The Galileo Case

[xixxvmcm85]

Now, Christianity starts out with the operating assumption that there is such a thing as absolute truth, with a capital T. God is its answer. In my opinion most scientists, even if they don’t believe in God, still use the operating assumtion that there is an absolute reality out there, and science can help find it.

For them, they Care.

I agree, which is why I’m finding your post a bit inconsistent. You started off claiming that it doesn’t matter which model of the solar system we use as long as the same result is produced (which is more question begging as I’ve already shown that the same results are not produced), but then you conclude with the positive affirmation that an objective reality exists. How did you so quickly waffle from relative truth to objective truth?

 

[cassini]

By the way, cassini, I think you’re conflating the luminiferous aether of the Michelson-Morley experiment designed to detect such, and gravitation aether which Einstein alluded to having a place in relativistic physics, but which is substance-less and motionless, and nonetheless unnecessary.So he didn’t exactly “reintroduce aether” as if he needed to fudge the math.

Without the classical aether which moves celestial bodies around the Earth, geocentrists are right back at square one trying to explain how massive bodies can orbit less massive ones in spite of gravity.

Here is my understanding of ether xixxvmcm.
**Ether (Aether) **
The word ‘ether’ is not used much these days except when referring to the colourless volatile liquid known by that name. But there probably exists another ether, something that has been recognised and accepted since the time of Aristotle at least. The concept of ether was also acknowledged by the Fathers of the Church and indeed entered their discussion on the interpretation of the heavens and ‘firmament’ of Genesis. It was considered omnipresent throughout all space (including the earth’s atmosphere), and that it even interpenetrated matter. It is however, difficult to rationalise with ether, for it has always remained outside known scientific certainty. It was considered a medium through which the light and heat from the sun could travel to earth, just like sound-vibrations or the force energy that uses the medium of water such as can be experienced in a tsunami.

My interest in ether goes back to Isaac Newton and his theory of gravitation. He proposed matter attracts and that this principle explains his theory of heliocentricism with the sun supposedly attracting all the planets (in which he included the earth) and they in turn moving about the sun in elliptical orbits. ‘Action at a distance’ Newman phrased it. ‘Ghost fingers’ and ‘invisible hands’ others called it, but no one could say how this ‘attraction’ worked across millions of miles of space. One explanation was that Newton’s gravitational pull operated through the ether or ether of space as it was named. Ironically, Newton conducted a test that he believed showed that there is no such thing as ether.

‘If space is really empty how is it that the sun and moon exercise influence over the earth? Technical action at a distance is impossible. A body can only act immediately on what it is in contact with; it must be by the action of contiguous particles – that is, through a continuous medium [AETHER], that force can be transmitted across space. Radiation is not the only thing the earth feels from the sun; there is in addition its gigantic gravitational pull, a force or tension more than what a trillion steel rods, each seventeen feet in diameter, could stand. What mechanism transmits this gigantic force? — Sir O. Lodge: Ether of Space, Harper, London & New York, 1909, p.26.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I agree, which is why I’m finding your post a bit inconsistent. You started off claiming that it doesn’t matter which model of the solar system we use as long as the same result is produced (which is more question begging as I’ve already shown that the same results are not produced), but then you conclude with the positive affirmation that an objective reality exists. How did you so quickly waffle from relative truth to objective truth?

A brief comment here.

I’m not sure which question it is that is being begged.

At any rate I never said that which model is being used doesn’t matter as long as the same result is produced. Plus, I don’t think I said that these models had to refer specifically to geocentrism and heliocentrism. I use “model” or “system” much more generically, which can apply to other problems also.

But, I did say, yes, for some people (those who don’t care), it doesn’t matter which model is used, as long as they get the right answers. They are interested in results only; they aren’t among those who concern themselves with objective truth. They are interested in practical applications.

Although, you’ve answered the question yourself, when you compare two models which do not produce the same results. If they do not, then obviously the model that corresponds most closely with observation is the one to be preferred and used. Additionally, if two models do produce exactly the same results, most people will use the one that is simpler and easier to calculate.

Also, I’ve never said what I personally believe (that is not important), but only what different schools of thought believe. I myself did not make a positive affirmation about objective reality, but made an explanation about what certain groups assume about it. For instance, Christianity by its very nature assumes an objective reality. God is that ultimate objective reality, and also creation which derives from him. Also, in my opinion, most of today’s scientists, Christians or not, also make that assumption, and think they are discovering what is really “out there,” objective reality, truth with a capital T.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I’m not understanding your point here. You concede that a geocentric model of the solar system doesn’t match observation yet it should be adhered to anyway? You seem to think that these models are nothing more than mathematical constructs which cannot tell us anything substantive about what we observe, and that simply isn’t the case. The heliocentric model works while the geocentric one does not, so we properly conclude that the Earth does orbit the Sun.

