[Potemkin]

I mean seriously, anyone of you who doesn't believe that needs to look at the original Copernican model, the modern understanding and Copernicus has only one similarity i.e. Earth revolves around Sun and nothing else at all. No Hows, Whys are answered at all.

Exactly. The Copernican model was actually ignored for about a century after his death, because it was so unconvincing. The Church didn't condemn it until the early 17th century, because people like Galileo were only then starting to take it seriously. Before the time of Galileo, the Copernican model was regarded as an intellectually flimsy hypothesis. It was in fact only with the work of Galileo and Newton in the 17th century that the Copernican model became at all plausible, and was universally accepted only with the publication of Newton's Principia Mathematica. Newton was able to rigorously answer all of the whys and wherefores of the heliocentric system.

[Zamuel]

Copernicus was like that kid in school who even though knew the right answers, won't raise his hand in class for fear of being ridiculed only to later regret that.

That's a good analogy.

I am pretty sure that almost everyone of us would had ridiculed Copernicus at that time and no not because of some dogma but because his model was actually shit and not convincing for the time period.

Which is of course why it's merits attracted Geniuses like Galileo and Bruno ...? Right ?

I mean seriously, anyone of you who doesn't believe that needs to look at the original Copernican model, the modern understanding and Copernicus has only one similarity i.e. Earth revolves around Sun and nothing else at all. No Hows, Whys are answered at all.

It was a purely intellectual vision, of course it was imperfect, but it was correct. However the Copernican model is MUCH more significant in that it represents the change from theolocratic explanations of convenience to a didactic, scientific, dynamic.

Wow !

Zam

[fuser]

Which is of course why it's merits attracted Geniuses like Galileo and Bruno ...? Right ?

This doesn't proves anything. If it had been so meritorious, it wouldn't had to wait for over a century to be recognized by geniuses. Let me counter question, why was it ignored by geniuses for over a century and no I am not buying any conspiracy theory as an answer. New data, new interpretation came to light which helped in propelling Copernician model.

It was a purely intellectual vision, of course it was imperfect, but it was correct. However the Copernican model is MUCH more significant in that it represents the change from theolocratic explanations of convenience to a didactic, scientific, dynamic.

Naah, it was not didactic, scientific or dynamic compared to Ptolemaic model. It didn't even get rid of epicycles ffs. It added more of them, making the whole thing more cumbersome and complex, if anything if Ptolemaic model was one of convenience then we must accept that Copernician model was one of convenience too which failed to provide any explanation for its hypothesis.

Ptolemaic model even though wrong was actually believe it or not was a predictive model and quite accurate at that, actually.

[KlassWar]

Actually, no. The theology of Thomas Aquinas was one of the greatest intellectual achievements of European civilisation.

WTF?

Gotta be kidding. Aquinas was the very definition of a dishonest pseudo-intellectual.

[Potemkin]

Gotta be kidding. Aquinas was the very definition of a dishonest pseudo-intellectual.

Why do you think that, KlassWar?

[KlassWar]

It's shameful to admit: When I wrote that stoned post, I somehow had'im confused with Agustine. :S

[Zamuel]

Which is of course why it's merits attracted Geniuses like Galileo and Bruno ...? Right ?

This doesn't proves anything. If it had been so meritorious, it wouldn't had to wait for over a century to be recognized by geniuses. Let me counter question, why was it ignored by geniuses for over a century

It wasn't ignored ... it attracted attention soon after publication (1543). Commentaries on it were written for the next 70 years. It was adopted by Giordano Bruno while he was a student (1572) and served as a major inspiration for the imaginative cosmology he developed. Due to it's superior accuracy, Copernicus's Helio-Centric mathematics were used to formulate the Gregorian Calendar in 1892. Bruno was accused of Heresy in 1590 and the Copernican system was again scrutinized and criticized. A young Johaness Kepler rose to it's defense in 1596, publishing in England where he was safe from prosecution for Heresy. He went on to refine the Copernican mathematics and even developed his own "improved" telescope to facilitate direct observation. Galileo became interested and began supporting the Helio-Centric system. In 1616 Galileo was formally enjoined by papal order from promoting Copernican Heresy, which was officially declared along with the official Ban on the 1543 publication. In 1633 Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for violating that Papal edict.

This much is all well documented and can be verified by consulting the Bios of these individuals. None of these individuals dispute the Copernican Origin their work was based on. All credit him with insightful genius.

So you see, it's not like the Helio-Centric theory was ignored for 100 years.

