it even says that if he recants his astronomical views he will be absolved.

>Had Galileo stayed a scientist and not stepped on the Pope's toes then he likely
>would have gotten away with it.

Given that he was found guilty of his scientific views, and not of any scriptural reinterpretation, that's going to be a hard sell.

[Guest]

Quote

Hell, only recently did the Catholic church forgive Galileo for suggesting the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

That is what they threatened him with back then

I think what the islamic world lacks is reason. They (I am generalizing here. There are plenty of really smart Arab/muslims) are led by their misguided passions rather than leading themselves with logic. They also fall victim to the same thing that Western Europe in the Middle Ages did - utter ignorance, and therefore believing without question the edicts of those in power, rather than thinking for themselves. This is why they go bugfuck and riot whenever their leaders suggest that the West is defaming Islam (as if some silly cartoons were a threat to their entire existence) and whip them up into a murderous frenzy, just like the Church did before a good pogrom.

Unfortunately, given an unstable planet with atomic weapons floating around, the stakes are much, much higher than just endangering a few Jewish villages on the Steppes.

Even the Church itself eventually came around, but that will never happen in the East (meaning this part of the world that I live in) as long as any mullah (or a self-appointed "mahdi") can issue a fatwa stating which says that a particular topic is "un-islamic" or "heretical".

Instead of having a single religious authority (Papal decree, anyone? How about Council of Nicea?), muslims seemingly have whatever they feel like having. Notice that word - "feel", rather than think. That's why they're still living in the 7th Century and continue to be left further and further behind.

The reform of islam will not come from the barrel of a gun, at least not from outside - it must come from within. It's starting, actually. There are voices speaking up within the islamic world; courageous people are suggesting that maybe muslims should quit blaming the West and the USA for everything that's fucked up about the islamic world, and start taking responsibility for their own lives.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[lawrocket 3]

Sure he proved it. Copernicus theorized. Kepler deduced. Galileo saw. When he observed that Venus had phases that did it. It was irrefutable proof.

And yes - Galileo's observations were against the interpretation of that verse. But when Galileo started arguing consistency and new interpretations he got into trouble. Look at the timeline. A quarter of a century passed from publishing the results until his heresy charge.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

There are voices speaking up within the islamic world; courageous people are suggesting that maybe muslims should quit blaming the West and the USA for everything that's fucked up about the islamic world, and start taking responsibility for their own lives.

Yeah! Islam needs their own reformation badly, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

They also fall victim to the same thing that Western Europe in the Middle Ages did - utter ignorance, and therefore believing without question the edicts of those in power, rather than thinking for themselves.

You'll find masses of any (and no)s religion tend to keep their mouths shut and nod their heads when they live in a repressive police state where people are 'disappeared'.

Quote

The reform of islam will not come from the barrel of a gun, at least not from outside - it must come from within. It's starting, actually. There are voices speaking up within the islamic world

True and the sooner a return to the Islam of the time of the Prophet the better. Back then Women and men were equal, women's rights were ensured. No man was more equal than another. Its interesting that in the Holiest place in Islam in Mecca Men and Women openly pray together but a mile down the road at the burger king they have to order, pay and eat separately. Unfortunately real change will not be seen while the corrupt dictators of these repressive regimes are supported and propt up by the west.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

There are voices speaking up within the islamic world; courageous people are suggesting that maybe muslims should quit blaming the West and the USA for everything that's fucked up about the islamic world, and start taking responsibility for their own lives.

Yeah! Islam needs their own reformation badly, IMO.

+1

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[lawrocket 3]

In a sense I agree. But when taking a look at all that happened before it gives a better idea of what was happening. Do you put it beyond the Church to have laid a smackdown on somebody for a reason like that? Paint someone who has scientific evidence as a denier against the consensus?

Look at the wars the Church was fighting right then. The Pope was like any politician trying to save face. Lies and propoganda help. Arbitrary conclusions worked then and work now, the power of the church was under attack throughout Europe and the church was stamping out whatever challenges to its authority it could.

Yes. It turned into the Church taking the position that the science was wrong. It's not where it started. There was 25 years of things going on until the heresy charge. There is much evidence out there about how the Church immediately perceived Galileo's findings. No doubt the findings were not initially viewed as a threat to its power. When Galileo started with his interpretations - whoa boy!

I think you and John are correct as to how it ultimately ended up. But there was more in the beginning - more to the story than the headline.

I think the story of Geroge LeMaitre pretty much sums up. The pressures between science and religion. LeMaitr was not taken seriously by most of the scientifc community because je was a priest. Also, scientists did not like the idea that some priest studying Einstein's equations concludes that the universe is not steady state but expanding, as Hubble showed. Yhey looked with derision at his primeval atom theory. One guy - astronomer Fred Houle - derisively called it "The Big Bang."

Scientists HATED the idea that the universe had a moment of creation BECAUSE of the philosophical implications. And for good reason. Poor LeMaitre had to fend off the Church. The Church thought that LeMaitreks theory was proof of Creation. LeMaitre had to defend science from the Church.

But it's. Odd - the Church was farr more supportive of the Big Bang than even Einstein was. Einstein's own theory called for a fluid universe but he spent a long time looking for a cosmological constant.