The heliocentric model of the solar system has not “retreated”. Modifications have been made to some specifics, such as Kepler’s laws concerning elliptical orbit, but these modifications have not changed the underlying principle that bodies of smaller mass orbit bodies of larger mass.

That engineers apply theoretical physics to a practical setting doesn’t change the fact that the underlying theories do explain reality. I highly doubt you will find any engineer who says something along the lines of “I design my transistors with Lenz’ Law in mind (a law which relates the induced electrical current in a wire due to the magnetic field of another wire) but I don’t really believe that there’s some force called ‘magnetism’.”

Ah, how to get started…

Maybe with an apology of sorts. Perhaps my points aren’t being understood properly because my comments are somehow being misconstrued to be a defense of geocentrism. No, not at all. Some other posts here, strangely enough, do seem to be defending geocentrism, but my posts mustn’t be confused with those. Mine are philosophical questions purely.

Realizing that, the statement that, “You concede that a geocentric model of the solar system doesn’t match observation but it must be adhered to anyway…” won’t be made. Because I never said that. Yet, with false basic assumptions as to what I’m about, false conclusions possibly can be made about it. (I put this in because I think it applies to bible interpretation also!) So, I apologize for allowing this to happen.

Do I think that “these models are nothing more than mathematical constructs which cannot tell us anything substantive about what we observe.”? Of course I’ve never said what I personally think, and I won’t now. Certainly in the specific case of heliocentrism its mathematics allow us to make interplanetary probes and explore the solar system. It gives better and more answers than geocentrism! Do NASA engineers in their own minds believe in geocentrism? I doubt it, otherwise why would they be interested in sending out probes to the sun and other planets! They may or may not assume geocentric models in limited cases, but that is, as I have emphasized, would be for ease of calculation, not for assumptions about reality.

“The heliocentric model of the solar system has not ‘retreated.’”

Uh, I never said that, either. What I mean is that as more is learned, more observations made, previous ideas and models “retreat” and are replaced by ones that explain more. Newtonian physics “retreats” in the face of Einsteinian physics, for example, as is well documented in your post. Maybe Einsteinian physics will retreat as well. So, the question asked is, if we keep replacing our ideas of reality, maybe what we believe about “reality” really is a “mathematical construct.” Let me make my own specific example, Light: is it wave or particle, or both? Or neither? Modern physics has given up making an either or choice, and accept it as both. But modern science also accepts the idea that light is neither, that models of wave or particle simply describe the behavior of light, not what light IS, with a capital I. Hence, “mathematical constructs” that describe things, but do not tell us what things really “are.”

My philosophy professor said he first went into physics, but discovered that physics didn’t really get to the heart of what he wanted to know, so turned to philosophy instead. Well, I am asking questions about the philosophy of science, and what scientists actually “know.”

“The engineers that apply theoretical physics to a practical setting doesn’t change the fact that the underlying theories do explain reality.”

Well, an engineer, as an engineer, doesn’t concern himself about “reality.” What he is worried about is the reality of getting his electronic device to work, his space probe to get to the right place. He concers himself with whether the physics provides the real answers he wants to get things done. Yes, in his own mind he probably believes there really is something he calls a “magnetic field.” But that is not pertinent to building the device and getting it to work. If the mathematical construct works, that is what is important.

I’ll go ahead and post this, and continue later.

 

[JackQ]

Oh please, you can’t be serious. You think the sun revolves around the earth???

I don’t think the post means that. The poster is saying that all motion is relative. The problem with the post is that it seems to ignore the fact that there are no known laws of physics that can make a geocentric solar system explainable.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

A brief comment here.

I’m not sure which question it is that is being begged.

At any rate I never said that which model is being used doesn’t matter as long as the same result is produced. Plus, I don’t think I said that these models had to refer specifically to geocentrism and heliocentrism. I use “model” or “system” much more generically, which can apply to other problems also.

But, I did say, yes, for some people (those who don’t care), it doesn’t matter which model is used, as long as they get the right answers. They are interested in results only; they aren’t among those who concern themselves with objective truth. They are interested in practical applications.

Although, you’ve answered the question yourself, when you compare two models which do not produce the same results. If they do not, then obviously the model that corresponds most closely with observation is the one to be preferred and used. Additionally, if two models do produce exactly the same results, most people will use the one that is simpler and easier to calculate.

Also, I’ve never said what I personally believe (that is not important), but only what different schools of thought believe. I myself did not make a positive affirmation about objective reality, but made an explanation about what certain groups assume about it. For instance, Christianity by its very nature assumes an objective reality. God is that ultimate objective reality, and also creation which derives from him. Also, in my opinion, most of today’s scientists, Christians or not, also make that assumption, and think they are discovering what is really “out there,” objective reality, truth with a capital T.

Ah! I understand what you’re getting at now. Thanks for the clarification.

I didn’t know you were an actual engineer, so my explaining Lenz’ Law to you probably seemed a bit condescending. I’m sorry. I’ll just pretend like I did it for the edification of other posters

 

[Nostradennis]

The problem with the post is that it seems to ignore the fact that there are no known laws of physics that can make a geocentric solar system explainable.

