This is a shout out for people to have a look at:
Some background:
From http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php
We care about freedom, security, the environment, humanity and our future.
The Galileo Movement’s co-founders are retirees Case Smit and John Smeed. Their business backgrounds are in science and engineering – science’s real-world application. Their experience is in environmental protection and ensuring air quality.
At first they simply accepted politicians’ claims of global warming blamed on human production of carbon dioxide (CO2). When things didn’t add up, they each separately investigated. Stunned, they discovered what many people are now discovering: climate claims by some scientists and politicians contradict observed facts.
Case Smit (left) and John Smeed
Supported by their wives and risking their personal finances they underwrote and organised an Australian tour by Lord Monckton – famous for explaining the scientific data, the statistics and the UN bureaucracy’s political fabrication of global warming alarm.
Overwhelmed by enormous public response, John and Case discovered that people feel confused. In their gut many Australians sense that climate change is natural and that climate has always been changing. People want to discover understanding and clarity for themselves.
Through their voluntary effort, Case and John freed many people previously afraid to speak out publicly.
Mixing with everyday Aussies during the tour they became frustrated: despite the tour’s huge success, it got little media reporting. The key to ending corruption of science and politicised misappropriation of public funds is to reach out to people directly by enabling people to discover climate reality themselves. People are then free to protect Australia, workers, families, jobs and industry against politicised misrepresentation of science. Voters will have the power to influence politicians of all parties to vote against any carbon dioxide taxing or ‘trading’.
This site explains Case’s and John’s apolitical public campaign. It gives visitors reassurance and ease on climate. It’s a rallying point to a mainstream media voice for the growing majority of Australians wanting to reclaim their lives from media spin and politicians’ control.
It provides clear, easy choices. It shows how we can each confidently express our care by taking simple effective action – to stop all carbon dioxide taxes and ‘trading’ schemes and protect our security, freedom, environment and future.
Co-founders:
The Galileo Movement is the initiative of two retirees – Case Smit and John Smeed – strongly supported by their wives Corrie and Suzanne.
Case Smit:
Case was founder and owner of Environmental Health Services (Aust) Pty Ltd, an organisation that monitored and advised on the effects of their environment on people’s health. Science degree, BSc (chemistry & metallurgy), Certified Industrial Hygienist, Chartered (Environmental) Professional; He’s a grandad.
John Smeed:
John is a retired, national engineering excellence award winning professional engineer – www.johnsmeed.com.au. He founded and built a successful Sydney based Australia-wide operational, design-construct air conditioning company with 140 staff including 14 professional engineers. He maintains control of an environmentally excellent Australian combustion technology company and still undertakes occasional international engineering consulting briefs for unusually challenging air-conditioning projects.
Case and John both live on the waterfront in Noosa and are both concerned about the horrifying economic and social implications of the proposed legislation for taxing and ‘trading’ carbon dioxide. The huge impact on their children’s and grandchildren’s future stimulates their dedication to exposing and ending the Government’s dangerous campaign.
Both remain passionate about protecting the environment and the use of objective science based on real-world evidence. They see the Galileo Movement as a vehicle for people to contribute to the progress of the last five hundred years by confronting the falsehoods of Post Normal Science and promoting support for Real World Science to make people’s lives safer, easier, more comfortable, healthier, wealthier and freer.
Founders’ backgrounds on global warming:
John and Case initially accepted claims of global warming due to human activity. As appliers of science in the real world, they quickly became aware of inconsistencies in the political claims and spin. They each did their independent research to separately discover that political claims contradicted real-world science.
They are incensed by activists and academics misrepresenting science to falsely claim global warming is harmful and caused by humans. They are concerned by academics and activists hiding behind the appeal to authority, yet mostly unwilling to debate the facts in public.
Why Galileo?
Galileo Galilei (1564 to 1642) is a ‘father of science‘. An Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher, he played a vital role in the Scientific Revolution. He stood up publicly and almost lost his life to ensure objective science replaced superstition, ideology, ignorance and state control. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo
The ‘settled science‘ and frightened consensus of his peers was that the sun orbited Earth. Galileo proved them wrong. He then stood up to the entrenched, dogmatic religious and state beliefs suppressing the truth.
Thanks to Galileo and his early peers, objective science was born and replaced central control and intimidation. We enjoy freedom and many material blessings that make our life easier, safer, longer, more secure, more peaceful, wealthier and happier.
Taking his name, we honour his integrity and courage in championing freedom and protecting science. He replaced religious doctrine with solid observable data. His outspoken defence of truth is a rallying cry to all people valuing freedom and objective understanding of the world. His spirit guides us to ensure that we and future generations continue making the world a better place to live – by protecting the environment and making honest decisions based on factual scientific evidence.
Galileo had the courage to stand apart from the mob of philosophers and scientific explorers who bowed to bullying from religious and Government authority. He was enslaved that we could be free. His greatest gift is beyond his science, it is our freedom. Although he suffered, ironically the world has come around to him.
