Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

[grannymh]

Regarding the topic.

The reality is that the Catholic Church has not proclaimed any scientific hypothesis as being infallible.

In reality, what happens when any scientific hypothesis intersects (opposes) a specific proclaimed Catholic doctrine is that the specific scientific hypothesis is carefully examined along with the [attacked] doctrine. (Sections 35, 36, 37, Humani generis, 1950, Pius XII) So far in history, the specific Catholic doctrine involved in the clash, has remained intact.

 

[pnewton]

The Church has no teaching on how many sons Abraham had.

Yes there is. He had many sons. Many sons had Father Abraham. I am one of them and so are you. La-la-la.

 

[grannymh]

While I like your comic, I would like to point out that one side is idealized and the other lampooned. Neither are very accurate. Scientist too often fall into the other side of trying to prove their hypothesis to the point of losing objectivity. On the other side, that too fails to realize that the deeper root is that what constitutes evidence is different, not so much that evidence is ignored. After all, empiricism itself is nothing but a philosophic viewpoint unproven and unprovable. Everyone must have some basic and unprovable viewpoint.

I would like to add that the real Scientific (inductive) Method is something like this.

Here are the facts, as we presently observe them. What probable conclusions can we infer from them given the reality that improbable does not mean impossible.

 

[hildegaard]

It’s a bit misleading imho to say dark energy is fictional - it’s the very real but yet-to-be-explained observation of accelerating cosmic expansion.

There is no observation of cosmic inflation. All that is observed is a rate of separation, i.e., to dots on a 2D image are moving apart at some rate. Scientsts then say, ok, the dots are moving apart at 0.001 mm per second on our image. How fast are they going?

Introduce ASSUMPTION 1: red shift is expansion of the universe.

Now measure redshift. Now using the assumption of expansion, convert that into a distance using the current Hubble constant. Now scale the separation for that distance. Conclusion, IF redshift is expansion (an ASSUMPTION), then the dots are moving faster than the speed of light (superluminally). Of course, if redshift is NOT expansion, then we have no idea how fast they are separating.

Some say that the philosophical divide between the scientific and religious mindsets is that one delights in doubt while the other craves certainty. In science, people get proven wrong every day and no one worries, but even after several centuries some religious folk still crave the pre-Galilean certainties.

I would say the evidence is quite open to earth being in a special/preferred location in the cosmos. Mainstream scientists just prefer their assumptions, and continue to force the data into it. You can see happening right now if you just open your eyes. This is why Temple and Smoller are trying to dispense with dark matter, as are the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi researchers. Dark matter is needed to maintain the anomalous acceleration PLUS maintain the Copernican Principle. The alternate theories dispense with dark matter, but challenge the Copernican Principle, and mainstream scientists are resisting moving to the alternates, but are getting pushed against a wall. The only way to keep dark matter at this point, and maintain the anomalous acceleration, and also to maintain the Copernican Principle is to accept the totally unscientific notion of the multiverse. See this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12085377&postcount=15
and this forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12092659&postcount=73

 

[PRmerger]

Yes there is. He had many sons. Many sons had Father Abraham. I am one of them and so are you. La-la-la.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/48090829.jpg

 

[hildegaard]

I actually meant Jacob (12 sons = 12 tribes), but even that is not so clear! In any case, this has gone way past the basic point. :ehh:

 

[hildegaard]

There is no observation of cosmic inflation. All that is observed is a rate of separation, i.e., to dots on a 2D image are moving apart at some rate. Scientsts then say, ok, the dots are moving apart at 0.001 mm per second on our image. How fast are they going?

Introduce ASSUMPTION 1: red shift is expansion of the universe.

Now measure redshift. Now using the assumption of expansion, convert that into a distance using the current Hubble constant. Now scale the separation for that distance. Conclusion, IF redshift is expansion (an ASSUMPTION), then the dots are moving faster than the speed of light (superluminally). Of course, if redshift is NOT expansion, then we have no idea how fast they are separating (unless we have another measure of there distance- not likely, especially for supernovae).

I would say the evidence is quite open to earth being in a special/preferred location in the cosmos. Mainstream scientists just prefer their assumptions, and continue to force the data into it. You can see happening right now if you just open your eyes. This is why Temple and Smoller are trying to dispense with dark matter, as are the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi researchers. Dark matter is needed to maintain the anomalous acceleration PLUS maintain the Copernican Principle. The alternate theories dispense with dark matter, but challenge the Copernican Principle, and mainstream scientists are resisting moving to the alternates, but are getting pushed against a wall. The only way to keep dark matter at this point, and maintain the anomalous acceleration, and also to maintain the Copernican Principle is to accept the totally unscientific notion of the multiverse. See this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12085377&postcount=15
and this forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12092659&postcount=73

 

[inocente]

While I like your comic, I would like to point out that one side is idealized and the other lampooned.

