Galileo's Daughter 149
| "Galileo's Daughter" | |
| author | Dana Sobel |
| pages | 419 |
| publisher | Walker |
| rating | 9/10 |
| reviewer | Jon Katz |
| ISBN | 0-8027-1343-2 |
| summary | Brilliant and powerful account of one of the first geeks |
Albert Einstein considered Galileo Galilei to be "the father of modern physics - indeed of modern science altogether."
In a sense, the obsessive, rebellious and gadget-minded Galileo (1564-1642) was one of the first Geeks, and in the context in which he lived and worked, one of the bravest.
He was brilliant, humble and funny, qualities rarely seen in contemporary geeks and nerds, or anybody much. He was profoundly grateful to be able to use science to seek out the truth. In 1609, he set up a telescope in the garden behind his house, pointed it skyward, and saw never-before-seen stars and constellations.
"I render infinite thanks to God for being so kind as to make me alone the first observer of marvels kept hidden in obscurity for all previous centuries. "
It was gracious of Galileo to offer thanks, since he himself received precious few acknowledgements in his lifetime. He sent his out-of-wedlock daughter off to a convent when she was 12 and never saw her again, then ran afoul of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition for his heretic notion that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.
Yet, while he never set foot outside his native Italy, his discoveries rocked the world. His most remarkable invention, the telescope, enabled him to alter the conventional reality of the civilized world and to reinforce the then - stunning argument that the Earth moves around the sun. In a sense, he hacked the universe, attacking and solving the biggest problem in both science and theology. For this, he was hauled before the Holy Office of the Inquisition, accused of heresy, and forced to spend the final years of his life under house arrest.
Of his three illegitimate children, the oldest, (born Virginia in 1600, but re-named Suor Maria Celeste after she took vows of poverty and retreated permanently from the world, since illegitimate daughters were considered unfit for marriage) shared Galileo's brilliance and love of science.
She became his most determined supporter and prolific-letter-writing confidante, though he never saw her again. Her letters and life (his to her at the convent were destroyed once he was targeted by the Inquisition).
Dava Sobel's "Galileo's Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith and Love," by (Walker, US $27) expands the story of Galileo, his amazing accomplishments, adding his heart-breaking relationship with his daughter. It's a stunning book, beautiful and powerful, and it brings us back to the Florence of the Medicis and the papal court during an era when humanity's very perceptions of its place in the universe was being upended by one brave man.
In our time, Galileo would probably have ended up a zillionnaire, profiled on "Dateline" and shifting his stock-option wealth from one fund to another. In his own, he was tried and found guilty of heresy, "ordered in the name of His Holiness the Pope and whole body of the Holy Office to the effect that the said opinion that the Sun is the center of universe and the Earth moves must be entirely abandoned, nor might he from then on in any way hold, teach, or defend it by world or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would proceed against him," which would have meant torture and death.
As the foreword to the book itself explains, this isn't a mawkish contemporary family story.
"Theirs is not a tale of abuse or rejection or intentional stifling of abilities. Rather, it is a love story, a tragedy and a mystery."
People who love science, technology and exploration will be knocked out by this volume, with its wealth of illustrations and gorgeous design. So will people who simply love a great and brilliantly-rendered story.
Pick this book up at Amazon.
Longitude (Score:1)
Ye gods and little fishes! (Score:1)
Must Katz relate everything and everyone in the universe to Geekdom? ARRGGGHHH!!!
Mr. Katz, please listen carefully: not everything you write must have something to do with geeks. Not even the stuff you write for
Re:Dr Katz is a moron (rant, not flame) (Score:1)
Dr. Katz: Funny psychatrist with a show on Comedy Central, known as a sort of comicbook Woody Allen.
Jon Katz: The aforementionned moron.
Malicious moderation (Score:1)
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
Amen!
For the Catholic (both from the Vatican and from others) view on science and religion, see http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~newma n/sci-faith.html [caltech.edu]. Contrary to popular belief, the Church is not full of Luddites.
--
Galileo was a showman. (Score:1)
Humble is an inappropriate description. Galileo was a courtier and a favorite of the Medici family. He named the moons of Jupiter that he found for them.
Check out a good website on Galileo.
The Galileo Project [rice.edu]
Re:Screwtape letters, etc. (Score:1)
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
Religion without Jesus is like beer without alcohol: it may taste good, but in the end you don't get a buzz.
Interesting analogy. At the risk of extrapolating it too far, look at the converse effects of drinking 100% pure alcohol:
God's love (Score:1)
It is a rather strange form of love though, maybe best described as "tough love". Sometimes, it's not so desirable to be loved by Him. For example when He decides to express His incredible love by letting you die with thirst while lying under the remains of your earthquake-destroyed house with broken bones.
--
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
Re:So much for moderation (Score:1)
I must say I am shocked and appalled at the lack of coverage surrounding the shootings of 7 children, praying in church. Take a look. Compare it to the coverage given to (for example) Columbine. A crazy man comes into a church, shoots seven children dead and wounds more including an associate pastor, then kills himself, and it didn't even make front page on the newspaper here. No Bill Clinton crying out against the dangers of guns (or even the dangers of anti-christian rhetoric), no senate bills passed, nothing.
If that had happened in a non-christian setting, it would have been widely decried. As it is, the attitude seems to be that "It's dangerous to be a wacko".
I think my example was in point -- and responded to what he
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
I must admit that Christianity in the US is coming out of a dark age right now. The previous generation seemed to have lost all touch with God and the light nearly died. But that doesn't invalidate it. Read the Bible (start with the Gospel according to John if I may suggest) and judge for yourself.
Maybe the majority in any religion will be at least less than ideal for the same reason that most computer programmers are simply time-clock punchers with little understanding of their jobs -- the majority in any area of human endeavour tends to be incompetent.
Of course, in christianity we have to love them anyway, but that's another article.
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
What then should we consider the Inquisition to be? I'd say it qualifies as evil, and certainly was created and sanctioned by the Pope.
Ultimately, I'm not disposed to defend catholicism because I don't think that organized religion as such is good.