That is now threatened as ideology seeks to replace science and control seeks to replace freedom.
Project Leader
They invited Malcolm Roberts to be Project Leader. An engineer by training, his managerial and leadership experience included statutory responsibility for thousands of people’s lives based on his knowledge and real-world experience of atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide. As a leader and then adviser in industry, he has dirtied his hands leading the cleaning of environmental legacies and setting new standards in environmental protection.
For almost four (4) years Malcolm has researched the science and politics of global warming. He speaks out passionately and strongly after discovering fraudulent misrepresentations of the science by advocates claiming humans are guilty of causing global warming.
His publicly available Personal Declaration of Interests is available on his web site
During their careers, John, Case and Malcolm have often seen people being rewarded for pleasing their boss, even to the detriment of their employer. This fundamental flaw in statism is driving climate alarm. In Government, it threatens freedom. Galileo stood up to statism. That’s cherished and admired by The Galileo Movement.
Administrative Support and Liaison
All the above positions are currently filled by unpaid volunteers.
The company will pay for clerical assistance and secretarial support on an hourly basis.
Lenore-Maree is an independent freelance bookkeeper and office manager engaged hourly.
Wives and associates helped define the Galileo Movement’s Purpose, Aims, Philosophy and Principles.
Purpose and Aims of the Galileo Movement:
by exposing misrepresentations
pushing a ‘price on carbon dioxide’
The Galileo Movement seeks to protect Australians and our future in five areas:
– Protect freedom – personal choice and national sovereignty;
– Protect the environment;
– Protect science and restore scientific integrity;
– Protect our economic security;
– Protect people’s emotional healthby ending Government and activists’ constant destructive bombardment of fear and guilt on our kids and communities.
Addressing the real threat:
We address those five areas in four ways:
– Exposing UN IPCC misrepresentation of science, climate and Nature;
– Presenting real-world science and advocating for scientific evidence as the basis of policy;
– Revealing economic damage from needless additional taxation burdening people already reeling under high and rising costs of living;
– Revealing environmental damageof bureaucratic control taxing and ‘trading’ carbon dioxide.
Philosophy and Principles:
We see human freedom as essential for the benefit and progress of humankind and for protection of the environment. Freedom is the key to responsibility and sustainability.
With Earth’s large human population, environmental sustainability is essential for modern civilisation while civilisation is essential for sustainability. Instead of choosing either civilization or sustainability the reality is each needs and depends on the other.
Guiding Principles:
Governance and management of the Galileo Movement is guided by these principles:
– Freedom: protect freedom and let people be free. Challenge the increasing imposition of Government control on people’s lives;
– Honesty: rely on factual data, ensure decisions are based on facts;
– Fact based science: protect and use science, a key to human progress, objective and fair decisions and freedom;
– Respect for people: give people opportunity to speak up. Engage people so they want to be involved and are committed. Such people become owners. Give people a voice and provide a forum. It has been made politically incorrect, unfashionable and fearful to publicly state disagreement with the hypothesis that humans cause global warming. Convert that to an opportunity to take pride in speaking out. It’s OK to tell the truth. To factually express dissenting views is admired and valued;
– Environment: protect the environment. Separate political claims of global warming from the environment as two (2) separate issues;
– Non-political: The Galileo Movement is non-partisan. We want to appeal to all political parties;
– Life enjoyment:Life is for living and enjoying
Intimidation through fear and guilt has been the weapon spreading climate alarm. People have a right to be free from that unfounded fear and guilt. Hundreds of millions of the world’s poor have a right to environmentally responsible prosperity.
Developed nations have earned the conditions for people to have easier lives in harmony with the natural environment. The developed world’s progression to liberal democracy has provided the privilege of opportunity for full life enjoyment.
The push to restrict human production of carbon dioxide is deadly with negative life-changing implications. Our campaign is serious. We aim to replace the fear and guilt heaped on us by reconnecting with life’s inherent joy. We can have some fun.
Independent advisers:
The Galileo Movement has available expert advice from Australian and international specialists across all diverse fields of global warming including meteorology and climate science, palaeoclimate, physical sciences (physics, chemistry), life sciences (biology), social science (economics), formal science (mathematics, statistics), communication, law.
These experts include eminent professors, PhD’s, scientists and people with diverse life experience including: Professor Tim Ball, Warwick Hughes, Professor Fred Singer, Professor Dick Lindzen, Professor Bill Kininmonth, Professor Bob Carter, Professor Ian Plimer, David Archibald, Professor Peter Ridd, Professor Garth Paltridge, Dr Vincent Gray, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Jo Nova, Des Moore, John Nicol, David Flint, Andrew Bolt, John McLean, David Evans and Viscount Monckton.
This group includes diverse opinions to promote healthy debate producing greater scrutiny and rigour. The Galileo Movement does not claim that any of these advisers or our many other advisers endorse all opinions or actions of The Galileo Movement or this web site. Nor is The Galileo Movement bound to follow the advice of all those who provide advice.