    But there are mathematical explanations.

pnas.org/content/106/34/14213.full (very weighty and deep, for mathematicians only)

seedmagazine.com/content/article/erasing_dark_energy/P1/ (less weighty and less deep, more for the science minded)

wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/mathematicians-theory-means-earth-may-be-the-center-of-the-universe/
(for the laity)

All three links are talking about the same mathematicians Blake Temple and Joel Smoller.

 

[John7]

a big bang will do what big bangs really do - twinc

that’s deep twinc…

BTW what do big bangs do…don’t they expand from a primordial speck?

 

[twinc]

But there are mathematical explanations.

pnas.org/content/106/34/14213.full (very weighty and deep, for mathematicians only)

seedmagazine.com/content/article/erasing_dark_energy/P1/ (less weighty and less deep, more for the science minded)

wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/mathematicians-theory-means-earth-may-be-the-center-of-the-universe/
(for the laity)

All three links are talking about the same mathematicians Blake Temple and Joel Smoller.

www.galileowaswrong.com - twinc

 

[mackbrislawn]

Ah! I understand what you’re getting at now. Thanks for the clarification.

I didn’t know you were an actual engineer, so my explaining Lenz’ Law to you probably seemed a bit condescending. I’m sorry. I’ll just pretend like I did it for the edification of other posters

Yes, my undergraduate background was aerospace engineering. But my frustration with engineering courses was, just when things got interesting, we’d stop and start working problems!

My interest now is the philosophy of science. What we’ve been talking about may not seem to relate to the Galileo case, but actually strikes to the heart of it. Today we assume that the purpose of science is to get to the “real” truth, the “real” causations. This is the “realist” view, that scientific theories are true depictions of the world. Scientific ideas really do describe the world as it objectively is.

However that wasn’t necessarily the viewpoint of most thinkers in Galileo’s day. They held to more of an “instrumental” outlook, that theories were useful tools for predicting phenomena such as the motions of the planets, sun and moon. The goal of science was simply to provide a coherent model for prediction. Whether or not the theory was literally true of objective reality was beside the point.

Galileo was one of the first of the realists. Of course the realist view seems obvious and normal for us now, but for Galileo’s audience it was something else. Most astronomers then were instrumentalists, the same as the ancient Greeks. Their interest was in getting the answer to what planet would be where, to use for the calendar, astrology, and so on. Why bother or care about what was “really” going on if it didn’t make a visible difference?

That may be what the pope and others around thought. So, Galileo, why not discuss Copernicus hypothetically? Suppositionally? That’s what they wanted him to do. It’s possible they were confused about Galileo insisting his notions to be literally true.

Also, they did have actual, practical reasons for being reluctant to accept the Copernican theory as literally true. It didn’t match observations! It predicted stellar parallax, but no stellar parallax could be observed. Now of course with better intruments stellar parallax is observed, but at that time, it was a strike against it.

I think this realist and instrumentalist question is an important one now. One of the posts above gives links to new mathematics that does away with the need for dark energy and dark matter. And puts the earth at the center! Is this theory just a mathematical construct? Or does it describe reality? The current bias is strongly against such an idea. This is something to stay tuned to.

 

[cassini]

Yes, my undergraduate background was aerospace engineering. But my frustration with engineering courses was, just when things got interesting, we’d stop and start working problems!

My interest now is the philosophy of science. What we’ve been talking about may not seem to relate to the Galileo case, but actually strikes to the heart of it. Today we assume that the purpose of science is to get to the “real” truth, the “real” causations. This is the “realist” view, that scientific theories are true depictions of the world. Scientific ideas really do describe the world as it objectively is.

However that wasn’t necessarily the viewpoint of most thinkers in Galileo’s day. They held to more of an “instrumental” outlook, that theories were useful tools for predicting phenomena such as the motions of the planets, sun and moon. The goal of science was simply to provide a coherent model for prediction. Whether or not the theory was literally true of objective reality was beside the point.

Galileo was one of the first of the realists. Of course the realist view seems obvious and normal for us now, but for Galileo’s audience it was something else. Most astronomers then were instrumentalists, the same as the ancient Greeks. Their interest was in getting the answer to what planet would be where, to use for the calendar, astrology, and so on. Why bother or care about what was “really” going on if it didn’t make a visible difference?

That may be what the pope and others around thought. So, Galileo, why not discuss Copernicus hypothetically? Suppositionally? That’s what they wanted him to do. It’s possible they were confused about Galileo insisting his notions to be literally true. Also, they did have actual, practical reasons for being reluctant to accept the Copernican theory as literally true. It didn’t match observations! It predicted stellar parallax, but no stellar parallax could be observed. Now of course with better intruments stellar parallax is observed, but at that time, it was a strike against it.