I do, however, have to say that arguments based on the "evils" of the Inquisition are typically over-wrought. While I think that the idea of the inquisition (and the ideal of "Christendom/the City of God" behind it) are
Blaming the Pope is just not fair. Moreso, it doesn't really answer the posters point. His point was that, while individual popes might be corrupt, the church as a whole was not. Inquisition was an
I think a lot of the problem is that the stories are radically overblown and that most people today don't seems to be able to garner information other than by soundbites and inuendo. Research has become optional.
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
Neither does Jesus-Free religion.
Maybe I could deal with it if I were drunk enough to not taste the difference?
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
Don't post hoping that your post will get moderated up or down. Post if you have something to say, and skip the post if you think it's not really all that important.
It's about judgement - and the best you can do with anybody in such an anonymous forum as
MDA
http://opop.nols.com/
Re:So much for moderation (Score:1)
That's not what he was saying and you know it. Christians ARE often seen as loonies, but most educated people know better than to take the entire lot as similar to the wackos who are on the outside screaming. I don't think this guy was just trying to troll.
I lived in Germany for a year, and they all asked me if I brought guns with me to school or not, if I smoked crack, and so on. That's all they see in the newspaper. The newspaper reports on the out of the ordinary, but when that's all you see, you come to think of it as the ordinary. I think the same is true of christians. You don't see christians praying in church on the news, because that's ordinary. But you do see them shooting abortion providers and so on. When the out-of-the-ordinary becomes the ordinary, people get things confused.
Science, Religion, and giving up ground (Score:1)
Galileo was persecuted, eventually the church came around and said "oops" - first accepting that there might be some shred of truth to what he had to say, then admitting that maybe he was on to something, and finally agreeing that yes, it was the case that the earth revolves around the sun.
I have heard that Leonardo DiVinci drew considerable heat for his dissection of cadavers, which yielded many insights into anatomy. Surely nobody can dispute the importance of knowledge of anatomy.
Darwin stood up and told the world what he thought, and Creationists didn't believe it, (He was lucky he lived when he did - if he had lived at the time or before galileo I don't think the church would have been as kind to him as they were to galileo) but gradually, the idea of evolution and the underlying sense that it makes has wormed its way into our heads.
Although I'm not sure of exactly when, I've been told that the vatican has recently acknowledged evolution for the first time. (That's 2nd hand though, I'm not sure if that's accurate)
As the church through the centuries is constantly finding itself backing itself into a corner, admitting that more and more of science might have some measure of truth to it, you have to wonder when it will stop or IF it will stop. Not intending to draw flame, but rather as a statement of opinion, I see the church as peddling mythology and comfortable fibs, while science peddles nothing - it offers only the truth or a reasonable method of getting the truth.
I think that the story of Galileo is central to the state of daily consciousness not because of the specific facts that it represented (earth, sun, which revolves around which), but because of the scientific-driven secularism that it seems to have started.
MDA
http://opop.nols.com/
geeks (Score:1)
there seems to be a huge backlash at the moment where people who felt isolated from society are creating their own society (with the label 'geek') and are trying to grab past achievments and poeple as their own, just in order to prove their society has existed for an appreciable amount of time.
people who are trying to enter this society are constantly attempting to prove tghemselves by grabbing more and more achievments and labelling them under that magical term 'geek'. this seems equivelent to one of the rites of passage in some primitive societies where the young man has to hunt his first wild animal before he is accepted into the tribe.
i dont know, it just seems kind of bizarre the way that parts of geek society seem to be unevolving into a quest for power and acceptance in the same ways as the societies it has superceeded.
just my 2p
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
This brings up the interesting question of, does the Church (and by this I assume we're speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, which was the organization that persecuted Galileo) truly make up or represent the majority of Christians? Does the Church truly "dominate" public and cultural life?
And if it does include the majority, do the "members" of the RCC actually agree with the "official" beliefs of the Church? (This actually applies to me in particular, being a Christian who is technically a Roman Catholic, yet disagrees with many of the silly proclamations coming out of the Vatican. Which is why I typically refer to myself as Christian rather than Catholic.) It is quite possible that the majority of Christians do not believe the "official" Church dogma. For example, there was a study involving Roman Catholics a while back, and they found that 50% of them were pro-choice, while the other half were anti-abortion. Yet the Church's position has been unequivocally anti-abortion. Makes you wonder in what other areas the membership disagrees with the organized religion's leadership.
Something to keep in mind about organized religion, at least in the RCC, is that the leadership does NOT necessarily represent the 'masses'. It's not a democracy, the membership does not elect the leadership. I can't go to church and vote for who the next pope should be. And often the membership ignores the leadership. So while the Pope and company may say one thing, don't assume that it is representative of the beliefs of the majority of Christians.
Besides, if you look at the history of organized Chrisitanity, it usually has nothing or little to do with the teachings of Jesus. The Crusades were a prime example of this. True Christians, those who actually try to follow the path Jesus set, would not do such a thing, IMHO (and yes, I see a certain irony in stating what things "true Christians" would do, but my point is that Christianity != Church)
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
BTW, I'm a Christian, so don't think I'm dissing Jesus or strong beliefs here
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
What then should we consider the Inquisition to be? I'd say it qualifies as evil, and certainly was created and sanctioned by the Pope.
And corruption has long existed within the Church, (particularly in the times leading up to the Protestant Reformation). Granted, I suspect that it is less today (due to reform efforts as well as the loss of secular power of the Church), but I'd say it's a stretch to claim that evil has *no* power in the Church.
but religion without structure is like a night out drinking without structure. Beer after liquor never sicker, liquor after beer your in the clear!
Structured religion does not necessarily mean religion organized in the context of the Church. Christianity has structure, but one need not be a member of the Church to be a Christian. The Church is an organization built on top of the religion, it is not the religion itself. If the Church disappeared tomorrow, Christianity would still exist.
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
Agreed.
Blaming the Pope is just not fair
Well, putting the entire blame on the Pope would certainly be unfair. As you mentioned, many of the worst abuses were not due directly to the Pope's actions but were committed by lesser officials. However, the environment created by the Pope's position contributed to the abuse, and in that sense I think there is a certain amount of blame that should be laid at his feet.