Malcolm Roberts has often invited evidence and data from advocates of human causes of global warming.
Patron:
The Galileo Movement’s patron is Australia’s own Alan Jones. Alan has a long history of speaking out for the downtrodden and for protecting freedom. His innate expertise straddles the fields of politics, sport and the media. His wealth of experience complements the basic science that is the Galileo Movement’s core.
Media Advisers:
Paid services as needed provided by Jackson Wells, Sydney.
Expected Life and Strategy:
Short-term: inform citizens through the internet and affiliated organisations.
Medium-term strategy: raise funding to inform citizens by influencing and purchasing media time.
The ultimate aim is to use pressure from voters and non-voters to persuade our politicians of all parties that restricting Australia’s production of carbon dioxide is futile, wasteful and dangerous.
Expected life-span: The intent is to terminate the Galileo Movement when the push to price carbon dioxide is destroyed. That’s anticipated to be by the next federal election.
Funding: The Galileo Movement Ltd is a non-profit company limited by guarantee (ACN: 149 463 687). Its two (2) directors are its co-founders: John Smeed and Case Smit.
It will invite memberships and donations to be used to inform Australians about climate and the danger and futility of taxing and ‘trading’ carbon dioxide.
The Galileo Movement will have expenses associated with web site, publicity, buying advice and contacts from professional media consultants and managing records and interacting with members.
As a non-profit organisation its intention is to devote all money raised to informing citizens.
Any surplus funds at the termination of The Galileo Movement will be donated to the Royal Flying Doctor Service to provide support to those in need of real climate research.
Accountants:
Houston and Company, Sydney.
Where possible and except where donors request anonymity, all donations will be identified with donors names for the purpose of maintain records and auditing.
Affiliations:
The Galileo Movement is building affiliations with climate, scientific and associated organisations. These affiliations provide links to people concerned about misrepresentation of science by the Government, Government agencies and some academic institutes dependent on Government grant funding.
Privacy policy:
Unless we obtain people’s permission to do otherwise and subject to compliance with valid court or legal orders, we will keep people’s personal information confidential. Please clickto see our detailed policy.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the many people worldwide from diverse backgrounds who worked tirelessly and mostly without any compensation to keep Galileo’s pioneering spirit alive as science was assaulted. Thank you for your work in protecting science, protecting the natural environment, protecting our economic security and protecting the human spirit from alarmists’ constant bombarding of fear and guilt. Most of all, thank you for protecting freedom.
We acknowledge scientists, many retired who sprang into life to protect science and Nature. As the UN and extremists cloaked in green tarnished ‘science’, your total dedication to restoring scientific integrity has rekindled many people’s faith in science and reliance on objective real-world observation. Much appreciated.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good on ya, guys!!
Thanks for linking this Anthony.
//START TWISTED HUMOR MODE//
Galileo is WRONG!!! The Scientific consensus proves that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Galileo is nothing more than a crack-pot that represents an obscure and incorrect view. We believe that he’s taking research money on the side from Lew C. Fur. With this type of monetary bias, you can’t trust his research.
Galileo’s ideas are based on another crack-pot, Nicolaus Copernicus; who’s ideas are so bent out of shape, he died once his manuscript was published.
The Consensus has spoken, the debate is over, only a blind fool will believe that the sun is the center of our solar system. It’s time to silence these “Earth Centered” Deniers!!!!!
I always thought that the US was the best last hope of mankind. I’m wrong. It’s Australia. Just go for it.
Super Turtle, you left out the three months of Hail Marys that were part of the sentence. Of course they were said for him by his daughter.
The lionisation of Galileo is very wearing for historians. He believed, contra Fr de Grassi & Tycho Brahe, that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon, not bodies between the moon and sun. That the tides were caused by the oceans sloshing about, in turn caused by the earth’s rotation. It was the pope’s incredulity of this idea that Galileo ridiculed in the book that led to the heresy trial. He put the pope’s words in the mouth of the character Simplicius. Galileo’s refutation of Aristotle’s theory of gravity was known a thousand years before and could be found in a book that had been published a hundred years before Galileo.
The only way to turn Galileo into a perfect scientific hero was to ignore the facts and rewrite history. Now why does that sound familiar in this place?
Has anybody here actually read Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium? It is riddled with mathematical inconsistencies. While he corrected Ptolemy’s equant that required the moon to appear twice as large at some times than at others, this was at the expense of a large increase in the number of epicycles needed to maintain uniform, circular motion. The Copernicus model was far more complicated than Ptolemy’s for no increase in accuracy!