I think this realist and instrumentalist question is an important one now. One of the posts above gives links to new mathematics that does away with the need for dark energy and dark matter. And puts the earth at the center! Is this theory just a mathematical construct? Or does it describe reality? The current bias is strongly against such an idea. This is something to stay tuned to.

Your post reflects the time of transition from natural philosophy to empirical science mackbrislawn, but your underlined paragraph is similar to that ‘hypothesis’ ploy begun by Descartes in 1633, one that continues to this day.

’That may be what the pope and others around thought. So, Galileo, why not discuss Copernicus hypothetically? Suppositionally?'

Here you depict churchmen of the time to be ‘instrumentalists.’ You expect us to believe the Galileo case was not about the preservation of TRUTH, and that** ‘Whether or not the theory was literally true of objective reality was beside the point.’**

Now that is a novel invention, the Church defining and declaring an instrumentalist hypothesis formal heresy to protect it from Galileo’s heliocentric empiricism.

 

[grannymh]

So that readers can understand how the Catholic Church operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit regarding theological doctrines, here is a summary.

The Holy Spirit protects Divine Revelation by guiding the formulation of theological dogmas. The protocol of Church Councils expresses this guidance.

Theological dogmas develop the full significance of Divine Revelation. Gathering in a Church Council usually occurs when there is a challenge to Catholic teaching regarding God and the salvation of human beings.

In addition, Church Councils dealt with the general norms or rules for good order in the visible society of the Church. These are referred to as “cannon law” and are not the same as theological dogmas.

It is very important to understand that Catholic leadership focused on God as the Creator who continually calls us to share in His life through knowledge and love. Since God was calling us, the Catholic leadership focused on human nature and what we must choose to do in order to remain in God’s friendship. In relationship to salvation, the Catholic leadership focused on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the validity of Seven Sacraments.

Because the Catholic focus was on the teachings of Jesus Christ, Catholic leadership searched the Church Fathers for their teachings about Jesus Christ and salvation. Knowledge about the physical/material universe was good in itself, but it was deemed unnecessary for salvation. Knowing how the sun and moon work has nothing to do with sanctifying grace. Acknowledging that God exists does not depend on an exact knowledge of natural science.

Consequently, the Catholic Church does not have properly defined theological dogmas regarding the position of any individual material/physical planet.

Catholicism does not depend on the affirmation of geocentrism. To even imply that the position of one particular material/physical planet is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith is promoting false information.

One certainly may present the science of geocentrism as worthy of belief. But one should not mislead readers about what is contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[mackbrislawn]

Your post reflects the time of transition from natural philosophy to empirical science mackbrislawn, but your underlined paragraph is similar to that ‘hypothesis’ ploy begun by Descartes in 1633, one that continues to this day.

’That may be what the pope and others around thought. So, Galileo, why not discuss Copernicus hypothetically? Suppositionally?'

Here you depict churchmen of the time to be ‘instrumentalists.’ You expect us to believe the Galileo case was not about the preservation of TRUTH, and that** ‘Whether or not the theory was literally true of objective reality was beside the point.’**

Now that is a novel invention, the Church defining and declaring an instrumentalist hypothesis formal heresy to protect it from Galileo’s heliocentric empiricism.

I’m puzzling over your post and do not quite understand what it is getting at, especially the final sentence. What intrumentalist hypothesis was declared formal heresy, and what was Galileo’s heliocentric empiricism?

What was the TRUTH that Galileo’s case was about preserving? I don’t follow.

That’s something else I’ll have to study, Descartes hypothesis ploy. Or you can help us out.

 

[edwest2]

Folks,

There is a good summary of the whole Galileo case here:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[cassini]

I’m puzzling over your post and do not quite understand what it is getting at, especially the final sentence. What intrumentalist hypothesis was declared formal heresy, and what was Galileo’s heliocentric empiricism?

What was the TRUTH that Galileo’s case was about preserving? I don’t follow.

That’s something else I’ll have to study, Descartes hypothesis ploy. Or you can help us out.

Ok Mac, I will explain. I was using your ideas, those I underlined, and turning them against you. You suggested:
** That may be what the pope and others around thought. So, Galileo, why not discuss Copernicus hypothetically? Suppositionally? That’s what they wanted him to do. It’s possible they were confused about Galileo insisting his notions to be literally true. **

You suggested that the popes, cardinals and theologians of the Holy Office in 1616 and 1633 were ‘instrumentalists’, that is, did not hold the subject matter of the passages of Scripture under consideration as a truth but only as an instrument of calculation. Here you are on this: 'Whether or not the theory was literally true of objective reality was beside the point.'

You also said that Galileo was the first ‘realist’, the one who sought the truth or reality.

Now let us put these two positions into context in 1616 when considering my last sentence: 'Now that is a novel invention, the Church defining and declaring an instrumentalist hypothesis formal heresy to protect it from Galileo’s heliocentric empiricism.'