His point was that, while individual popes might be corrupt, the church as a whole was not.
I may have misinterpreted his post, thank you for the clarification. However, if we use your interpretation, then I would ask this: at what point do we consider the "church as a whole" to be corrupt? If that would require every clergyman to be corrupt, well then I doubt we could ever consider the Church as a whole to be corrupt. But what if 60% were corrupt at some point? Is the institution considered corrupt, or not?
I tend to view corruption as a disease. The Church has been infected by it at various points in history to various degrees. Has it ever succumbed totally? No. But it has been sick, and that was simply what I wished to point out, as it seemed to me that he had been saying that the church had remained uncontaminated throughout history.
Well, I need to get to class, so I'll wrap this up. Hopefully I clarified my position.
--Stradivarius
So, what was he absolved for? (Score:1)
Re:Science and Christianity (Score:1)
Let us not forget the other great accomplishments of Christian missionaries such as the complete destruction of Incan and Aztec culture. How about the Scopes monkey trial? Do you not call that a conflict between religion and science?
To call Christianity the birthplace of science is revisionism of the highest degree. The Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian, etc philosophers conducted science just fine before Christ came around, thank you very much.
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
People do stupid stuff. People who are scared do really stupid stuff.
pan
Re:Popular misunderstandings and revisionist histo (Score:1)
Actualy, I think religion is just a repetitive act of worhiping. (Think regular.. they both come from the same latin root, regularus) So often, "religion" has become known as a brand of faith. Personally, I think that religion is an action. The technique is largly dictated by social whims.
>>It would be interesting to know how many of the great events in history truly happened the way we were taught in textbooks.
Well, we can't even agree as to who "invented" the computer.. so that should tell you something. I will agree that they did do some editing. But you should look up information about the Septuagent.
>>The same goes for the bible, which was made by the Catholic church. They "edited" the dead sea scrolls and the old testament to fit the power structure they were seeking to make.
Dead sea scrolls were found in the 20th century. (1950's??) The dead sea scrolls contain very little of the current text of the bible. We would consider them Gnostics by todays standards.
>>Honestly, a reilgion which caused over a thousand years of dark ages has no right to get indignant about anything.
And I suppose the fall of the Roman Empire had little to do with it? You know the last emperor of Roma was a chicken farmer? Really. Actually, the Arians (or germans today) were a big reason. Rome had expanded over 3 continents and the Germans would swoop down on their horses and sack rome. Roman accounts written by generals regarded the germans as "Fierce warriors" and the organized Legions had no chance against them.
I wouldn't get to damn hard on the Catholics for this. Alot of greek philosophy and mythology was saved and lovingly copied by priests during the dark ages. And to think they had the OBJECTTIVITY to copy them so lovingly - even though the greeks were not monotheistic!!
I my dealings with Catholics, I would find them to be the only religion that has a policy of accepting other religions as true - though somewhat lesser - beliefs. If anything, the social pressures and mistakes in policy of the past have forced them to be MUCH more objective and LESS fanatical than you might think. Having been a non-Catholic(and at times downright heretical!!) at a Catholic university suprised me.
Pan
Re:So much for moderation (Score:1)
Of course, I can't comment on the opinion of the moderator who knocked your post down a rung. It wasn't me.
But hey, if you really believe in freedom of expression, then smile. After all, all the moderators are doing is expressing themselves by rating your (and my, and whomever else's) posts. If you don't care what they think, the answer is as simple as setting your threshold to -1.
Re:Everywhere/nowhere is the center of the univers (Score:1)
'Tis true in a Hubblesque kind of way. Looking at the expansion, anywhere could be center. But there is nevertheless only one point in the universe that happens to be the center of mass.
And I have determined that it is my cat, Rumpleteaser.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
Re:So much for moderation (Score:1)
Re:Science, Religion, and giving up ground (Score:1)
Re:Galileo -- the "martyr" who wasn't (Score:1)
I was not writing to justify the house arrest of Galileo. I think that's something even the Roman Catholic Church would now agree was done wrongly.
The point is, the story of Galileo as persecuted by the Church for the "heresy" of heliocentrism should be thrown into the same category as that of Christopher Columbus "discovering" that the world was round not flat, or of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a kid. They are all fiction.
- Galileo was never found guilty of heresy; and in fact heliocentrism was never of itself declared heretical
- Every educated navagator of Columbus's day knew that the world was round -- the disagreement was over the circumference of the world (and therefore length of the westward voyage to the Indies). Columbus had the faulty figures, and would have died in the middle of the ocean if the Carribean hadn't been where he thought Japan was.
- And, the story of George and the cherry tree has a known author who isn't our first President.
So, what we have here is Katz repeating a "spun" version of the story, in order to play upon the supposed conflict of science and faith.As for Sagan, perhaps I'm reading too much into the end of Contact [amazon.com] (the book, not the movie). Still, we do have the phenomenon of scientists making moral pronouncements about The Meaning Of It All, borrowing from their authority in the sciences to appear as "experts" on questions that are really philosophical or religious. And Galileo was a prime and early example of this.
Fanciful history (Score:1)
Science and Christianity (Score:1)
Think for a moment. It is within Christianity that the university was born, that rigorous philosophical reasoning thrived, and where empirical science flourished. In every other culture, science was stillborn, never going far.
Christianity is where spirit and flesh meets, where God truly walked among men. Aquinas argued, then, that there can be no conflict between faith and reason. Embracing rather than shrinking from truth, Christendom became the birthplace and nursery of science.
Look at the context first (Score:1)
Sort of right but not quite (Score:1)
While Islam got hold of Aristotle before Christianity, it remains true that Christian civilization willingly embraced and developed that old philosophy. And it remains true that only in Christian civilization that the empirical science that secular society prizes thrived and flourished.
Re:Science and Christianity (Score:1)
Besides sweeping and vague generalizations, you also muddle up science with a lot of other stuff. What does the topic have to do with Incan and Aztec *culture*, for example? Why does ending the abhorrent practice of human sacrifice in some cultures be a conflict between religion and science? Another muddle is your mixing up of the wider field of philosophy and the empirical science of which Galileo is proclaimed the father. My point was that it was within allegedly science-hostile Christian civilization that modern science could make sustained progress, leaving everyone else in the dust. It was not my intention to bash other cultures -- I have 100% Chinese blood in me -- but to point out the debt that modern science owes to its birthplace.