Copernicus isn’t even particularly original. Both Pythagorus and Aristarchus maintained that the sun was the centre of the Universe. Quoting from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“…Copernicus used devices that had been developed by the Maragha astronomers Nasir al-Din Tusi (1201-1274), Muayyad al-Din al-Urdi (d. 1266), Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi (1236-1311), and Ibn al-Shatir (1304–1375).[4] In addition, Ragep, 2005, has shown that a theory for the inner planets presented by Regiomontanus that enabled Copernicus to convert the planets to eccentric models had been developed by the fifteenth-century, Samarqand-trained astronomer Ali Qushji (1403–1474). The problem is, as Goddu (476–86) has pointed out, we have no proof of their transmission from east to west. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that so many similar techniques were invented independently in the west.”
“Copernicus received encouragement to publish his book from his close friend, the bishop of Chelmo Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550), and from the cardinal of Capua Nicholas Schönberg (1472–1537)” which seems to conflict with the concept of church opposition to his ideas.
Mike Jonas said @ur momisugly May 17, 2011 at 1:47 am
“Super Turtle (is that your real name?) says : “House arrest amounts to a slap on the wrist.”
Try telling Aung San Suu Kyi that.”
Not comparable. A decade before the trial, Galileo had complained loudly and bitterly about being required to travel to Rome as it aggravated his arthritis. His house arrest did not disallow anything other than travel.
>>You are evidently misrepresenting Galileo, for his argument includes not a single equation.
Ah, let me correct this. Galileo’s claim of planets going around in circles was rejected since the church’s scientists and the church’s mathematicians and the church astronomers looking at this issue of Galileo’s claim in fact used math and science to FIND his claim doesn’t add up.
Galileo did not need to write down a formula to state the planets go around in perfect circles but that implies the mathematics of what he was stating. Or did you fail basic math and science and geometry to not realize what the formula for circle is?
My second point is that the church did not reject Galileo on the basis of doctoral teaching. You cannot find that doctrine and as noted, he was only suspicious of something which is a pretty funny statement in terms of a person supposedly being in direct contradiction of doctrines of the church. As noted no such doctrine exists. You can be my guest if you want to go and find that church doctrine, but it doesn’t exist. Again the point here is this public claim that Galileo was somehow persecuted for going against church doctrine is completely groundless when there is no such doctrine
So my point being is the church’s mathematics and science was used to disprove the ridiculous statement of planets going around in circles. No matter how you slice and dice this Galileo’s claim is WRONG and it’s a laughable position for you to stand here and state that the church now should have accepted incorrect math and wrong science based on this claim of planets going around in circles!
Remember the church had codified and created with great scientific precision and great mathematics and great observation of data the Gregorian calendar. In fact not only did they do a good job, but they did a spectacular job and quite much nailed it. In fact the lack of drift in that calendar is so good that we continue to use it today in this computer age! And this work by the church was completed before Galileo was even 20 years old, so they were rather good at this issue.
So they had a lot of quality information at their hands and they simply rejected Galileo’s implied mathematical concepts that planets go around in circles. As noted if you read Cardinal Bellamy statement which is pretty much the horses mouth and final word on this issue (as he was the head of the inquiry against Galileo) stated as I quoted they were open to changing their view of scriptures interpretation on this matter if the data and information shows otherwise but Galileo’s claim does NOT ADD UP. As I pointed out, the church can not has not and never has changed its position on a doctrine so this would be a huge risk statement by the Cardinal unless he had flexiblity on this issue.
My point is based on the issue of science and mathematics and research and technology they rejected this theory and claim. This is how the scientific process and scientific research moves forward. Galileo put forward a theory, and was checked against the observation of data and mathematics and was disproved! As I said pretty funny to stand here and claim that the church with somehow against science yet they were using the best research instruments and mathematics and science is of the day!
I suppose in a way just like we realize that the term greenhouse effect is an incorrect scientific term to describe gases trapping energy in the atmosphere (greenhouses work by stopping convection), it certainly not a bad idea to call this the Galileo movement since just like Galileo or global warming, the issue was always practically being misrepresented to disprove something. Things did not add up.
Super Turtle – you say “My point is based on the issue of science and mathematics and research and technology they rejected this theory and claim. This is how the scientific process and scientific research moves forward. Galileo put forward a theory, and was checked against the observation of data and mathematics and was disproved! As I said pretty funny to stand here and claim that the church with somehow against science yet they were using the best research instruments and mathematics and science is of the day!”
Of all the wacky arguments put forward on this website, this surely goes close to the worst. To concentrate entirely on whether the church disproved that the Earth’s orbit is a circle is to miss all the main points. Galileo was not the first to promote the idea that the Earth orbited the Sun, but in his book “Dialogues…” he unwisely poked fun at the church. Since the church claimed that heliocentrism was “false and contrary to Scripture”, and had previously persuaded Galileo not to support it, they had a legal case on which to prosecute him (in a legal system, that is, in which they decided what the law was and could effectively be both prosecutor and judge). Obviously, the church also denied that the Earth rotated on its axis.
Galileo is recognised as the “father of science” (Stephen Hawking : “Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science.”), not because his scientific analysis was perfect (he actually got a lot of things wrong), but because he promoted scientific method and the free interchange of ideas. He was also prepared to “change his views in accordance with observation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_galilei) – now that is something sadly missing in today’s climate “science”.