Had LeMaitre not been a priest, would he have been taken more seriously? Had the scientific community not been so intent on avoiding anything that could be construed as religious, would they have welcomed it more? Had Fred Hoyle not been a masterful PR guy, would they have looked at the steady state universe with more skepticism? Not until the finding of the Microwave Background radiation was Steady State discarded by most scientists. (Not all scientists. Hoyle went to his grave just not wanting to believe it), einstein did not endorse LeMaitre's theories until Hubble showed that the universe is expanding. (It was LeMaitre who first attributed red shift to expansion).

I think LeMaitre's story is really a case example of the tension between religion and science and how that tension is seen on both sides. LeMaitre is not mentioned in "A Bried History of Time." LeMaitre (alum of Cambridge, MIT and Harvard) he had his admirers, but as a whole his thinking was revolutionary. But he was pressed on both sides by the religious and the secular.

My opinions are speculation. But there is much I see. A deeply religious man like LeMaitre who was such a profound effect on our understanding of the universe. He's and example, to me, of how religion and science can coexist in a person.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Sure he proved it. Copernicus theorized. Kepler deduced. Galileo saw. When he observed that Venus had phases that did it. It was irrefutable proof.

Stick to the law, your physics sucks. All phases of Venus show is that Venus's and Earth's relative positions to the Sun are changing. Not proof at all of a heliocentric universe.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>It turned into the Church taking the position that the science was wrong.
>It's not where it started. There was 25 years of things going on until the
>heresy charge.

Oh, agreed. He was told to can it dozens of times and he refused - hence the heresy charge.

>There is much evidence out there about how the Church immediately
>perceived Galileo's findings. No doubt the findings were not initially viewed
>as a threat to its power.

Agreed. They initially hoped he would be ignored. When people started accepting his science, they saw it as a threat and started to threaten _him_, leading eventually to a heresy charge.

>When Galileo started with his interpretations - whoa boy!

What "interpretations?" I saw two things he was convicted of heresy on, both astronomical. What are the additional interpretations you think they had a problem with?

>He's and example, to me, of how religion and science can coexist in a person.

Sure, and 99% of the time there's no conflict. Even Pope John Paul II accepted evolution.

[lawrocket 3]

Not heliocentric universe. Heliocentric solar system.

Where the hell did I say "heliocentric universe?" If I did, then I'll eat those words.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Not heliocentric universe. Heliocentric solar system.

Where the hell did I say "heliocentric universe?" If I did, then I'll eat those words.

Makes no difference. Phases on Venus do not prove heliocentricity, just relative motion of an illuminated planet with respect to its illuminator and observer. Further, his theory of tides was just plain wrong.

Galileo gets too much credit. The scientific heavy lifting was done by Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and Newton.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I don't disagree. Kepler did some good things (like figuring out elliptical orbits, etc.). Copernicus actually concocted the theory.

But Galileo had the instrument. And he made it more powerful. And instead of checking out the ships coming in or peeping through windows, he looked at the sky with it. And it was his observations that got the proof.

Check out Penzius and Wilson, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 for their 1964 "discovery." They built an super sensitive instrument but kept getting static they couldn't get rid of. When they published their problem, Robert Dicke (down the road at Princeton) identified it as the cosmic background microwave radiation.

Penzius and Wilson developed the first instrument capable of finding it. Yeah, Dicke and Gamow and Lemaitre did the heavy work. But Penzius and Wilson (and Bell Labs) had the instrument to detect it.

Look at Ewald's ideas. Von Laue developed the instrumentation and method and Von Laue won a Nobel Prize - though Von Laue did plenty of the lifting himself.

It's not uncommon for the person with the instrument to get the glory.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Heatmiser 0]

Quote

I don't disagree. Kepler did some good things (like figuring out elliptical orbits, etc.). Copernicus actually concocted the theory.

But Galileo had the instrument. And he made it more powerful. And instead of checking out the ships coming in or peeping through windows, he looked at the sky with it. And it was his observations that got the proof.

Check out Penzius and Wilson, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 for their 1964 "discovery." They built an super sensitive instrument but kept getting static they couldn't get rid of. When they published their problem, Robert Dicke (down the road at Princeton) identified it as the cosmic background microwave radiation.

Penzius and Wilson developed the first instrument capable of finding it. Yeah, Dicke and Gamow and Lemaitre did the heavy work. But Penzius and Wilson (and Bell Labs) had the instrument to detect it.

Look at Ewald's ideas. Von Laue developed the instrumentation and method and Von Laue won a Nobel Prize - though Von Laue did plenty of the lifting himself.

It's not uncommon for the person with the instrument to get the glory.

Yup, just like porn. Oh, wait, this isn't BF

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I don't disagree. Kepler did some good things (like figuring out elliptical orbits, etc.). Copernicus actually concocted the theory.

But Galileo had the instrument. And he made it more powerful. And instead of checking out the ships coming in or peeping through windows, he looked at the sky with it. And it was his observations that got the proof.

.

No, Galileo didn't provide "proof" at all since his observations, while interesting, didn't REQUIRE heliocentricity and his tidal theory (which he thought was a proof) was just plain WRONG. Brahe's observations interpreted by Kepler were far more relevant. Newton backed it up with solid theory providing unification of heavenly and earthly forces and dynamics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.