Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

[lilpixieofterror]

There is no need to prove it. I made the case that the church pointed to heliocentrism as being contrary to scripture as part of the reason for denying it. Some in here want to deny or downplay that. Religion was important in this case and as so often before and after the church was wrong.

And you seem to ignore the fact that the church was following the scientific following of the time. Why are you so desperate to ignore this fact? Are you desperately hoping that pointing out the church was using a geocentric interpretation will somehow validate your fundy atheism? I already asked you where the Bible makes a case that geocentrism is an important salvation or even theological issue and you instead distract with screaming about the church interpreted it this way and it was wrong. So what? Where does the Bible say Christians are never wrong or perfect? I don't recall that verse anywhere, can you show it or explain why you keep ranting about an issue that's already been dealt with?

[lilpixieofterror]

Can you please explain where to they were open to competing ideas in the following:

I see you close your eyes and flat ignore anything that goes against the narrative you want to believe. Let's try this you dumb twit:

Pope Urban VIII specifically allowed Galileo to write a book talking about arguments for and against the heliocentric model.

I know that you're either stupid, dense, a troll, or a combo of two or more, but try to keep up. How does the above prove they were not up to hearing about it or were anywhere close to closed minded?

[EvoUK]

So is the argument that we once thought the earth was flat, and there was a 'consensus' on this prior to us knowing any better, therefore the scientific consensus on climate change is the same thing?

Trying to work out what the argument is (silly YEC websites & a previous popes opinion on heliocentralism aside)

[lilpixieofterror]

So is the argument that we once thought the earth was flat, and there was a 'consensus' on this prior to us knowing any better, therefore the scientific consensus on climate change is the same thing?

Trying to work out what the argument is (silly YEC websites & a previous popes opinion on heliocentralism aside)

I think it's more along the lines that consensus doesn't mean true.

[EvoUK]

... so what do you want to call it when a lot of people in the relevant fields agree the evidence points a certain way (i.e. climate change), if you don't like the term consensus?





Also there's a false equivalence between heliocentralism and climate change- one is supported by mounting evidence from various disparate fields, the other was before we could know any better.

[Sparko]

I have never said that that nobody should ever question the scientific consensus. My argument is that when there is consensus among nearly all scientists and scientific organisations that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity, it behoves us to listen to them instead of a small minority of voices questioning the validity of such assertions and casting doubt on the preponderance of evidence. Especially with so much at stake.

Translation: "I never said that nobody should ever question the scientific consensus. My argument is that nobody should question the scientific consensus."

[Sparko]

... so what do you want to call it when a lot of people in the relevant fields agree the evidence points a certain way (i.e. climate change), if you don't like the term consensus?





Also there's a false equivalence between heliocentralism and climate change- one is supported by mounting evidence from various disparate fields, the other was before we could know any better.

The point is that science relies on verifiable facts, not a consensus. If the facts are there you will have a consensus, but that doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject. If more facts come along then scientists should look at them and change their "consensus" to fit the facts. Tassman was making the argument that we should not question the consensus, that because it is the consensus we should just go along with it. If scientists did that, we would never learn new things. We would still believe the sun revolved around the earth, that there are no plate tectonics, that powered flight is impossible. That disease is caused by unbalanced humors.

[Mountain Man]

Can you please explain where to they were open to competing ideas in the following?



If calling an idea both foolish, absurd and formally heretical is being open to it, then you may have a point. I am looking forward to seeing your case to be made in favour of this.

And let's continue:



So, by asking someone to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion and not even allowing him to discuss it is to be open to the idea provided the evidence is sufficient? Looking forward to an answer in which you actually adress this question.

The quotes are taken from here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070930...html#conreport

This is getting fun. I provide a source that you don't like, so you present your own. When I show that your own source doesn't support your claims, you present another one. Look, man, I get enough exercise without chasing after your moving goalposts.

So here are the salient facts:

1. Galileo was never barred by the Church from exploring alternative hypothesis. On the contrary, and in Galileo's own words:
   
   "Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that Copernicus's opinion could be held suppositionally, as Copernicus himself had held it."
   
