Does Galileo owe the Pope an apology?

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for this lead in...because whatever the churchs reasons to argue were, from a scientific viewpoint, heliocentrism is a theory.
In heliocentrism, it is a fact that the earth revolves around the sun. But in an expanding universe, that fact is only some kind of "greater absolute truth" if you are standing on the sun. So, isnt our view today of heliocentrism both fact and theory?

I really think you got the concepts confused somehow.

Galileo was not a prophet, nor did he present himself as such. He was a scientist. He neither tried nor had to present some sort of, as you put it, "greater absolute truth".

He was just a scientist presenting his finds and explaining the conclusions coming from it.

In science, nothing has greater credibility than theories. Science is not a source of dogmatic truth.

And that Galileo's model was not ultimate and turned out to be superceded by later ones has no bearing whatsoever on his situation with regards to the Pope and the Catholic Church.

So, no. Unless you have somehow convinced yourself that Galileo threatened the life and reputation of the Pope instead of the other way around, I truly don't see how one could seriously propose that Galileo owes the Church any apology whatsoever.

 

[Penumbra]

Galileo doesn't owe anyone an apology. He was the one that was persecuted, and he was the one that made advancements in our understanding of the world. The Catholic Church was on the negative side of that.

Modern physics have displaced people like Newton and Galileo in terms of accuracy, but they are among the people that led us to this point.

With the Big Bang, it is the case that spacetime itself is what expanded, so all points in space were at one time part of the singularity, and there is no center of the universe because it's all the center.

But center implies importance. Some things do hold a more central position relative to other things.

For example, the much smaller earth orbits around the much larger sun. The sun orbits around the immensely large galaxy:

And the galaxy is but one of countless galaxies, organized into clusters and superclusters. The Earth is a speck of dust in the cosmos, orbiting around much bigger things that orbit around much bigger things still. There is nothing unique or special about our location. Many people used to hold a different view, that Earth holds some privileged, "central", unique, position in the universe, literally and in terms of importance.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I think the Church owes us all an apology and should tell the truth about the whole thing. Pope Urban had no real objections to Galileo's science, he just didn't want Galileo's truths to go public because the Church felt it challenged the political and ecclesiastical authority of the Church. The condemnation of Galileo was a political move.

 

[chlotilde]

Thank you some for the gentle reminder to never be facetious in an online forum,even if one points that out. It is not like i think Galileo needs an apology. I was using him as the example of mixing science and religion and why to do so is a futile argument.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you some for the gentle reminder to never be facetious in an online forum,even if one points that out. It is not like i think Galileo needs an apology. I was using him as the example of mixing science and religion and why to do so is a futile argument.

FYI, I saw your humor.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Thank you some for the gentle reminder to never be facetious in an online forum,even if one points that out. It is not like i think Galileo needs an apology. I was using him as the example of mixing science and religion and why to do so is a futile argument.

Just make sure you always use the sarcasm and humor fonts when appropriate.
Darn sexy quote in the OP, btw,
Awkward approves!

 

[fantome profane]

Thank you some for the gentle reminder to never be facetious in an online forum,even if one points that out. It is not like i think Galileo needs an apology. I was using him as the example of mixing science and religion and why to do so is a futile argument.

I was attempting to meet facetiousness with facetiousness.

 

[chlotilde]

Im not sure what analogy i made?

I'm retracting this comment...i obviously made an analogy. When i first read your comment i didn't get what you were trying to say there...slow on the draw sometimes.
But since i dont think the Church did right in that Galileo affair I don't think the difference in concepts matter.

 

[chlotilde]

FYI, I saw your humor.

FYI, I like your humor.

 

[chlotilde]

I was attempting to meet facetiousness with facetiousness.

Hyperbole can come across without emoticons.

 

[Desert Snake]

obviously I am being a bit facetious here

I stopped paying attention right there.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hyperbole can come across without emoticons.

Ever heard about Poe's law?

 

[Vouthon]

I think the Church owes us all an apology and should tell the truth about the whole thing. Pope Urban had no real objections to Galileo's science, he just didn't want Galileo's truths to go public because the Church felt it challenged the political and ecclesiastical authority of the Church. The condemnation of Galileo was a political move.

Indeed, for a Cardinal had said suggested something similar in the fifteenth century...

"...Therefore, just as the earth is not the center of the world, so the sphere of fixed stars is not its circumference – although when we compare the earth with the sky, the former seems to be nearer to the center, and the latter nearer to the circumference. Therefore, the earth is not the center either of the eighth sphere or of any other sphere..."

- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 –1464)

But because he was a cardinal - indeed the highest ranking church official after the pope - he was ok

 

[roger1440]

Nearly all of it, really.

Mainly, what do you mean by "presenting it as fact instead of theory"?

And where do you get the idea that Galileo could not explain an appearance of stability among the stars? Or that he needed to in the first place?

When any new idea is presented as fact evidence must be shown to prove the new idea, otherwise the new idea is merely a theory. Take evolution as an example. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. There is and probably never will be a means to prove evolution. Unless a researcher observes first hand a species change over many generations, how can evolution be proven? I don’t remember off the top of my head where I learned about the Galileo fiasco. I’m deliberately using the word fiasco because of its Italian origin. Over the years I have seen a few documentaries on the topic. Galileo also wrote mockingly about the Pope when the Vatican refused to accept heliocentrism.

[FONT=&quot]“Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​

Stellar parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Awkward Fingers]

How many times in one forum does "Scientific Theory" have to be explained?

 

[LuisDantas]

When any new idea is presented as fact evidence must be shown to prove the new idea, otherwise the new idea is merely a theory.

In common parlance these days, that may be. In science those words have specific meanings that make the statement as worded meaningless.

Take evolution as an example. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Sorry, but that is a lie out of ignorance. Evolution is as much a "fact" as one could possibly ask out of science, because it is a theory with ample evidence.

You really can't ask anything more out of science, except perhaps God manifesting out of the heavens saying that IT IS SO.

But really, that would not be science. It would be a miracle supporting science

There is and probably never will be a means to prove evolution.

Lie.

Unless a researcher observes first hand a species change over many generations, how can evolution be proven?

And that has happened, time and again. There are other ways of evidencing (not "proving") it, however.

I don’t remember off the top of my head where I learned about the Galileo fiasco. I’m deliberately using the word fiasco because of its Italian origin. Over the years I have seen a few documentaries on the topic. Galileo also wrote mockingly about the Pope when the Vatican refused to accept heliocentrism.

[FONT=&quot]“Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​

Stellar parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even taking for granted that he did, it seems to me that being threatened with death excuses a whole lot of bad etiquette from the victim...

 

[roger1440]

Sorry, but that is a lie out of ignorance. Evolution is as much a "fact" as one could possibly ask out of science, because it is a theory with ample evidence.

What evidence?

 

[LuisDantas]

What evidence?

Take a look at talk.origins or our own Evolutionism / Creationism area.

 

[Ouroboros]

What evidence?

Genetic (ERV, transposons, etc), fossil (intermediate samples), radiation of species in accordance with geological formation, ...

A scientific theory (as used in the scientific community) means that it's a model based on observed facts. Evolution is a model (theory) based on observed facts. The model explains the facts. The fact is that species evolve. The theory of evolution explains how and why.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

At least they admit now it's round.

Not all of them.

The Flat Earth Society