It amounts to this: The Church declared and defined a contrary view to what they did not consider a reality, a truth, as formal heresy. Yes, it suggests they declared an abstract in their minds formal heresy. That is like saying they defined and declared algebra as formal heresy. But you go further, You suggest Galileo was the only one dealing in reality, that only his heliocentrism was put forward as a truth in this affair.

Your last question Mac holds the key to the Galileo case, a key you will not find ANYWHERE and certainly not in any suggested website. It also has a bearing on your own hypothesis.

I call it the hypothesis ploy, begun by Descartes immediately after Galileo’s trial, It amounts to this. Not wanting to accept the Church’s ruling on the correct interpretation of the cosmic order as divinely revealed, they needed to get the word out that the 1616 decree and 1633 decision were not really final, so they said the Church allowed heliocentricism to be held as a hypothesis, a hypothesis that meant awaiting scientific verification. With the trial documents not on public view, the ploy took hold. In fact the Church’s ‘hypothesis’ had been clarified in 1615 by Cardinal Bellarmine when he made reference to Copernicus’s hypothesis.

So, what was Copernicus’s hypothesis. Well in a preface to his book De Revolutionibus, it spelled out the type of hypothesis allowed by the Church.

This artist is markedly outstanding in both these respects for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even possible; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the observations…And if it constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation…Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’

Yes Mac, your ‘instrumentalist’ hypothesis is the one the Church allowed, not as a truth, nor even a theory awaiting proof or not. Confident in the truth of Scripture and the Interpretation of the Fathers. NOW THAT’S CATHOLIC FAITH.

When Newton’s and Bradley’s proofs were accepted by eighteenth century Churchmen as true, thus supposedly falsifying the 1616 decree and the Interpretation of the Fathers, the need for an OUT became an obsession. So they brought back the hypothesis until proven ploy.

The showdown came during the considerations of the 1616 decree by the Holy office in 1820. Thanks to the scholar Finocchio in his Retrying Galileo we know the actual details of the arguments. Here is the crucial argument, the hypothesis ‘lie’ used inside the Church to defy the 1616 decree as immutable. Anfossi defends the 1616 decree as immutable.

Anfossi: ‘Does he [Canon Settele] want to be authorised to teach principles that are repugnant to Sacred Scripture and its true and Catholic interpretation, which is not to be tolerated at all in a Christian man and especially in a cannon, and to teach them not as a hypothesis (for which there would be no difficulty) but as thesis?’
Olivieri: ‘Now this proposition seems to me to be infected with intolerable absurdity… The Most Rev. Grandi has said it very well: “If this system had been judged erroneous or heretical, the Church would never have allowed it to be maintained even as a hypothesis; the reason is that otherwise those who studied it would be placed at risk of sinning against the faith, in case they judged the system to be manifestly demonstrated.” ’

The lie won out and the infamous U-turn was completed in 1835. Today the same hypothesis ploy is used by modern writers on the Galileo case to cheat the Church out of its 1616 decree.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Ok Mac, I will explain. I was using your ideas, those I underlined, and turning them against you. You suggested:
** That may be what the pope and others around thought. So, Galileo, why not discuss Copernicus hypothetically? Suppositionally? That’s what they wanted him to do. It’s possible they were confused about Galileo insisting his notions to be literally true. **

You suggested that the popes, cardinals and theologians of the Holy Office in 1616 and 1633 were ‘instrumentalists’, that is, did not hold the subject matter of the passages of Scripture under consideration as a truth but only as an instrument of calculation. Here you are on this: 'Whether or not the theory was literally true of objective reality was beside the point.'

You also said that Galileo was the first ‘realist’, the one who sought the truth or reality.

Now let us put these two positions into context in 1616 when considering my last sentence: 'Now that is a novel invention, the Church defining and declaring an instrumentalist hypothesis formal heresy to protect it from Galileo’s heliocentric empiricism.'

It amounts to this: The Church declared and defined a contrary view to what they did not consider a reality, a truth, as formal heresy. Yes, it suggests they declared an abstract in their minds formal heresy. That is like saying they defined and declared algebra as formal heresy. But you go further, You suggest Galileo was the only one dealing in reality, that only his heliocentrism was put forward as a truth in this affair.

Your last question Mac holds the key to the Galileo case, a key you will not find ANYWHERE and certainly not in any suggested website. It also has a bearing on your own hypothesis.

I call it the hypothesis ploy, begun by Descartes immediately after Galileo’s trial, It amounts to this. Not wanting to accept the Church’s ruling on the correct interpretation of the cosmic order as divinely revealed, they needed to get the word out that the 1616 decree and 1633 decision were not really final, so they said the Church allowed heliocentricism to be held as a hypothesis, a hypothesis that meant awaiting scientific verification. With the trial documents not on public view, the ploy took hold. In fact the Church’s ‘hypothesis’ had been clarified in 1615 by Cardinal Bellarmine when he made reference to Copernicus’s hypothesis.