   Furthermore, he was given permission to publish a book on the subject and was told by an ally that the Pope welcomed scientific inquiry:
   
   "If you would resolve to commit to print those ideas that you still have in mind, I am quite certain that they would be most acceptable to His Holiness, who never ceases from admiring your eminence and preserves intact his attachment for you. You should not deprive the world of your productions."
   
   In private discussions, the Pope even presented his own arguments in favor of heliocentrism, but Galileo, in what I can only assume was a fit of egotistical jealously, incautiously put those arguments in the mouth of a character who was the fool of the story:
   
   "Galileo cleverly circumvented papal censorship, and put Urban’s main argument for the Copernican system (!) into the mouth of the fool ‘Simplicio,’ who, in the Dialogo of three scientists, always asks the silly questions and defends the Ptolemaic view of the world."
   
   But the main point is this: the Church never ordered Galileo to abandon his scientific pursuits.
   
   
2. Galileo failed to prove his hypothesis to the satisfaction of the scientific standards of the day. In fact, he was unable to answer the strongest argument against heliocentrism:
   
   "If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were."
   
   Some of Galileo's ludicrous attempts to prove his case certainly didn't help:
   
   "Virtually all researchers agree that Galileo had no physical proof for his theory. Some parts of Galileo’s theory could [not even] be proven at all because they were wrong and already outdated by Kepler’s research. [...] As Galileo came more and more under pressure, he finally invented a ‘secret weapon’, the totally erroneous theory that the tides were caused by the turning of the earth per se. This easily disprovable theory was said to be the absolute secure proof of the Copernican system!"
   
   What was the Church supposed to do? Abandon best scientific practice and accept a hypothesis for which no definitive proof existed?
   
   
3. Finally, note the wording of the decision against Galileo:
   
   "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion...
   
   "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
   
   "The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."
   
   Galileo's errors were two-fold: First, he failed to prove his case "philosophically", meaning he failed to present a compelling scientific argument in favor of the heliocentric hypothesis, yet despite this, he dogmatically insisted that it was true, which ran him afoul on the second point: that this hypothesis, having failed the scientific test, was therefore seen as contrary to scripture. Notice the implication: Galileo would have never been charged with heresy if he had held the hypothesis suppositionally, which is what he was originally ordered to do, or if he had presented compelling scientific proofs.

In summary, the trial of Galileo is not an example of science versus religion. On the contrary, it's an example of a religious body rigorously upholding the best scientific practices of the day. Yes, there were politics and personal power-plays involved, but from a scientific standpoint, the Church was right to take the position they did.

[Mountain Man]

Pope John Paul II who did not try to cover up the mistakes made in this regard had another opinion. In 1992 he said:

thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the center of the world, as it as then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture

http://faculty.fiu.edu/~hauptli/Intr....html#_ftnref8

Note the expression: "The error of the theologians of the time". Of course it was religion, the pope admitted that.

This one's easy: The pope is wrong.

[EvoUK]

The point is that science relies on verifiable facts, not a consensus. If the facts are there you will have a consensus, but that doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject. If more facts come along then scientists should look at them and change their "consensus" to fit the facts. Tassman was making the argument that we should not question the consensus, that because it is the consensus we should just go along with it. If scientists did that, we would never learn new things. We would still believe the sun revolved around the earth, that there are no plate tectonics, that powered flight is impossible. That disease is caused by unbalanced humors.

Ok, you whilst you agree that the current consensus is on climate change (in that the verifiable facts are there, forming a consensus in the relevant members of the scientific community), you also think that if new evidence came up to dispute those verifiable facts, that the consensus would have to change. Cool- agreed.

Perhaps I misread Tass when I didn't see him state that the consensus is unassailable by definition. It certainly hasn't been shown to be incorrect, explaining why it still exists, but it could theoretically happen.

[Charles]

This is getting fun. I provide a source that you don't like, so you present your own. When I show that your own source doesn't support your claims, you present another one. Look, man, I get enough exercise without chasing after your moving goalposts.

So here are the salient facts:

1. Galileo was never barred by the Church from exploring alternative hypothesis. On the contrary, and in Galileo's own words:
   
   "Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that Copernicus's opinion could be held suppositionally, as Copernicus himself had held it."
   