Finally, I make no pretense at speaking for other churches. I spoke of my Catholic Church -- the 2000 year old institution in question -- and she was pretty much ignored through much of the evolution debate. A pity, since her more nuanced reflections on the topic might have added some substance to the debate. The fact still remains that, concerning the Catholic Church, few people can allege an outright conflict between faith and science beyond the Galileo controversy.
Yes it is ... no it is not ... yes ... no ... (Score:1)
One of the First Flamers... (Score:1)
Why I don't like God. (Score:1)
two weapons that he [God] cannot use". Why? Because he wants us to
freely serve him out of love for Him: not out of fear, and his
precense "in anything but the most attenuated form" would overwealm
us.
Excellent point. Too bad that he made this silly requirement to believe in him in order to not burn in Hell for whole eternity. I bet when some of us burn there we'll be like "hm I sometimes wish hes presense wasn't THAT attenuated back on Earth."
Some UnHoly (TM) quotes:
"All gods
"If God were suddenly condemned to live the life which he has inflicted upon men, He would kill himself." - Alexandre Dumas; "The only excuse for God is that he doesn't exist" - Stendhal; "Which is it: is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's?"; "I cannot believe in God that wants to be praised all the time." - Nietzsche; "The impotence of God is infinite" - Anatole France; "God will forgive me; that's his business." - Heine; "He seems to have an inordinate fondness for beetles." - Haldane
Galileo's daughter (Score:1)
It's a shame, really that the times didn't allow women to be scientists too. I'm just glad I wasn't born then.
AMEN (Score:1)
Re:Galileo -- the "martyr" who wasn't (Score:1)
First, I think that as a matter of principle, freedom of speech should allow one to profess whatever notions or beliefs that one cares to express. It is not the role of higher authorities and institutions to judge the validity of those beliefs, but rather the free marketplace of ideas. The Church's use of a house arrest, no matter how benign, is in fact an instance of state repression of personal expression, and is quite in conflict with the principle of freedom of speech. Of course, this is a modern notion, and we should acknowledge that the very concept of such freedom didn't exist in the 17th century. However, this does not justify the Catholic Church's actions in any fashion.
Second, I think that the key point of Sagan's books and videos is that they tried to instill the notion of rational skepticism in their respective audiences. In a world filled with pseudo-scientific garbage (astrology, Scientology, etc.) such voices are very desperately needed. The minds and hearts of future voters and taxpayers are at stake, and it is critical that we demonstrate the worth of rational thinking in evaluating ideas to them.
His most remarkable invention?? (Score:1)
Re:Galileo the millionaire?... or the pariah? (Score:1)
The Definition m-w.com employs (Score:1)
Here's the definition m-w.com (Merriam Webster) employs
It's equally vague
2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disapproved of
I think it's safe to say that Galileo fits this definition to a T.
Katz is a one of a few authors who really tries to take a look at geeks and the changing role they play in our increasingly tech-dominated society
Of course he writes everything with an eye towards how it relates to geeks, and I for one appreciate his insights and look forward to the debate on his interpretations
-StaticLimit
Somthing intresting.... (Score:1)
I seriously doubt that Galileo would be a billionare, as he would probably go into the nerd catigory.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
comming *out* of? (Score:1)
I'm sorry, "coming out of"? If anything there, at least the majority of people is entering a 'dark age' 40% of Americans don't believe in the theory of evolution 40 , Now, that's no insignificant number by any means. Now of course I don't have any information about 'fundamentalism' in the past in America, but it seems to me that fundamentalist Christians are becoming more powerful than ever.
I used to be a republican (well, a republican supporter, I wasn't old enough to vote), but when they came to power in 1994, it became apparent that they, to a large part were controlled by the Christian coalition. Again, I'm only 19 years old, and I don't really feel like looking into the 'historic' 1950s - 1980s, but I certainly wouldn't say that fundamentalist Christianity is in any way waning
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
mr moderator..... (Score:1)
you relise, that when you post this from you're acount, you undo all the moderation you've done, right?
Unless you're using another acount, you just gave this guy a point by posting
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
> not) is that God and the hierarchy of the
> Church often have very little to do with each
> other! The assumption today is often that
> travesties like Galileo's treatment invalidate
> Christianity. They don't. They only invalidate
> organized Christianity.
This is the same argument that my Muslim friends use when I bring up the subject of bomb-throwing fundamentalists and the lets-just-say 'less than liberal' tendencies of some/a few/many islamic regimes: "But this has nothing to do with Islam, it's a perversion of Islam."
Maybe so, but if that's what the majority or any movement degenerates to, then that (in my eyes) IS the movement. I understand that your individual believes may be very different from the 'official' ones, but when the official church has the 'mindshare' (to use a geek term) and dominates public and cultural life, your argument is a bit odd. Most organized religious movements seem to claim that they are the only ones who know God's will and that all who disagree are sinners who have strayed from the true path and will find themselves in hell. That argument alone is enough to turn me off religion. I consider myself a spiritual person but given the/most faiths/churches' history, I want nothing to do with organized religion.
Strange, I started this as an argument but my last sentence seems to imply that we have somewhat similar believes about spirituality/religion.
Re:Popular misunderstandings (Score:1)
Thank you, Mr. Wong, for writing this. As soon as I saw the Galileo issue appear on
Thanks for doing your part to the record straight. Myths and half-truths abound about this difficult and heated issue, and it is important that the facts be presented so that neither Galileo nor the Church is villified unjustly. You have presented a brief but (from what I have read about the issue) historically accurate and balanced view of the matter.
Haters of religion (or just of the Catholic religion) place the blame on the Church and its ignorance; haters of science place the blame on Galileo and his audacity; the right-minded man will weigh the actions of both within the historical context of the events, and he will come to the same conclusion that you have. Thanks again.
"Every major question in history is a religious question. It has more effect in molding life than nationalism or a common language."