How so? All four characters look like nice people, and the caption says that the creationist method is what is otherwise called advocacy - selecting data to support its cause - which is a perfectly honorable process.

But of course, while advocates can persuade people, they can’t persuade the tide to go out.

Neither are very accurate. Scientist too often fall into the other side of trying to prove their hypothesis to the point of losing objectivity. On the other side, that too fails to realize that the deeper root is that what constitutes evidence is different, not so much that evidence is ignored. After all, empiricism itself is nothing but a philosophic viewpoint unproven and unprovable. Everyone must have some basic and unprovable viewpoint.

Sourpuss? Cartoons, like advocates, need to simplify to get their point across.

Does empiricism need a formal proof? Doesn’t it just work? Scientific medicine cures (a lot) more people than magic or anything else. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[inocente]

There is no observation of cosmic inflation. All that is observed is a rate of separation, i.e., to dots on a 2D image are moving apart at some rate. Scientsts then say, ok, the dots are moving apart at 0.001 mm per second on our image. How fast are they going?

Introduce ASSUMPTION 1: red shift is expansion of the universe.

Now measure redshift. Now using the assumption of expansion, convert that into a distance using the current Hubble constant. Now scale the separation for that distance. Conclusion, IF redshift is expansion (an ASSUMPTION), then the dots are moving faster than the speed of light (superluminally). Of course, if redshift is NOT expansion, then we have no idea how fast they are separating.

:coffeeread: You can’t just say you don’t like the current explanation for cosmic redshift, you need to come up with an alternative which fits at least as well and is in some way more simple/powerful.

People have been trying to do that for several decades but two of the bigger problems would seem to be replacing GR and how come the stretching of spectral lines fits so neatly with distance.

I would say the evidence is quite open to earth being in a special/preferred location in the cosmos. Mainstream scientists just prefer their assumptions, and continue to force the data into it. You can see happening right now if you just open your eyes. This is why Temple and Smoller are trying to dispense with dark matter, as are the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi researchers. Dark matter is needed to maintain the anomalous acceleration PLUS maintain the Copernican Principle. The alternate theories dispense with dark matter, but challenge the Copernican Principle, and mainstream scientists are resisting moving to the alternates, but are getting pushed against a wall. The only way to keep dark matter at this point, and maintain the anomalous acceleration, and also to maintain the Copernican Principle is to accept the totally unscientific notion of the multiverse. See this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12085377&postcount=15
and this forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12092659&postcount=73

I think you just did one of those hoisted-by-one’s-own-petard things. If we accept your hypothesis that cosmology is in crisis, then that would be the worst possible time for the Church to come down on one side or the other, assuming it has any interest in such debates and doesn’t have somewhat more important priorities. I mean how does any of this affect in any way feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and saving souls?

 

[PRmerger]

Scientific medicine cures (a lot) more people than magic or anything else. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I dunno.

I just started reading this book:


and while I am a big advocate of science and medicine, it has given me a different perspective regarding our attitudes towards “native” or “primitive” beliefs regarding disease.

Western medicine gets a lot of things wrong.
And there are some really weird, inexplicable cures made by shamans absolutely NOT based on science.

*The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down explores the clash between a small county hospital in California and a refugee family from Laos over the care of Lia Lee, a Hmong child diagnosed with severe epilepsy. Lia’s parents and her doctors both wanted what was best for Lia, but the lack of understanding between them led to tragedy–http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Catches-Fall-Down/dp/0374533407

 

[inocente]

I dunno.

I just started reading this book:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/SpiritCatchesYAYFD.jpg

and while I am a big advocate of science and medicine, it has given me a different perspective regarding our attitudes towards “native” or “primitive” beliefs regarding disease.

Western medicine gets a lot of things wrong.
And there are some really weird, inexplicable cures made by shamans absolutely NOT based on science.

*The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down explores the clash between a small county hospital in California and a refugee family from Laos over the care of Lia Lee, a Hmong child diagnosed with severe epilepsy. Lia’s parents and her doctors both wanted what was best for Lia, but the lack of understanding between them led to tragedy–http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Catches-Fall-Down/dp/0374533407

I’d agree that doctors shouldn’t rule out unconventional treatments just because they weren’t invented here.