Mike Jonas said @ur momisugly May 17, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science.”), not because his scientific analysis was perfect (he actually got a lot of things wrong), but because he promoted scientific method and the free interchange of ideas. He was also prepared to “change his views in accordance with observation”
Unfortunately, this misrepresents what actuall happened at the time:
Cardinal Bellarmine (occasionally Bellarmino, Consultor to the Holy Office, Master of Controversial Questions, mastermind behind the Gunpowder Plot etc).
“First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumption that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures…”
This part of Bellarmine’s letter clearly shows that it was admissible, not only to expound the Copernican system, but also to say that the Copernican system is superior to the Ptolemaic system, as a mathematical hypothesis. However, it would be heretical to claim that the Copernican system is absolutely true since that would contradict the Scriptures. IOW it was OK to use the system to create a calendar for example, but not OK to use it to cast the Bible in a bad light.
“Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is at the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than to declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me. To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that first demonstration may exist, but I have grave doubts about the second; and in case of doubt one may not abandon the Holy Scriptures as expounded by the holy Fathers.”
IOW, the new cosmology needed to be demonstrated as true before it could be accepted as true. No such demonstration had been forthcoming hence he has “grave doubts” that such proof exists. Bellarmine clearly understood that there was no physical proof that the earth moved about the Sun. As an educated man he was probably aware that no stellar parallax had been observed which was taken by most astronomers of the time as a disproof of Copernicus’ hypothesis. The important point here is that Bellarmine put the burden of proof back upon those who were advocating the Copernican system.
Now it seems to me that a modern Galileo would most likely be a climate “scientist” claiming persecution because sceptics like Bellarmine want proof. Not exactly the kind of symbolic hero the CAGW sceptics need! Far from promoting scientific method and the free interchange of ideas he stole other people’s ideas and claimed them as his own (the telescope), rubbished Kepler’s ideas about planetary motion without reading Kepler’s book that Kepler had sent him and contradicted his own excellent work on mechanics in the book that resulted in his trial.
There already some great follow up here (the internet great at knocking down CAGW and it also great at hasing out this Galieo issue).
To concentrate entirely on whether the church disproved that the Earth’s orbit is a circle is to miss all the main points
No in fact it’s very much the WHOLE point because the widespread claim was that the church was against science when in fact they were rejecting Galileo’s theory based on the scientific process. As I pointed out they were upholding good science by rejecting that idea. Unless you are going to stand here and think that they should accepted this idea of planets going around in circles when grade school children know better today? In fact if the Church had accepted Galileo’s teaching the end result would be widespread holding back of science by an Institution that few would want to challenge (kind of like NASA’s position on CAGW today – few want to challenge it).
Simply put this idea of perfect circles was silly and for the Church to have endorsed such a view would have held science back many years.
I mean essentially this means you are taking a position that it is OK for the church or some authority today (such as NASA) to accept incorrect science be this in regards to global warming, or that of how planets go around in orbit. In fact this whole issue pretty much hits the WHOLE nail on the head.
The MAIN problem today is that we have these so called big institutions of authority accepting and promoting incorrect science. I am not sure of the cruel irony here that both NASA and the Vatican Science advisers seem to be taking the SAME position in regards to CAGW! However this just shows you how bad things are at NASA and same for the church! And worse is they ask us to ACCEPT this view based on their supposed authority without the actual scientific Proof to back that position up!
So yes this issue is very much important in the context of this debate since we talking about lack of proof for a position (that Galileo did not have). And by the way some advisers to the Vatican today do not create or define church doctrine no more on AGW then did some court proceedings against Galileo did back then.
>the church claimed that heliocentrism was “false and contrary to Scripture”
Not quite how this works or reads. The charge NEVER uses the word helicentrisum. Many books on Galileo make such above claim but all we know is he is a suspicious guy and “suspect of” something contrary to scripture. Perhaps the contrary part is about the sun being the center of the Universe as we know this is an ANOTHER incorrect position that Galileo held?
Of course the text does “to wit” and does go on to mention scripture. However this changes nothing since such positions were simply held by the general science community during that time period. Most educated people included those people in the church and they simply assumed that scripture and this view were much in agreement. However such a claim by these people or even by a particular judge in a court case of discipline against Galileo is not a public church decree on the church official teaching and position of doctrine on this matter.
Stating that the wide spread view of everyone that beer is great or the Earth is the center of the universe is does NOT make this an official position of the church in regards to beer or the earth. And this would not be so because some monk came up and invented beer and then in a court proceeding stated that beer is good and is supported by scripture and thus is to become or is an offical teaching of the chruch.
If above were not the case then how and why can I have quoted several people from Copernicus to Pope to cardinals that were open to debate on this issue? As I said challenging any church doctrine is grounds for instant heresy and excommunication. Church doctrine is NEVER changed or challenged and yet we see flexibility in this matter.