-- Hilaire Belloc
Re:Popular misunderstandings (Score:1)
I'm not into bashing Catholics. I know they get their unfair share. I used to be Catholic myself. (Now I'm an Atheist.) I've read a lot of Apologetics (e.g. www.catholic.com) and this is just more of the same kind of stuff.
Science VS Hacking (Score:1)
Perhaps this review, along with its total bluring of the line between Science and hacking is a good place to discuss this.
Hacking is not science. Science is not hacking. The reason the 'scientific method' came into existence is to eliminate unfounded claims & hucksterism and separate the unfounded from the demonstrably provable.
I thought this review was crummy. It figuratively lowered one of history's great people into the moras of code hacks. He asked 'why', not "oh isn't this cool." A few more why's eligantly explained would make this a much better place.
Re:Popular misunderstandings (Score:1)
I think with the telescope he proved that Jupiter had its own moons, and thus that there were things that didn't directly orbit the Earth. It's enough to disprove a terracentric view.
Everywhere/nowhere is the center of the universe (Score:1)
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
Popular misunderstandings and revisionist history (Score:1)
Science and Religion should both be a discovery of the truth. Science studies the truth of our physical world while Religion seeks the Truth that includes and, yet, goes beyond that which science can discern. It would seem that the study of history should similarly seek to expose the true events of the past. In the same manner, the modern news media should present the facts of current events. Yet, history books, newspapers, and newscasts are often so steeped in opinion as to render the truth nearly invisible. Revisionist historians can paint any picture of the past they want to. We are forced to accept this based upon the credentials of the historian. Shouldn't the truth itself carry its own credentials? This is not to discredit all historians - we certainly benefit from our knowledge of the past. But, when the ego and opinions of the historian get in the way of the facts, when the "interpretation" of history is more important than all of the facts, we lose the truth. We might as well be reading a work of fiction rather than a history book!
It would be interesting to know how many of the great events in history truly happened the way we were taught in textbooks. How often have we received history and how often have we received propaganda?
Re:Catholic Church (Score:1)
You have forgotten one prime example, however. Mother Teresa. She surely made many people miserable.
Give me a break.
Re:Galileo -- the "martyr" who wasn't (Score:1)
Re:Popular misunderstandings and revisionist histo (Score:1)
If you sit in a classroom, does the teacher not DICTATE what he expects you to receive as the truth.
They "edited" the dead sea scrolls and the old testament to fit the power structure they were seeking to make.
When were the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered? I don't know the exact date, but I know it was fairly recently (as in sometime in the last 200 years). When was the Canonical list of the books of the Bible compiled? Third or Fourth century AD, if memory serves me correctly. Did they purposely exclude the Dead Sea Scrolls? Ummm, I rather doubt it as no one was aware of the scrolls at the time the Canon was compiled.
If you could cite examples of how the Old Testament was edited by the Church, I would be happy to hear about them.
Re:fire was discovered not invented (Score:1)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Re:The Definition m-w.com employs (Score:1)
'Intellectual bent' has been adjusted to mean more, 'scientific or technical bent', and it is not so much a matter of disapproval, but rather of social ostracism.
So, in the spirit of the above definition, I'd say the modern definition of a geek would be,
Still, I'll keep the Merriam Webster definition in mind. Maybe it will help me make any sense at all of Katz' article.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Wile E. Coyote *is* the Uber-Geek! [OT] (Score:1)
Wile E. Coyote embodies the spirit of discovery and scientific research. He keeps trying to possess the Holy Grail, despite repeated failures. His goal is always out of sight, but it is the question that drives him.
Also, he has the correct approach to debugging. Instead of staying stuck on a particular programming problem, he tries again and again, from different angles. He constantly reinvents himself to get the code to execute properly.
Furthermore, his inventions are Open Source, because he never hesitates to show everyone the diagrams of his inventions so that everyone can reproduce them and better them.
Finally, Wile E Coyote's methods are flawless; he is only struck with impossible bad luck. How many of us have felt this, at the wee hours of the night, trying to nail down a bug in some complex code, always certain we will nail it this time... But relentlessly faling, again and again? Wile E. Coyote is a model for every geek out there, to persevere whatever the cost, whatever the level of success!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Galileo and Heresy (Score:1)
If I remember correctly for most of his life Galileo was kept by a rich sponser who guided him in 'politic' expressions of his theories. During this period his main trouble with the church was his claim that the moon when seen through a telesope had features on it, wheras the church insisted the heavenly bodies must be perfect. (The moon's visible features were put down to imperfections in the eye).
It was later on when he was without a more worldly advocate and wrote a cutting satirical dialogue protraying the Pope as an ass that the church started persuing him for Copernican notions. My impression of this was that the church was motivated more by revenge than dogma.
Ironically several of the top astronomers of the period, who went on to verify many of his results, were monks at the Jesuit university in Rome.
But it's a long time since I read any of this, so I may have misremembered.
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
My oh my. We sure are full of ourselves today aren't we. To use one of your words from a previous post, there certainly is a lot of hubris flying around here today, among other things.
Now I don't know if everyone around here is as "competent" as you,
but I don't know if I would be so presumptuous as to label the majority of mankind as incompetent.
To speak for the record, I'm one of those moderators whom you find amusing and give you fodder for your sociological musings. Yes, I moderated your initial comnment down as overrated. You appear to be one of the many
I agree with person who advised you to not concern yourself with moderation. If you have something to say, say it and move on. Does it really matter what I or anyone else has to say about your comment? I have a feeling, though, that you're one of those people who posts to gauge what everyone thinks about your illuminating comments. Believe me, your comments aren't that thought-provoking.
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
I think
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
If you would be so kind as to modify "Religion" with "Christian" (ie Christian Religion) I'll accept this. I find the implication that Christianity is the only valid religion highly offensive.
Otherwise, your points are well taken. All Christian denominations have strayed from the original simple (though not simplistic) teachings of Jesus to greater or lesser degrees, inserting their own cultural biases and political contentions. Being treated rudely by an organized religion can sometimes serve to strengthen one's own faith in the higher power that religion is supposed to honor.