Naah, it was not didactic, scientific or dynamic compared to Ptolemaic model.

It ENDED the Era of Theocratic Convenience and initiated the one of Scientific Cosmology.

if Ptolemaic model was one of convenience then we must accept that Copernician model was one of convenience too which failed to provide any explanation for its hypothesis.

If you bother to read it, you will find it specifically enumerates the points of it's hypothesis.

Zam

[ingliz]

it's not like the Helio-Centric theory was ignored for 100 years.

No, it is not. The heliocentric theory was ignored for over 1,750 years. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos ( c. 310 – c. 230 BC).

... Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun ...

[Potemkin]

You mean the Catholic Church was at work suppressing the Truth even then?! They are even more fiendish than I thought....

[ingliz]

Christianity arose in a number of competing versions and it was not until near the end of the fourth century AD that the Catholic version became dominant throughout the Roman Empire. Shortly after this Augustine, born in 354, developed Christian theology after his conversion to Christianity in 386. He explained in his most important work Confessions how he read the works of Plato and found there ideas which he wove into Christian theology.

[Potemkin]

Christianity arose in a number of competing versions and it was not until near the end of the fourth century AD that the Catholic version became dominant throughout the Roman Empire. Shortly after this Augustine, born in 354, developed Christian theology after his conversion to Christianity in 386. He explained in his most important work Confessions how he read the works of Plato and found there ideas which he wove into Christian theology.

Indeed. And Thomas Aquinas did essentially the same thing with the philosophy of Aristotle, though in a much more systematic way. In a sense, Hellenism never really went away - it was absorbed into Christianity, and survived in a new form.

[kobe]

The problem is that Zam thinks someone should get all the credit for coming up with a hypothesis. That's the very first step of the scientific process though. Happening to stumble upon a hypothesis that would later be proven correct is not the same thing as practicing the scientific method.

Lets say that in a hundred years, we have devised the unifying theory of physics. If some rando proposed a theory similar to the correct theory in a random blog, they shouldn't get any credit. Stumbling upon a notion that happens to be correct is not the same thing as science. Science rejects absolute truth in favor of falsification.

[ingliz]

If some rando proposed a theory similar to the correct theory in a random blog, they shouldn't get any credit.

Copernicus himself originally gave credit to Aristarchus in his own heliocentric treatise, De revolutionibus caelestibus , where he had written, "Philolaus believed in the mobility of the earth, and some even say that Aristarchus of Samos was of that opinion." Interestingly, this passage was crossed out shortly before publication.

Plato... wove into Christian theology.

Plutarch in his De facie in orbe lunae gives reference not only to Aristarchus's theory, but to the way it was received by contemporaries. The general opinion of the time appeared to be that of Dercyllides, who "says that we must suppose the earth, the Hearth of the House of the Gods according to Plato, to remain fixed, and the planets with the whole embracing heaven to move, and rejects with abhorrence the view of those who have brought to rest the things which move and set in motion the things which by their nature and position are unmoved, such a supposition being contrary to the hypotheses of mathematics."

[QatzelOk]

Christianity arose in a number of competing versions

Exactly. The Copernican model was actually ignored for about a century after his death, because it was so unconvincing.

That this "arose" and was made up of different "versions" means that it's not a philosophy, but a means of eradicating philosophy in your slaves. That's what Christians were meant to be: ignorant slaves who were philosophy-free. You can see how philosophy was totally eradicated a few centuries later by mass media, but religion provided a good primer for a world without personal thought.

he was therefore afraid of the ridicule of these Establishment philosophers.

What a bizarre concept: the Establishment philosopher. Was Europe ruled by Philosopher Kings at the time? What is an Establishment Philosopher? The Establishment HATES philosophy because it leads to the destruction of the Establishment.

Philosophy is real knowledge of the human condition, and has been repressed since the beginning of civilization. It's supposed to be something that we ALL have time and the inclination to practice. But slave masters - the Establishment - invented religion as a way of forcing us to stop thinking about our place in the universe.

Our thinking may be more heliocentric now, but it's still Establishment-centric, as it has been for 10,000 years of slavery.

[Potemkin]

What a bizarre concept: the Establishment philosopher. Was Europe ruled by Philosopher Kings at the time? What is an Establishment Philosopher? The Establishment HATES philosophy because it leads to the destruction of the Establishment.