Galileo is recognised as the “father of science” (Stephen Hawking)
And Hawking is a joke and is considered WORSE than Al Gore among those studying cosmology. This is the old game of making Heroes such as giving Gore the noble prize or an academy award. Of course they like Hawking because he speaks out for Galileo! And just like Gore, Hawking knows what to say to get the support of the liberal press.
It seems the more pumping up and prizes they’d give to these clowns to dupe people, then the more garbage they spew out based on that given authority, and this applies oh so perfect to Hawking and Gore.
Super Turtle.
Galileo’s recantation included : “But whereas — after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture — ”
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html
Super Turtle – “Hawking is a joke and is considered WORSE than Al Gore among those studying cosmology”
It appears that you don’t hold Stephen Hawking in high regard. But you don’t have to take Hawking’s word for it, there is evidence aplenty. As Stanford University (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/) points out, when Galileo was born “there was no such thing as ‘science’, yet by the time he died science was well on its way to becoming a discipline and its concepts and method a whole philosophical system”.
Wow. This site and comments are an endless learning experience. I had no idea about the real Galileo story. Thank you
Martin Snigg says:
May 17, 2011 at 12:32 am
Pompous Git says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Mike Jonas said @ur momisugly May 17, 2011 at 11:52 pm
“when Galileo was born “there was no such thing as ‘science’” quoting the usually meticulously accurate SEP.
However, this statement is utter nonsense. Just confining ourselves to the period 1300 to 1500:
Thomas Bradwardine and the Oxford Calculators at Merton College, Oxford, distinguished kinematics from dynamics, emphasised kinematics, and investigated instantaneous velocity. The Calculators formulated the mean speed theorem: a body moving with constant velocity travels distance and time equal to an accelerated body whose velocity is half the final speed of the accelerated body. They also demonstrated this theorem, the underpinning of “The Law of Falling Bodies” — long before Galileo is credited with this.
Nicole Oresme showed that Aristotle’s reasoning against the movement of the earth were not valid and adduced the argument of simplicity for the theory that the earth moves, and not the heavens.
Nicholas of Cusa suggested in some of his scientific writings that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and that each star is itself a distant sun.
I could go on, but defer to James Hannam who wrote the book I never seemed to get around to writing:
http://jameshannam.com/
Truth, brc et.al,
I equally disdain rightwing shock jocks and latte lefties. If they want broader appeal I think they should find apolitical advisors. Unfortunately the AGW debate is going nowhere when it keeps being reduced to left- right politics. Most Ausies aren’t interested in politics, or science for that matter. Perhaps they should have a sportsman as patron (irony). Having said that I sincerely hope they (Galileo) can do some good.
Pompous Git – You are welcome to argue otherwise, but “The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
So I would suggest that there is some support for SEP’s view.
Super Turtle, Pompous Git and Martin Brigg:
1) “First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke.” – Letter from Bellarmine to Father Foscarini, 1615 (quoted above without context by PompusGit)
Bellarmine continued…
“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek….”
Cardinal Bellarmine during the trial of Galileo (1615):
“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”
2) re: not absolutely.
“To this end I have taken the Copernican side in the discourse, proceeding as with a pure mathematical hypothesis and striving by every article to represent it as superior to supposing the earth motionless—not, indeed absolutely, but as against the arguments of some professed Peripatetics. These men indeed deserve not even that name, for they do not walk about; they are content to adore the shadows, philosophizing not with due circumspection but merely from having memorized a few ill-understood principles.”
– Galileo, paragraph 3 of Dialogues
3) The earth does in fact orbit the sun. Even the Catholic church, in 1992, conceded that Galileo was correct:
http://www.math.neu.edu/~bridger/U201/GlobeVaticanGalileo.pdf
4) “A heliocentric model of the solar system was no big news afterall Copernicus demonstrated it decades before and won plaudits for it from the Pope.” (Martin Snigg)
In 1616 the Church nevertheless denounced Copernican theory as “foolish and absurd philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrines of the holy scripture..” De Revolutionibus was added to the Index of Prohibited Books.
5) “The Church was Galileo’s greatest patron…” (Martin Snigg)
Cosimo de Medici, Duke of Florence, was Galileo’s greatest patron.
6) “House arrest amounts to a slap on the wrist.” (Turtle)
Compared to being burnt alive for witchcraft, yes.
Mike Jonas said @ur momisugly May 18, 2011 at 5:37 am
“Pompous Git – You are welcome to argue otherwise, but “The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
So I would suggest that there is some support for SEP’s view.”
The OED also says of the word scientific “The ultimate source of the word is to be sought in Aristotelian expressions like that in Post. Anal. I. ii. (71b), where it is said that unless certain essential conditions are fulfilled, a syllogism will not be demonstrative “for it will not produce knowledge’.
Mind you, I’m not much in favour of argument from authority, Oxford English Dictionaries and Wikipedias are useful, but far from the last word.
The wikipedia you quote also says of Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount Saint Alban, (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) “His works established and popularized inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method, or simply the scientific method.”