Virginia (Score:1)
Galileo not inventor (Score:1)
But aside from that this books sounds quite intriguing. But that reminds me - I'm supposed to be at Science and Society class in a few minutes...we've been discussing Galileo for the last week...
fire was discovered not invented (Score:1)
Fire occurs naturally, so it can be discovered but not invented. Much like genes and algorythms.
Re:fire was discovered not invented (Score:1)
Fair enough
>Although I think algorithms are invented, not discovered.
Really? A dumb mechanistic genetic algorithm program can find them.
>I should say, the first caveman who invented a method for producing fire.
I suspect that they started of by by *using* fire, taken from brush-fires and lightnigh strikes, and keeping it alive for long periods of time. Though the later inventions of fire drils & flint spark-makers do count.
Re:So much for moderation (Score:1)
> anything but Christian.
That about sums it up. Every night on the news, you see some murderous fanatic claiming he did it because it was the 'christian' thing to do, or some self-proclaimed paragon of christianity preaching against the Constitution, athiests, television, . The actions of these high profile screwballs stick everyone else with a label. If you don't like the label, get rid of the screwballs.
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:1)
I must say as someone with a degree in Physics and an admiration of Galileo as well as being a Christian I find this comment refreshing. However I do disagree with the last few comments.
What Galileo knew (and many today apparently do not) is that God and the hierarchy of the Church often have very little to do with each other!
Galileo believed in God, definitely, and he understood that shortcomings of those in power in the Church. However as this author has stated this did not invalidate Christianity nor did it invalidate Organized religion or the Roman Catholic Church.
Galileo was not a timid man. Several times in his life he went against the will of those who were in power. Why did he stop at the end of his life? Was he afraid, I doubt it. He probably finally decided to submit unto the will of those above him.
Galileo, probably understood those words of Jesus better than those around him and as well or better than many today. When Christ said "You are Petros (Latin male: Peter, stone - a name only used for religious purposes) and upon this petra (Latin female: Rock) I will build my church" and that Christ gave Peter the keys to heaven and the authority that "... what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven."
Galileo understood that this setup an organizational structure to religion. It put Peter as the head of the Apostles and later what became informally know as pope(translated: papa). And he knew that "The gates of hell shall never prevail against her( the Church )". This has always meant that evil will have power inside the Church and her beliefs. And no Pope has ever been able to sway to evil the beliefs of the Church. However this says nothing about the outside world. (Those who believe that that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" actually appears in the U.S. constitution should just quit reading now.) Faith has it's place in everyday life including science. Infact one can not truly appreciate the physical world without keeping that in mind. ( credit given to my College Physics Professor for that ) However the Church can not decree what is science, something many religious leader both Catholic and Protestant have forgotten. It is the duty of the scientists to discover the hidden mysteries of the Universe. This is all the more satisfying when they achieve this in light of faith, and with the support of their religious leaders.
Yes Religion ( and life ) without Jesus is like Beer without alcohol, but religion without structure is like a night out drinking without structure. Beer after liquor never sicker, liquor after beer your in the clear!
Re:Catholic Church (Score:1)
Give me some examples of how the RC Priesthood used it's power to kill, tourture any more than certain protestant ministers in the early Americas did. Some wouldn't even let you into their churches if they didn't know you. What about the Salem which trials?
Yes I agree that many Catholics today would have been considered herritics a few centuries ago, they should be today. The RC Church (as well as the other Catholic Rites) have set very clear lines of what you must believe to belong. You can still attend but you do not belong. It's like a town council meeting. Anyone can show up and listen and you can even take part and voice your opinion. But you still aren't a council member and maybe your from the next town over so then you don't belong at all.
Oh, and just to set a few things straight that I know have been posted to
1) Catholics have never been forbidden to read the BIBLE. Yes, it was chained to the Pulpit in many churches. This was to prevent to theft! And yes there was a list of books that the good Catholic was not to read. And yes CERTAIN translations of the Bible appeared on there. That's because someone else felt the need to edit and remove or add (yes Martin Luther did add the word alone to Romans) things from the book that The RC Church compiled in the 3rd century. Check your history. What would you have done had someone edited the book you compiled without giving credit.
2) As far as unorthodox practices go. Just remember that Martin Luther Prayed the Rosary. Now whle this seems meaninless to some calvinists. Most Protestants (even those who call themselvs just Christians are Protestant. If your not Catholic your Protestant. It's a black and White line.) should take this to heart. Martin Luther the man who led the the Protest (hence- PROTESTant) was all in favor of vernerating (not worshipping) Mary.
Maybe all the people who think the RC Church is bad and has twisted things around should look at history and see what the people they look up to thought. Maybe they'll find the we Catholics and Protestants have a little more in common than you thought.
How far away can you see a ship? Not THAT far. (Score:1)
If you had studied your trigonometry, you'd know that the angle you can see around a sphere is related to the observer's height by a simple formula: the height of the observer (from the center of the sphere) is given by the radius times the secant of the angle. The distance across the surface of the sphere between the observer's nadir and the horizon is, of course, directly proportional to the angle.
What does this mean? Assume you're standing on a 100 meter cliff or tower looking over a waveless sea. The Earth's radius is about 6.4e6 meters, so the angle you can see is arccos( 6.4e6 / 6.4001e6 ) = 0.32 degrees. If there was a ship with a 50-meter mast, you'd just be able to see the tip of it over the sea if it was another 0.22 degrees beyond your horizon. Taken together, you could see 0.54 degrees, or about 32 nautical miles. A ship sailing at 5 knots would cover that in 6 hours and a fraction. Days in advance? Ridiculous.
So much for objectivity. (Score:1)
Besides which, it's unclear that the loonie went into the church for any reason other than that it was there. He may have hated the whole world and the church building was the first thing he came to. If he'd driven his car over two dozen kids waiting for a school bus to take them home it couldn't be reliably interpreted to mean that he had something against education, youth or vehicles with red blinking lights either. The loon may not have known what he meant himself; the disconnect may be what finally drove him over the edge.
Stop taking every chance explosion of a loon that happens to come your way, or your individual sampling of volume of news coverage, as evidence of a conspiracy against you. It's probably just the editors' tastes, or judgement of what will sell advertising, not matching yours.