   Furthermore, he was given permission to publish a book on the subject and was told by an ally that the Pope welcomed scientific inquiry:
   
   "If you would resolve to commit to print those ideas that you still have in mind, I am quite certain that they would be most acceptable to His Holiness, who never ceases from admiring your eminence and preserves intact his attachment for you. You should not deprive the world of your productions."
   
   In private discussions, the Pope even presented his own arguments in favor of heliocentrism, but Galileo, in what I can only assume was a fit of egotistical jealously, incautiously put those arguments in the mouth of a character who was the fool of the story:
   
   "Galileo cleverly circumvented papal censorship, and put Urban’s main argument for the Copernican system (!) into the mouth of the fool ‘Simplicio,’ who, in the Dialogo of three scientists, always asks the silly questions and defends the Ptolemaic view of the world."
   
   But the main point is this: the Church never ordered Galileo to abandon his scientific pursuits.
   
   
2. Galileo failed to prove his hypothesis to the satisfaction of the scientific standards of the day. In fact, he was unable to answer the strongest argument against heliocentrism:
   
   "If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were."
   
   Some of Galileo's ludicrous attempts to prove his case certainly didn't help:
   
   "Virtually all researchers agree that Galileo had no physical proof for his theory. Some parts of Galileo’s theory could [not even] be proven at all because they were wrong and already outdated by Kepler’s research. [...] As Galileo came more and more under pressure, he finally invented a ‘secret weapon’, the totally erroneous theory that the tides were caused by the turning of the earth per se. This easily disprovable theory was said to be the absolute secure proof of the Copernican system!"
   
   What was the Church supposed to do? Abandon best scientific practice and accept a hypothesis for which no definitive proof existed?
   
   
3. Finally, note the wording of the decision against Galileo:
   
   "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion...
   
   "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
   
   "The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."
   
   Galileo's errors were two-fold: First, he failed to prove his case "philosophically", meaning he failed to present a compelling scientific argument in favor of the heliocentric hypothesis, yet despite this, he dogmatically insisted that it was true, which ran him afoul on the second point: that this hypothesis, having failed the scientific test, was therefore seen as contrary to scripture. Notice the implication: Galileo would have never been charged with heresy if he had held the hypothesis suppositionally, which is what he was originally ordered to do, or if he had presented compelling scientific proofs.

In summary, the trial of Galileo is not an example of science versus religion. On the contrary, it's an example of a religious body rigorously upholding the best scientific practices of the day. Yes, there were politics and personal power-plays involved, but from a scientific standpoint, the Church was right to take the position they did.

This is rather easy. You even quoted it yourself. "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture." Why is it so hard for you to see that this clearly shows what I have been saying all along that religion of course played a role. It is mentioned as one of the reasons.

It seems very important to you that he was allowed to write about the subject. All the restraints to what he could conclude and that the conclusion was given beforehand does not seem to bother you. Christianity Today has a rather interesting presentation of the "freedom" he enjoyed:

But Galileo the scientific combatant never gave up. When a friend was elected pope in 1623, Galileo went to see him, but Urban VIII would not lift the injunction for fear of undermining church authority. Galileo did obtain permission to write about "the systems of the world," both Ptolemaic and Copernican, as long as he discussed them noncommittally and came to the conclusion dictated to him in advance by the pontiff—that is, that man cannot presume to know how the world is really made because God could have brought about the same effects in ways unimagined by him, and he must not restrict God's omnipotence.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/his...o-galilei.html

If that is science to you then perhaps your conclusion makes sense. But then you have misunderstood what science is. Science does not work with dictated conclusions given beforehand. You can call it "best scientific practices of the day" but it is actually not science at all. It is a contradiction of science.

You never showed my source does not support my claims. You are yet to adress the points from that source so the goal points are actually still the same if you feel you have got an answer at some point. Because you are still ignoring that the heliocentric world view was deemed heretical in 1616. And you never gave an answer as to why there is a need to point to the fact that his ideas contradicted the words of Scripture if the only important point was that there was not sufficient proof. Why would they mess things up if it was not about religion in any way? And that has been my point all along that since they point to Scripture as part of the reason then of course religion is part of the reason. Rather simple.