I was using the term scientific medicine to mean care based on empirical evidence. For example, using evidence to isolate the active ingredient in a herb so that it can be concentrated. In a similar way, a scientist will review unexplained cures, by shamans or otherwise, to find the common factors and so home in on what is happening to make a reliable, repeatable cure. The fact that this works, to me, is ample proof that the scientific method works. (I think this general approach is now also being used to mathematically predict the best treatment option for each individual patient).

 

[grannymh]

Natural Science is a gift from God.

It is up to humans to use that gift wisely.

 

[hildegaard]

:coffeeread: You can’t just say you don’t like the current explanation for cosmic redshift, you need to come up with an alternative which fits at least as well and is in some way more simple/powerful.

People have been trying to do that for several decades but two of the bigger problems would seem to be replacing GR and how come the stretching of spectral lines fits so neatly with distance.

Why? Science does not know, yet scientists constantly represent to people that this is a fact (in popular venues). George Ellis created a model with earth in a preferred location, and here is what Paul Davies (editor of Nature) said about it:

"Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look.

These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own."

Many of the models (Temple and Smoller, Lemaitre-Toman-Bondi) being investigated to get away from non-scientific constructs like dark energy and the multiverse, end up putting earth in a central location. The CMB anisotropies are aligned to the earth on the largest scales of the universe. We are on the verge of the next revolution in cosmology, and some establishment cosmologists are desperately fighting to keep the current model going, even if it means adding more non-scientific nonsense. A few are moving in new directions because they can read the writing on the [cosmic] wall (i.e., the CMB anisotropies). I would say Catholics should keep a more open mind to what is happening.

I think you just did one of those hoisted-by-one’s-own-petard things. If we accept your hypothesis that cosmology is in crisis, then that would be the worst possible time for the Church to come down on one side or the other, assuming it has any interest in such debates and doesn’t have somewhat more important priorities. I mean how does any of this affect in any way feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and saving souls?

The Church does not have to side with anyone on this. The Church made pronouncements 400 years ago, and has not reversed them since. If the Church chooses to wait in silence, it is Her prerogative.

How does it affect evil in the world? The knowledge that the Church was right, while man ran off following pink unicorns could be quite uplifting and positive.

 

[inocente]

"Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look.

These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own."

I found a source for that text at: geocentrism.com/assumptions.htm

It was last updated in 2008 and appears to be amateur.

It says “Paul Davies editor of Nature magazine” but his wiki entry doesn’t say he ever was editor. He did once write an article that was published in Nature in 1978: science-frontiers.com/sf004/sf004p04.htm

So the geocentrism site didn’t get that right, which makes me wonder how many more mistakes it contains.

At any rate, 1978 might as well be 1878 in the world of cosmologists, and all I could find on Ellis’ hypothesis (also 1978 I think) is that it requires two nodes, the Earth and somewhere else. So it’s sort of semi-geocentric, not geocentric. If it works.

Could you please link Ellis’ original paper (hopefully peer reviewed) so we can read it and the critiques. Thanks.

 

[inocente]

George Ellis created a model with earth in a preferred location, and here is what Paul Davies (editor of Nature) said about it:

"Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look.

These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own."

I found a source for that text at: geocentrism.com/assumptions.htm

It was last updated in 2008 and appears to be amateur.

Strangely, it contains almost the first sentence above, but it reads “George Ellis created a model with earth at one of two centers”. Not geocentric then, sort of semi-geocentric-ish, somewhere else is also the center of the cosmos. A bifocal universe.

The site says “Paul Davies editor of Nature magazine” but his wiki entry doesn’t say he ever was editor. He did once write an article for Nature in 1978, which is where that quote seems to come from: science-frontiers.com/sf004/sf004p04.htm

So the geocentrism site didn’t get that right, which makes me wonder how many more mistakes it contains.

At any rate, 1978 might as well be 1878 in the world of cosmologists.

I couldn’t find Ellis’ original paper Could you please link it (hopefully peer reviewed) so we can read it and the critiques. Thanks.

 

[hildegaard]

I found a source for that text at: geocentrism.com/assumptions.htm

It was last updated in 2008 and appears to be amateur.

Strangely, it contains almost the first sentence above, but it reads “George Ellis created a model with earth at one of two centers”. Not geocentric then, sort of semi-geocentric-ish, somewhere else is also the center of the cosmos. A bifocal universe.