Re:Geek Revisionism (Score:1)
Nope, Wile E would be a hardcore Windows user. He would continue buying Microsoft products no matter how often they blew up in his face.
numb
Re:Galileo not inventor (Score:1)
Re:Science, Religion, and giving up ground (Score:1)
Religion naturally belongs in the sphere of "ultimate questions", which science cannot deal with. We only have conflict when people improperly attempt to extend this sphere.
Re:Popular misunderstandings (Score:1)
http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/galileo.ht ml [starcourse.org]
Re:So much for moderation (Score:1)
Re:Galileo not inventor (Score:1)
Re:so the sun is the center of the universe? (Score:1)
See? No ?question marks?... ?-]
Re:Galileo the millionaire? (Score:1)
Actually, it wasn't even the entire Church to whom he was being insulting (I know, I studied Galileo & wrote a paper on this issue for a class studying the history of science). He was attacking certain other scientists who had connections with people in the church! He even had support from certain Church officials at points. He just (purposely) stepped on the wrong toes, and got in trouble for it.
-ARJ
Re:So much for moderation (Score:1)
the earth is NOT MOVING (Score:2)
it is upon this lie that most of the collapse of modern society has been built. society violence, abortion, feminism, evolution, and most of the rest of society's ills are a result of the copernican/galilean lie
the people that call themselves scientists, that say that we're on a ball of rock hurtling around a sun, that there are "billions and billions" of other "galaxies" billions of years ago have such a deep hatred of the LORD that i wonder how they live with themselves..
fact: the space program performs all calculations using a nonmoving earth!
Re:So much for moderation (Score:2)
Re:Catholic Church (Score:2)
So you would say that (for example) members of the Orthodox or coptic or other monophysite traditions are protestant? Oh please. There have been splits in the church since no later than 50 AD. They will always be there. But there is no split in the Body of Christ.
We, as Christ-followers (and not all Christians follow Christ. Don't believe me? Look around you and see where non-Christ-Following christians have put us) need to rise above labels and simply love each other.
My background is conservative (but not fundamentalist) evangelical. I go to a church which is vaguely affiliated with the Southern Baptists. I know many Southern Baptists (who shall remain nameless) who I do not expect to see in heaven and many catholics who I am quite sure I
Certainly not by our correct doctrine. In fact, I could make a pretty strong argument that the fullness of correct doctrine is unknowable. That the best we can do is in humility try to find the best doctrine we can while accepting that we might be very wrong.
So, I am 90% certain that the veneration of Mary (and common usage in the RC church has made it worship whatever word-game are played) is a waste of time. But I think that Catholics good intent keeps it from being idolatrous and I think that Catholic who genuinely seek after God will surely find him, veneration of Mary or not. Jesus said "Seek and you shall find". I don't think he was kidding.
Similarly, I think that baptism by dunking is probably not a very important doctrine: but don't tell some of the people at my church I said that!
All doctrine falls flat in the face of God's incredible love for us through Jesus Christ. Nothing else is really worth talking about.
Re:On Science and Religion (Score:2)
However, I still find it interesting that the up and down moderation effect ONLY happens on posts with religious content. The more explicitly religious the content, the more it happens.
It doesn't seem to me that my posts on religious topics are any less rational than my posts on secular ones. Why don't my posts on secular topics see-saw up and down in the ratings like this?
Heaven forfend that I should speak against pseudo-scientific rationalism! I am forbidden from observing that some moderators seem to have an axe to grind, for fear that it might offend them. You, like many others, have completely missed the point of the moderator comment: namely that the slashdot population is not religious neutral (as they would like to claim) but actively anti-religious.
My opinion, and I managed to say it without trying to insult anyone. Wow, go figure!
Re:Catholic Church (Score:2)
So much for moderation (Score:2)
I always try to keep my comments at least mostly topical -- certainly as topical as the average. The only explanation I can conceive is that people moderate (up and down) based on their religious opinions. I thought moderation was not supposed to be based on whether you agree with the author? Didn't I read that somewhere?
Not that it matters... People will read, or not read. I just think it says something about that percentage of dotheads who will howl grieviously about censorship when someone wants to label their porn as porn, but will ruthlessly suppress any religious message they don't agree with.
Maybe I should start posting as a Buddhist and see what happens? I used to be a Buddhist monk and could probably fake it convinicingly. It seems that, in our society, it is okay to be anything but Christian.
Note to Katz... (Score:2)
- -Josh Turiel
Galileo the millionaire? (Score:2)
Do you really believe that, Katz? Do you think that genius and vision are automatically encouraged in our day and age? That's very naive. If Galileo were born today, and said that, say, the Sun travels around the Earth, do you think he'd end up with stock options?
No. He'd make a crappy website, spewing his ideas to anyone wants to hear him, and die in isolation and poverty, overlooked by everyone.
They used to antagonise the revolutionary thinkers in the old days; now said thinkers are just buried so deep in the crap no one hears them.
Of course, Galileo was arrested not because of his ideas, which weren't entirely new, but because of the way he presented them: he was inflamatory and insulting to the Church, as a way to shake up the foundations of contemporary thoughts and force people to react and acknowledge them.
So; instead of declaring he's heretic, Galileo would get a big, juicy lawsuit on his head. Don't go thinking we live in an age when genius is recognised. True revolutionary thinking always takes a few decades to cement, and a lot of these ideas die in the crap.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Re:So much for moderation (Score:2)
Popular misunderstandings (Score:3)
permanently engraved in popular legend. It looks like Katz has spouted a
few more of them, and perhaps invented a few of his own. Galileo was
neither heretic nor was heliocentrism a heresy, nor was he ever charged
with actual heresy: you can only be a heretic if there was a doctrine to
deny. Contrary to popular legend, it was never church dogma that the sun
revolved around the earth. Copernicus -- a Catholic priest -- published
his work on heliocentrism with Vatican approval and dedicated his work
to the Pope. No dogma, no heresy. The best they could come up with was
suspicion of heresy.