Galileo is most famous for his debunking Aristotle’s notion that heavier bodies fall faster than light bodies. John Philoponus (490AD–570AD) had already done this as well as coming up with the theory of impetus. Is it the case that what Galileo did was scientific and what John Philoponus did was not?
Galileo was an odd choice of hero for The Enlightenment Philosophes to choose. In his day, he was as famous for his sermons as his other work and was pious almost to a fault. His only rival for the role was Sir Isaac Newton who was even more pious–he wrote more than a million words on esoteric theology. Newton also wrote that he stood on the shoulders of giants, not an original claim, but one that Galileo would never admit.
The important take-home message here is one that you seem to not want to admit: Galileo (a Platonist) was not in conflict with the church, he was in conflict with his rival academics (Aristotelians). When he insulted the pope, papal protection had to be removed.
You really should read the source material rather than Wikipedia…
Khwarizmi said @ur momisugly May 18, 2011 at 6:00 am
““House arrest amounts to a slap on the wrist.” (Turtle)
Compared to being burnt alive for witchcraft, yes.”
In order to be burnt as a witch, you had to have entered a pact with Satan. Galileo was notorious for his piety. Unless you have evidence otherwise…
Khwarizmi said @ur momisugly May 18, 2011 at 6:00 am
“Cardinal Bellarmine during the trial of Galileo (1615)”
What evidence do you have that Galileo was tried in 1615? I thought the trial was in 1633.
Pompous Git – Like I said, you are welcome to argue otherwise. I rarely quote Wikipedia, but in this case the underlying source (OED) was paywalled.
Often, the kudos for an idea does not go to the first to have it. Often, an idea develops rather than coming in a single Eureka moment. The idea of evolution, for example, was around at least 50 years before Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, yet Darwin gets the credit because he covered the topic so thoroughly he gave the church virtually nowhere to hide. Similarly wrt Galileo, because he incorporated an explicit scientific process in what he promulgated – and maybe just as importantly, by writing in Italian, he spoke directly to the general population.
@pompous git – “In order to be burnt as a witch, you had to have entered a pact with Satan. …”
“…When he insulted the pope, papal protection had to be removed.”
=========
Yes – when he insulted the Mafia, “Mafia protection” had to be removed.
I rest my case.
“First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke.” – Letter from Bellarmine to Father Foscarini, 1615 (quoted above without context by PompusGit)
The above is a great quote since it states clearly that we do not have proof of this theory, and therefore it’s wise to speak of this as only in the context of hypothetically. Once again the scientists on global warming could take a real chapter from the above statement, since they also do not have proof of their position, but only models and hypothesis .
I will not rehash the quote I posted again in regards to Cardinal Bellamy CLEARLY stated that they’re willing to reconsider their position on this issue of scriptures if the proof comes to light that states otherwise. Galileo was not the one that had this proof, and Cardinal Bellamy stated as such.
And again I point out clearly that the church is never willing to do this on a matter of doctrine (those positions are not up for debate, and yet this one clearly was).
De Revolutionibus was added to the Index of Prohibited Books.
Again the above is misunderstood time and time again. The act of putting something on a ban list does not mean what’s contained in the book is true, or false or is a statement of church doctrine. This is an act of discipline no more different than saying you’re not supposed to eat tomatoes on Tuesday. Because an act of discipline says you’re not supposed to eat tomatoes on Tuesday, that does not make that an official teaching of doctrine by the church (There’s no doctrine or theological teaching about eating tomatoes on a particular day of the week ).
We thus see rampant and widespread papers that quote and assume because a papal bull put a book on a restricted reading list, then what is inside of the book is therefore a Decree by the church that what is inside of the book is a statement of the church position on doctrine due to what is in that book. This is not the case and this ONLY a discipline issue like the tomato issue.
In other words this issue of doctrine is simply an assumption made by the authors who quote such bans. No one will find an actual doctrine of the church to quote in this regards since as I stated such does not exist.
Clergy and people had widespread views of a earth centric system, and this was not from church teaching on this matter (came from Greeks and before). From Cardinal Bellamy to previous popes and even the devout Christian Copernicus were clearly not afraid of looking at different views on this matter and were open to these ideas (they had flexibility on this matter, But a person of deep faith would not go against doctrines of the church, and they did not).
Another interesting question that comes up here; is why was a pope sitting around receiving presentations on science presentations about a motion system when they supposed to be anti science? And after hearing and seeing the presentation about Copernicus new system, the Pope gave a gift to the presenter? Just about every university in all of Europe which is the basis of most of our western science and technology comes from universities founded by Christian charters. These people loved science and could not get enough of this new way of thinking, kind of much like people here on WUWT. This also explains the rise of science in the western culture.
As some pointed out, in 1615, was not a trail date against Galileo.