The site says “Paul Davies editor of Nature magazine” but his wiki entry doesn’t say he ever was editor. He did once write an article for Nature in 1978, which is where that quote seems to come from: science-frontiers.com/sf004/sf004p04.htm

So the geocentrism site didn’t get that right, which makes me wonder how many more mistakes it contains.

At any rate, 1978 might as well be 1878 in the world of cosmologists.

I couldn’t find Ellis’ original paper Could you please link it (hopefully peer reviewed) so we can read it and the critiques. Thanks.

I said, George Ellis’ model put earth in a preferred position in the cosmos, which is backed up by Paul Davies quote, “…The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos…”.

Here is a reference: George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?”
General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 9, no. 2, February,
1978

You are right (on one count), Davies is not an editor of Nature, but an author.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d agree that doctors shouldn’t rule out unconventional treatments just because they weren’t invented here.

I was using the term scientific medicine to mean care based on empirical evidence. For example, using evidence to isolate the active ingredient in a herb so that it can be concentrated. In a similar way, a scientist will review unexplained cures, by shamans or otherwise, to find the common factors and so home in on what is happening to make a reliable, repeatable cure. The fact that this works, to me, is ample proof that the scientific method works. (I think this general approach is now also being used to mathematically predict the best treatment option for each individual patient).

I’m talking about weird cures in which a shaman breathes into a seizing child’s doll and the status epilepticus ceases.

Or a shaman predicting that if the mother fails to eat the ginger root she’s craving her child will be born with an extra digit…and so it happens.

There’s some really freaky stuff out there. Inexplicable stuff.

Stuff most definitely NOT explained by science.

 

[frobert]

I would not rule out Shamans. Look up the work of Marie Coleman Nelson, a psychoanalyst, and Benjamen Nelson, a anthropologist, who if I remember correctly did quite a bit of work with Shamans in Africa. Marie was my supervisor for a year, her stories were quite fascinating.

 

[pnewton]

Does empiricism need a formal proof? Doesn’t it just work? Scientific medicine cures (a lot) more people than magic or anything else. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

One need not rely on proof logic or common sense. Medical science is grounded in truth. It is contrary to logic to take Medical science as the only truth.

A causes B, therefore only A can cause B??

Science is not always blind and it is not the sole deposit of truth in the world. That was my only point.

 

[inocente]

I said, George Ellis’ model put earth in a preferred position in the cosmos, which is backed up by Paul Davies quote, “…The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos…”.

Here is a reference: George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?”
General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 9, no. 2, February,
1978

You are right (on one count), Davies is not an editor of Nature, but an author.

Come on now, I was right on all those counts, if you think I was in error then please give evidence.

Anyway, I’m glad we agree that Ellis’ piece of speculative math was not published recently but 35 years’ ago. It’s falsifiable too, if you read it. I didn’t check to see if subsequent measurements disprove it, as I couldn’t spot many citations and anyway he sketches a bifocal, not geocentric, universe.

35 years is a long time in cosmology, and he looks to have only be dreaming of a what-if anyway, so I looked at a generalist lecture he gave recently, to a select little audience at the Copernicus Center in Krakow.

Interesting for anyone who likes philosophy and science btw.
youtube.com/watch?v=tq8-eLGpEHc

It’s titled On The Nature Of Cosmology Today. He starts by summarizing what is known for certain. Those of a nervous disposition should look away now. He says we definitely know the universe is expanding. And there’s dark energy. And dark matter. And the big bang. And the CBR vindicates physics now is the same as back then. Which for sure must have been 13 billion years ago. And, a bit later, biological evolution. And so on.

Then he talks about what is hypothetical, and how muliiverse proponents want to downgrade science to accept untestable hypotheses. He thinks that’s a huge step backwards “to the pre-Galileo times” . Because, he says, that would take us back to when speculative, untested and possibly untestable hypotheses were accepted as true. And “If you abandon testability you have left science and are in the realm of philosophy.”

He then goes into how the claims by Dawkins, Hawking and Krauss that quantum field theory somehow explains why there is something rather than nothing are not science .

He comments on the nature of existence and even the limits of free will, then he makes some claims about the existence of the physical law, math, and ethics, and the sum of the parts being greater than the whole, and (his belief) in the existence of God.

He rattles along on all kinds of stuff.

But wait. He never mentions that 1978 paper.