So, what was Copernicus’s hypothesis. Well in a preface to his book De Revolutionibus, it spelled out the type of hypothesis allowed by the Church.

This artist is markedly outstanding in both these respects for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even possible; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the observations…And if it constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation…Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’

Yes Mac, your ‘instrumentalist’ hypothesis is the one the Church allowed, not as a truth, nor even a theory awaiting proof or not. Confident in the truth of Scripture and the Interpretation of the Fathers. NOW THAT’S CATHOLIC FAITH.

When Newton’s and Bradley’s proofs were accepted by eighteenth century Churchmen as true, thus supposedly falsifying the 1616 decree and the Interpretation of the Fathers, the need for an OUT became an obsession. So they brought back the hypothesis until proven ploy.

The showdown came during the considerations of the 1616 decree by the Holy office in 1820. Thanks to the scholar Finocchio in his Retrying Galileo we know the actual details of the arguments. Here is the crucial argument, the hypothesis ‘lie’ used inside the Church to defy the 1616 decree as immutable. Anfossi defends the 1616 decree as immutable.

Anfossi: ‘Does he [Canon Settele] want to be authorised to teach principles that are repugnant to Sacred Scripture and its true and Catholic interpretation, which is not to be tolerated at all in a Christian man and especially in a cannon, and to teach them not as a hypothesis (for which there would be no difficulty) but as thesis?’
Olivieri: ‘Now this proposition seems to me to be infected with intolerable absurdity… The Most Rev. Grandi has said it very well: “If this system had been judged erroneous or heretical, the Church would never have allowed it to be maintained even as a hypothesis; the reason is that otherwise those who studied it would be placed at risk of sinning against the faith, in case they judged the system to be manifestly demonstrated.” ’

The lie won out and the infamous U-turn was completed in 1835. Today the same hypothesis ploy is used by modern writers on the Galileo case to cheat the Church out of its 1616 decree.

Hi Cassini,
Gee, your response overwhelms me! And, I’m puzzling over this one as well. It seems unnecessarily personal, aggressive and polemical, and I don’t know why. What I said seems to have upset you in some way I have yet to understand. What do you think I am trying to say? You said you were using my ideas, the ones you underlined, and turning them against me. What? Okay, help me out. Certainly I don’t see how it fits into a heliocentrism and geocentrism debate, if that’s what you think. You seem to think I’m attacking a position of yours, although I don’t know what that position is. And what is my position? I haven’t stated one, yet you seem to think I have one. One where my words can be turned against me. That doesn’t seem nice.

I think we are misunderstanding one another. I’ll post this and ponder your points further.

 

[mackbrislawn]

You suggested that the popes, cardinals and theologians of the Holy Office in 1616 and 1633 were ‘instrumentalists’, that is, did not hold the subject matter of the passages of Scripture under consideration as a truth but only as an instrument of calculation. Here you are on this: 'Whether or not the theory was literally true of objective reality was beside the point.'

“…the subject matter of the passages of Scripture under consideration as a truth but only as an instrument of calculation.” Huh, how do you get this? It seems to be a non sequitur. Scripture isn’t the point at all. My point was most of the astronomers of the day were intrumentalists in regards to the devices they used to do astronomical calculations, and that the churchmen probably thought that way also in regards to physical calculations. How is Scripture related into this?

You also said that Galileo was the first ‘realist’, the one who sought the truth or reality.

I said Galileo was one of the first realists, not THE first.

The Church declared and defined a contrary view to what they did not consider a reality, a truth, as formal heresy. Yes, it suggests they declared an abstract in their minds formal heresy. That is like saying they defined and declared algebra as formal heresy. But you go further, You suggest Galileo was the only one dealing in reality, that only his heliocentrism was put forward as a truth in this affair

.

Yep, I’m dense, I don’t follow this paragraph at all. I’m sorry. But please don’t be overly supercilious when explaining it again to me; I’m sensitive. At any rate, I don’t see how I suggested Galileo was the only one dealing in reality and only his heliocentrism was put forward as truth. Maybe I did somehow but if so I didn’t realize it.

Your last question Mac holds the key to the Galileo case, a key you will not find ANYWHERE and certainly not in any suggested website. It also has a bearing on your own hypothesis.

Again, what is my hypothesis? And what am I trying to show by this hypothesis? (This is an honest question, not rhetorical. I truly don’t understand what you think I’m trying to say.)

This artist is markedly outstanding in both these respects for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even possible; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the observations…And if it constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation…

Yes, you have provided a good example of an explanation of an instrumentalist hypothesis. “…only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation.” In this way the Lutheran minister’s preface to Copernicus’ book allowed it to be viewed instrumentally.

Yes Mac, your ‘instrumentalist’ hypothesis is the one the Church allowed, not as a truth, nor even a theory awaiting proof or not. Confident in the truth of Scripture and the Interpretation of the Fathers. NOW THAT’S CATHOLIC FAITH

.