[Mountain Man]

This is rather easy. You even quoted it yourself. "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture." Why is it so hard for you to see that this clearly shows what I have been saying all along that religion of course played a role. It is mentioned as one of the reasons.

Yes, I did quote it myself. Then I said:

Galileo's errors were two-fold: First, he failed to prove his case "philosophically", meaning he failed to present a compelling scientific argument in favor of the heliocentric hypothesis, yet despite this, he dogmatically insisted that it was true, which ran him afoul on the second point: that this hypothesis, having failed the scientific test, was therefore seen as contrary to scripture. Notice the implication: Galileo would have never been charged with heresy if he had held the hypothesis suppositionally, which is what he was originally ordered to do, or if he had presented compelling scientific proofs.

The fact is, Galileo did not prove his case in accordance with the best scientific practices of the day, so the Church was right to reject his hypothesis, but they still allowed and even encouraged the matter to be studied and debated. Isn't this what the whole scientific process is about? Debating and testing ideas?

Give it up, Chuckles, you lost this one. I'm done talking about it.

[Charles]

Yes, I did quote it myself. Then I said:

Galileo's errors were two-fold: First, he failed to prove his case "philosophically", meaning he failed to present a compelling scientific argument in favor of the heliocentric hypothesis, yet despite this, he dogmatically insisted that it was true, which ran him afoul on the second point: that this hypothesis, having failed the scientific test, was therefore seen as contrary to scripture. Notice the implication: Galileo would have never been charged with heresy if he had held the hypothesis suppositionally, which is what he was originally ordered to do, or if he had presented compelling scientific proofs.

The fact is, Galileo did not prove his case in accordance with the best scientific practices of the day, so the Church was right to reject his hypothesis, but they still allowed and even encouraged the matter to be studied and debated. Isn't this what the whole scientific process is about? Debating and testing ideas?

Give it up, Chuckles, you lost this one. I'm done talking about it.

And of course you did note that the text says it was heretical because it was contrary to scripture. You want to make it seem heretical because there was a lack of evidence. So, heliocentrism is only against scripture if there is not enough evidence? Why then was the idea in and of itself declared absurd and contrary to scripture in 1616? Is that encouraging debate and investigation? It was deemmed heretical in and of itself and you want to present the church as an institution that encouraged debate and testing of ideas. And why was Galileo forced to work under restrictions that would make it harder to find evidence? Why did the conclusion have to be given beforehand?

[Tassman]

Yes, I did quote it myself. Then I said:

Galileo's errors were two-fold: First, he failed to prove his case "philosophically", meaning he failed to present a compelling scientific argument in favor of the heliocentric hypothesis, yet despite this, he dogmatically insisted that it was true, which ran him afoul on the second point: that this hypothesis, having failed the scientific test, was therefore seen as contrary to scripture. Notice the implication: Galileo would have never been charged with heresy if he had held the hypothesis suppositionally, which is what he was originally ordered to do, or if he had presented compelling scientific proofs.

The fact is, Galileo did not prove his case in accordance with the best scientific practices of the day, so the Church was right to reject his hypothesis, but they still allowed and even encouraged the matter to be studied and debated. Isn't this what the whole scientific process is about? Debating and testing ideas?

Give it up, Chuckles, you lost this one. I'm done talking about it.

The Church doesn't think it was right: "With a formal statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Saturday, Vatican officials said the Pope will formally close a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in 1633. The condemnation, which forced the astronomer and physicist to recant his discoveries, led to Galileo's house arrest for eight years before his death in 1642 at the age of 77." "We today know that Galileo was right in adopting the Copernican astronomical theory," Paul Cardinal Poupard, the head of the current investigation, said".

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/wo...s.html?mcubz=3

[rogue06]

The Church doesn't think it was right: "With a formal statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Saturday, Vatican officials said the Pope will formally close a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in 1633. The condemnation, which forced the astronomer and physicist to recant his discoveries, led to Galileo's house arrest for eight years before his death in 1642 at the age of 77." "We today know that Galileo was right in adopting the Copernican astronomical theory," Paul Cardinal Poupard, the head of the current investigation, said".

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/wo...s.html?mcubz=3

He was right about heliocentrism but the evidence he presented was erroneous.