Had Galileo been rigorously scientific in the dispute, he would not have
gotten into his trouble. The main problem was that he advocated a
controversial thesis without any convincing proof. Telescope or no, you
can't easily prove that the earth revolved around the sun when all you
saw was stuff whizzing across the sky. One possible argument -- parallax
of the stars -- backfired in that his telescope was not sensitive enough
to detect the parallax. He used spurious arguments such as ocean
tides. He had no proof. The geek had no source code.
Another problem was that he had all the diplomacy of a bull in a china
shop. I do not understand how Katz could characterize someone as
undiplomatic and polemical as Galileo as "humble". He insulted the Pope,
got into a bitter dispute with the Jesuits -- he insisted comets were an
optical illusion -- and appeared to violate an order not to teach
heliocentrism. Leaving the strictly scientific field, Galileo insisted
on muscling into theology.
Mistakes were made on both sides of a rather complex affair. But Galileo
came under a fairly benign Inquisition, and his house arrest was spent
in relative luxury (a personal valet? Good grief). Any thread of torture
was a formality. He could receive guests, and finished some of his best
work then. Contrary to popular legend, Galileo's most important
contributions to science came before and after the heliocentrism
dispute.
One Catholic view of the mess can be seen at:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/GALILEO.TXT
Geek Revisionism (Score:3)
Sigh. This is starting to sound like something I'd call "Geek Revisionism". Suddenly, everyone in history who made a significant impact was a geek.
Of course, most brilliant men were social outcasts. So that makes them geeks, of course. The definition of geek that Katz employs is so vague... I can easily say the following people were also geeks:
Adolf Hitler: he was a recluse and a misunderstood man with a vision!
Albert Einstein: he was a scientific-minded man who worked in the patent office and thus really loved gadgets!
Aristotle: a true geek, Aristotle went forth experimenting and exploring the world with a scientific mind.
Winston Churchill: An antisocial man who was alcoholic and manic-depressive, his analytical mind carried him through WW2.
Daffy Duck: Socially awkward, feverishly inventive, excitable and driven. Uber-Geek.
Wile E. Coyote: Isn't that one blatantly obvious?
Marvin the Martian: Exemplifies the social outcast in all of us true Geeks...
That first caveman who invented fire: Oh, man, Geekissimo!
I could go on. That's what you end up with when you broaden a definition that much; everyone ends up with aspects of the definition. Shesh, Geekdom is more than fun with gadgets. You're reading it like it's some sort of astrological sign.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
On Science and Religion (Score:4)
People seem to assume that philosophic naturalism must push out all other philosophies. Nothing could be further from the truth. I regard my own naturalism as the study of God's methods, and so, indirectly, the study of God himself. In fact, there are many places in the Bible (for example, half the book of Job) where God defines himself and his "Godhood" in terms of his creation. In Romans 2, Paul writes that God reveals himself to all men through the glory of His creation.
Where I draw the line is at the phenomenal hubris of assuming that what I can see with my physical senses is all there is. That's not to say that I don't see evidence for God -- I do. But that evidence is spiritual and (yes) emotional. Not rational. C.S. Lewis -- highly recommended -- said that "The irrefutable and the undeniable are the two weapons that he [God] cannot use". Why? Because he wants us to freely serve him out of love for Him: not out of fear, and his precense "in anything but the most attenuated form" would overwealm us. (I have probably misquoted: the book is Screwtape letters, and I don't have it with me).
Which brings us to Galileo: the quotes in this review make it obvious that Galileo was deeply religious. Yet the author seems puzzled by this in face of the persecution that Galileo suffered. What Galileo knew (and many today apparently do not) is that God and the hierarchy of the Church often have very little to do with each other! The assumption today is often that travesties like Galileo's treatment invalidate Christianity. They don't. They only invalidate organized Christianity.
Never forget that Jesus was a rebel against organized religiosity, and often sharply criticized the authorities of his day for their failings. Don't associate Him with something he never advocated. Religion without Jesus is like beer without alcohol: it may taste good, but in the end you don't get a buzz.
Anybody I haven't offended yet? No? Good.
Galileo -- the "martyr" who wasn't (Score:4)
I really wish those who keep flogging the Galileo myth of "brave Scientist persecuted by hidebound Chruch for selfless Pursuit of Knowledge" would apply some of that scientific viewpoint to actually reviewing what happened, and perhaps even (gasp!) revising their opining (in true Scientific fashion) based upon the facts of the case, rather than the received myth.
Otherwise, it certainly looks to me as if the Rational Enlightenment Scientific Geeks are the ones who are desperately clinging to their myths, while the Christians are the ones who are willing to look at the world and history as it actually is.
If there is a modern figure who shows us what Galileo would be if he were alive today, it is not IPO-enriched Internet geeks, but rather Carl Sagan. That is, the scientist who uses his scientific expertise to make himself out to be an expert authority on things religious. The proof that Galileo got himself in trouble with the Chruch over theology and not science is simply the number of Catholics ought to be the number of Catholics (including Kepler, Copernicus himself, and a whole bunch of Jesuit astronomers) who favored heliocentism (in even more accurate models than Galileo held) with no trouble at all.
Of course, stabbing a close personal friend in the back by making him out to be a fool in public was not a particularly diplomatic move, especially when that close personal friend happens to have just been elected Pope.
The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that they screwed up in handling Galileo (though not as badly as the mythmakers would have it). I am still waiting for the mythmakers to admit that they have treated the Catholic Church unfairly, or that Galileo might have been part of the problem himself. But I'm not holding my breath -- after all, what's historical accuracy and fairness, compared to a chance to flog religion in general and Christianity/Catholicism in particular?
I don't believe it! (Score:4)
I don't know about y'all, but I think that contemporary geeks and nerds are more likely to be brilliant, humble, and funny. We're all just a bunch of tech support people around here, but I know many people I'd put in that category, and my wife puts me in the same category all the time. I consider it a well-known fact that a large number of geeks are more shy/humble, good natured, even-tempered, humorous, and, of course, brilliant. Of course, we have the exceptions that prove the rule (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs), but we also have role models like Linus, Alan Cox, and Woz. All of the latter seem to be good natured, funny, brilliant geeks.