Exactly right, the Church allowed an instrumentalist hypothesis. That’s just the point!

I think we agree.

 

[cassini]

“…the subject matter of the passages of Scripture under consideration as a truth but only as an instrument of calculation.” Huh, how do you get this? It seems to be a non sequitur. Scripture isn’t the point at all. My point was most of the astronomers of the day were intrumentalists in regards to the devices they used to do astronomical calculations, and that the churchmen probably thought that way also in regards to physical calculations. How is Scripture related into this?

I said Galileo was one of the first realists, not THE first.

Yep, I’m dense, I don’t follow this paragraph at all. I’m sorry. But please don’t be overly supercilious when explaining it again to me; I’m sensitive. At any rate, I don’t see how I suggested Galileo was the only one dealing in reality and only his heliocentrism was put forward as truth. Maybe I did somehow but if so I didn’t realize it.

Again, what is my hypothesis? And what am I trying to show by this hypothesis? (This is an honest question, not rhetorical. I truly don’t understand what you think I’m trying to say.)

Yes, you have provided a good example of an explanation of an instrumentalist hypothesis. “…only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation.” In this way the Lutheran minister’s preface to Copernicus’ book allowed it to be viewed instrumentally.

Exactly right, the Church allowed an instrumentalist hypothesis. That’s just the point!

I think we agree.

Please Mac, do separate the debate from personal exchanges. In no way am I being agressive towards you, merely the theses you put forward. As far as I am concerned you are open to debate and I like that very much. I would love to buy you a pint of guinness to show you nothing is personal, it is just that the subject matter is so contentious that it does generate emotion and high spirits. The myths of the Galileo case is an ongoing event, being used against the Church continuopusly. On January 17th 2008, for example, the Galileo case returned to test Pope Benedict XVI. On that day 67 professors of physics – in their commitment to what they called ‘lay science’ - objected to him going to the University of La Sapienza in Rome to deliver a speech. They accused the Holy Father, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger; of agreeing with a philosopher he quoted in a 1991 essay saying the Galileo trial was ‘reasonable and fair’. This caused the Pope to cancel his intended visit to the University and shows the influence the Galileo case can still generate today.

But note how the Church of 1616 and 1633 is portrayed today, as having conducted Church business unreasonably and unfair.

There is a movement reborn with a new paradign, to defend the truth, that the Church is not unreasonable or unfair. However the opposition to this defence from Catholics is nearly beond belief. Not only do the vast majority defend the unfair paradigm, but debate on it is curtailed, perhaps for reasons you expressed above, the appearance that it is too agressive, as so many closed threads on the subject demonstrate. It seems martyrdom has gone out of fashion’

I will, if given the Chance, reply to your points above this afternoon mac. Again I am sorry you took my points personally. I will try to improve my style. It is just that I have discovered the spotless divine guidance of the Church at the time and few Catholics are interested in it. This is very frustrating for us.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Please Mac, do separate the debate from personal exchanges. In no way am I being agressive towards you, merely the theses you put forward. As far as I am concerned you are open to debate and I like that very much. I would love to buy you a pint of guinness to show you nothing is personal, it is just that the subject matter is so contentious that it does generate emotion and high spirits. The myths of the Galileo case is an ongoing event, being used against the Church continuopusly. On January 17th 2008, for example, the Galileo case returned to test Pope Benedict XVI. On that day 67 professors of physics – in their commitment to what they called ‘lay science’ - objected to him going to the University of La Sapienza in Rome to deliver a speech. They accused the Holy Father, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger; of agreeing with a philosopher he quoted in a 1991 essay saying the Galileo trial was ‘reasonable and fair’. This caused the Pope to cancel his intended visit to the University and shows the influence the Galileo case can still generate today.

But note how the Church of 1616 and 1633 is portrayed today, as having conducted Church business unreasonably and unfair.

There is a movement reborn with a new paradign, to defend the truth, that the Church is not unreasonable or unfair. However the opposition to this defence from Catholics is nearly beond belief. Not only do the vast majority defend the unfair paradigm, but debate on it is curtailed, perhaps for reasons you expressed above, the appearance that it is too agressive, as so many closed threads on the subject demonstrate. It seems martyrdom has gone out of fashion’

I will, if given the Chance, reply to your points above this afternoon mac. Again I am sorry you took my points personally. I will try to improve my style. It is just that I have discovered the spotless divine guidance of the Church at the time and few Catholics are interested in it. This is very frustrating for us.

Guiness? You’ve got my attention! I hope you’re serious, although I prefer Smithwick’s.

Yes, I like debate of ideas, not personalities; so I always try to avoid personalities and names. Not “your idea” vs. “my idea” but idea A compared to idea B.

So, what are the ideas? I’m still not clear about what they are, nor even what ‘my’ hypothesis is. It seemed to me words were being put into my mouth, leaving me scratching my head. But, enough, you’ll clarify it later.