In the European High Middle Ages, an 'Establishment philosopher' was a Scholastic philosopher, whose philosophy was essentially a fusion of Christian theology and Aristotelian philosophy as formulated by Thomas Aquinas. They believed it to be a comprehensive and complete system of thought. This is why any innovation was regarded with hostility. As the historian David Starkey once put it, the world was never better understood than it was in the 13th century. The problem was that that understanding turned out to be wrong.

Philosophy is real knowledge of the human condition, and has been repressed since the beginning of civilization. It's supposed to be something that we ALL have time and the inclination to practice. But slave masters - the Establishment - invented religion as a way of forcing us to stop thinking about our place in the universe.

The problem is the traditional human attitude towards knowledge, not religion as such. Before the scientific revolution, the prevailing attitude was that you had to think in order to discover the facts, the Truth. Once you had the Truth, however, you could then stop thinking. Any further thinking would merely be attempted fraud or imposture, an attempt to subvert the already known Truth. It seems to me that Zamuel still has this attitude.

Our thinking may be more heliocentric now, but it's still Establishment-centric, as it has been for 10,000 years of slavery.

Actually, I agree with that. As Marx pointed out, the leading ideas of the past and the present have almost invariably been the ideas of the leading class.

[QatzelOk]

As the historian David Starkey once put it, the world was never better understood than it was in the 13th century. The problem was that that understanding turned out to be wrong.

Exactly. When religious people say "WE KNOW!!!", what they're really saying is "DON'T THINK!!!"

Not thinking has been perfected by the Second Crusade.

And by the Second World War. The Boomers were the stupidest generation in 9 centuries.

[Drlee]

And by the Second World War. The Boomers were the stupidest generation in 9 centuries.

Right. And in their ignorance they created the greatest technological change in history. Philosophically they profoundly and irrevocably changed the way the world viewed gender, race and religion.

Sorry Quatz. You can't play that one here. Your very existence is an invention of the boomers. At least your ability to be open about it. Hand bite much?

[Dagoth Ur]

Boomers inherited a hard-won world from the Greatest Generation (mostly the gains won by organized labor, like a livable wage and a world without Nazis) and promptly set about betraying not only their youthful idealism/convictions, but their own children and grandchildren by systematically dismantling the very system that enriched them. The worst generation in nine generations makes no sense though. The Boomers are the problem mostly because they are the ones in charge (even most of the proletarian boomers are talking heads of bourgeoisie cultural begemony) and shit sucks so it is their fault.

Outliers to this are greatly appreciated.

[Zamuel]

Once you had the Truth, however, you could then stop thinking. Any further thinking would merely be attempted fraud or imposture, an attempt to subvert the already known Truth. It seems to me that Zamuel still has this attitude.

Excuse me ? Aren't I the one who's been extolling the "Revolutionary" thinking of Copernicus (& Bruno, & Galileo) and Denouncing the Theocratic traditions that oppressed them ... ? Check your notes, pretty sure that was me ... trying to turn THAT around now too ?

Our thinking may be more heliocentric now, but it's still Establishment-centric.

"Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss." it does appear you have been "fooled again." If you serve the new masters? it's only because you have chosen to prostitute yourself.

The Boomers were the stupidest generation in 9 centuries.

Right. And in their ignorance they created the greatest technological change in history. Philosophically they profoundly and irrevocably changed the way the world viewed gender, race and religion.

Essentially an advance in Social Consciousness equal to the Scientific Revolution that followed Copernicus.

And just for those who still doubt the Significance of Copernicus:"The scientific revolution began in Europe towards the end of the Renaissance period and continued through the late 18th century, influencing the intellectual social movement known as the Enlightenment. While its dates are disputed, the publication in 1543 of Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is often cited as marking the beginning of the scientific revolution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution



Zam

[Potemkin]

Excuse me ? Aren't I the one who's been extolling the "Revolutionary" thinking of Copernicus (& Bruno, & Galileo) and Denouncing the Theocratic traditions that oppressed them ... ?

I regard Copernicus' heliocentric model to be one of the first cracks which appeared in the edifice of the Scholastic Philosophy. However, it was merely a crack; the established, closed system of Scholasticism remain standing, until it was finally brought down in the 17th century.

Check your notes, pretty sure that was me ... trying to turn THAT around now too ?

This is what I find puzzling about you, Zamuel - you valorise people like Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo as open-minded revolutionary thinkers, yet your mind seems to be essentially scholastic. You aggressively oppose any kind of re-interpretation of historical events as being an attempt to commit academic fraud and delude the masses - in other words, as heresy. You seem convinced that you already possess the Truth, the facts of the world, and you have a more closed mind than any Doctor of the Church. Quite frankly, it's bizarre.