I should also point out the fact that Cardinal Bellamy or anybody can make statements about how a person is some scoundrel to not accept the scriptures on this matter (and no question he did that). However, this does not make this an official teaching of the church. That trial was not setting or stating the official church teaching on this matter. This is an extremely important distinction, and one that amounts to dishonesty among the popular press in regards to church doctrine on this issue. This was a issue of discipline against Galileo, not doctrine for public consumption.
The above also explains why Galileo was not convicted of heresy, but only being convicted of being “suspicious of”. How can Galileo only be charged as being suspicious of something that supposedly against a clear doctrine and teaching of the church? The answer to this riddle is simple. As much as they were throwing Galileo under the bus (that they did), they simply did not have any church doctrine or official church position available to actually charge a person with something, so they can only say he was suspicious of something and not guilty of.
Bellarmine continued…
“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.
The above again is a matter of discipline Again that certainly goes on to say there’s widespread agreement of interpretation on this issue. However, the final issue here is that the church did not have an official doctrine and interpretation of the scriptures on this matter of Helio vs. Geo centricity by the holy fathers anyway.
As for the church apology in 1992? Well that apology is to much counter and stop information such as what I posted here. The worst thing that could happen to the liberal and socialist establishment is the connection between Christian west and that of them being scientifically sound.
The reason why this connection must be kept separate is because too many people would see that the Christian west is responsible for the rise of science, and these people being anti Christian thus do not want any credit being given to the church or Christian west.
This whole issue of the Christian west and the anti science lie is really very much part of a larger battle against the west today. Today we see from Greece to Spain and virtually every single western country today, we see no investment, no jobs, no industry, no manufacturing, and just ridiculous oil exploration policies.
The result is international organizations and companies are sucking billions out of the western societies today. The global warming movement was not an accident, and it’s always been an anti west and anti industrial policy.
The main reason why the west is hated is because we tend to be more conservative in our values and want to oppose much of what these International monsters are doing to us.
As an result, just look at where all the jobs and money and Manufacturing is being moved to today. Why is it a strange coincidence that the very same global warming movement is also occurring in the same nation’s in which all the money and manufacturing is being removed from? And why are all of those nations that of the Christian west also?
At the end of the day this means that the whole global warming garbage is really part of a larger anti west, and therefore anti Christian movement that’s being waged against us.
You folks did not think this battle was going to be limited only to propaganda in regards to global warming, did you? It is a simple matter to just look at where all the jobs and money and manufacturing is being funneled to right now? (out of the west).
You’ll notice that none of the money and jobs is going to any of the western societies. And where do you see global warming being pushed today?
Super Turtle
Mike Jonas said @ur momisugly May 18, 2011 at 2:48 pm
“Pompous Git – Like I said, you are welcome to argue otherwise. I rarely quote Wikipedia, but in this case the underlying source (OED) was paywalled.
Often, the kudos for an idea does not go to the first to have it. Often, an idea develops rather than coming in a single Eureka moment. The idea of evolution, for example, was around at least 50 years before Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, yet Darwin gets the credit because he covered the topic so thoroughly he gave the church virtually nowhere to hide. Similarly wrt Galileo, because he incorporated an explicit scientific process in what he promulgated – and maybe just as importantly, by writing in Italian, he spoke directly to the general population.”
Nothing to argue with there. The OED is quoted accurately; I have it on dead trees and CD. It’s twenty of my favourite books 🙂 That said, it is not a good source for the history of science (aka natural philosophy until the 19thC). It was also composed in the era when the beat-up on the conflict between the church and science reached fever pitch as it were. There was a lot of rewriting of history that is still endlessly regurgitated by those who cannot be bothered to read the primary sources.
I’ve linked my moniker to my now defunct website if you want to continue the conversation, or have me email the OED section on science to you.
These people are not skeptics, they are true believers in the culture created in the image of scientism which is the cultural paradigm or ideology that now dominates the entire world – quite literally Weber’s famous Iron Cage.
Scientism being the religion of the the anti-Spiritual left-brain.
Put in another way this now world dominant “religion” is about power and control, and is the now-time manifestation of the drive to total power and control at the root of the entire Western “cultural” project.
The origins and historical developments of this power and control drive are described by Lewis Mumford in his book The Pentagon of Power: The Myth of the Machine. Mumford called this Myth the Invisible Mega-Machine, which is a way of referring to the invisible archetypal pattern which now patterns every minute fraction of Western “culture” in particular. Which is also quite literally a “culture” of death.
These two very stark images are featured in the book. They effectively sum up the world-view which the “skeptics” promote
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html
The recent Avatar film summed up the situation in very stark terms. I would call it the necessary parable of our times.
Basically it was about the anti-“culture” of death versus the culture of life.
Having already “created” a dying planet (just like we have), the unconscious technocratic barbarian invaders were compelled by the inexorable unconscious “logic” of their “culture” to invade virgin territories (just like we always have).
What was interesting about the film was how all of those on the right side of the culture wars, including (especially) those that presume to be religious, all came out very loudly in support of the technocratic barbarian invaders and their “culture” of death.