 

[cassini]

Guiness? You’ve got my attention! I hope you’re serious, although I prefer Smithwick’s.

Yes, I like debate of ideas, not personalities; so I always try to avoid personalities and names. Not “your idea” vs. “my idea” but idea A compared to idea B.

So, what are the ideas? I’m still not clear about what they are, nor even what ‘my’ hypothesis is. It seemed to me words were being put into my mouth, leaving me scratching my head. But, enough, you’ll clarify it later.

Ok Mac, I will buy you a pint of Smithwick if you prefer that. And thank you for your council on how to debate. You are right, I should separate the idea from the person and deal with it that way.

Today, with the Church’s records of the ‘secret archives’ in the open, what exactly happened in the Galileo case in 1616, 1633, 1664, 1741, 1820-1835, is known, what people said and did, who said it and did it.

In essence the Galileo case was one of Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. These theological sciences are those that were used by the Church to extablish and develop all the Dogmas and doctrines of the Church. If these hermeneutics were shown to be flawed, then no dogma based on them could be guaranteed free from error. Galileo, lest the Bible rob him of a great scientific discovery, attacked the geocentric interpretation of the Fathers of those passages that describe the relationship of the earth, sun and stars. To halt such attacks the Church declared and defined the heliocentric interpretation as formal heresy, thus dogmatising the Scriptural revelation of a fixed earth and moving sun. Such was the Church’s confidence in its interpretation it had no concern about its ever being proven wrong by science.

When Newton and Bradley’s science was perceived as proving the sun is fixed relative to the earth, the whole Galileo case SHIFTED, or more correctly, was SHIFTED to one of cosmology, not biblical exegesis. Papal decrees, the judgement of the Holy Office against Galileo, the decision to grant imprimaturs to a one time formal heresy, none of this could be done if the true nature of the Galileo case was left in its proper place as a matter of Catholic hermeneutics. Read up most posts on the Galileo case and see them state the matter was one of cosmology so did not come under the auspices of the infallible magisterium of the Church. How convincing this sounds, and with 150 years of repitition the lie now sounds like the truth.

But let us return to the truth. A papal decree on a matter of faith, and the correct hermeneutics of the Scriptures are a matter of faith, a serious matter of faith, according to the Church carries an infallible promise to be free from error. So if Newton and the boys rerally did prove the earth moves, then the dogma of infallibility is itself in error. Many such theses were written using the Galileo case to dismiss the dogma of infallibility from 1870. This problem was solved by Catholics using the false accounts of the matter, inventing a cosmological status for the 1616 decree which makes it a matter of astronomy not hermeneutics so carries no infallibility.

So, for those Catholics who discovered the true nature of the Galileo case, a proof for heliocentrism was a Catholic nightmare. Our faith was proven false.
But a further search into history showed there were philosophers in the church, in Catholic universities, who rejected the proofs for heliocentrism, even after the Holy Office granted an imprimatur to a book offering H as a thesis in 1820. Why this doubt? Well they understood the phenomenon of relativity, just as Copernicus did, and they knew science proved no such heliocentrism.Then in 1905 Einstein reminded the world relative movement in space prevents empirical science determining the movements between the earthg, sun and stars. It seems Bellarmine was correct again, there was no proof, never could be proof to show the Fathers’s exegesis was wrong.
But the damage was done. Churchmen had rejected the Church’s decree so there was no going back. That is the nightmare now, separating the errors of the churchgmen from the infallibility of the Church. But those who had loosed the heresy into the Church were not for correcting their error and rehabilitating the popes of 1616 and 1633 whom they had labeled the ones in error. That situation continues to this very day.

I have studied the matter with a fine tooth comb looking to see if the Church contradicted itself after the supposed proofs were accepted by the Holy Office, for that would have been a double error. Nowhere is to be found any contradiction. No abrogation, no retrial of Galileo, no pope ever touched the 1616 decree. Why in 1820 I found the same Holy Office that granted an imprimatur, would not reject the 1616 decree as papal and thus immutable.
No they did not. They granted it was set in stone. What they did was admit the heliocentrism condemned as formal heresy was indeed a heresy, but that the new heliocentrism of Newtons differed from the heliocentrism of Galileo’s. In any court of law, their bypass would have been thrown out as nonsense.

One last clarification. the hypothesis ‘ploy’ as I call it. It was one of the reasons given by Catholics to say the 1616 decree was not, could not have been a dogma. They said if the Church allowed heliocentrism to be used as a hypothesis, then it could not possibly have meant it to be a heresy. But an investigation of the ‘hypothesis’ allowed by the Church was the ‘instrumentalist one’ of Copernicus. The Church allowed heliocentrism as a tool for calculation, not as a theory awaiting clarification. But if the hypothesis used by the Church could be made look like a hypothesis in waiting, that would change the very nature of the 1616 condemnation from a permanent one to a temporary one, and that would get the Church off the hook. When the Church needs perversions to ‘save it’ we are all in trouble.