This guy was wrong.
Once upon a time, physicists considered all motion to take place against a fixed backdrop – call it what you will, but “ether” seems to be a popular term. Thinking about physical objects and their movement in this way, plenty of people believed that there was an absolute reference point for motion. For example, if two spheres (call them A and B) became closer together, then it means that A moved closer to B while B remained still, or B moved closer to A while A remained still, or as a third possibility, that A and B both moved against the backdrop of “ether” like floating balls on the surface of a swimming pool, closer together.
Because of this way of thinking, Galileo found himself in a real pickle with the church when he expounded on his theory of planetary motion. He contended that – as objective fact – the earth travels around the Sun, whereas members of the clergy contended that – as objective fact – the sun travels around the earth. The conflict between Galileo and the church is often retold, frequently for the sake of demonstrating some inexorable conflict between science and religion, and always told as a reminder of how the church got it wrong, and Galileo got it right.
As a Christian and also as a person who didn’t want to offend Catholic rulers, Galileo was in a bit of a quandry. In the Bible, in Joshua chapter 10, a miracle occurs where the sun stands still, making the day longer. Yet according to Galileo, the sun didn’t even travel around the earth, so it would be the earth, rather than the sun, which would need to stand still in order to make a day longer.
Galileo’s solution was as follows:
[A]lthough Scripture can indeed not err, nevertheless some of its interpreters and expositors may sometimes err in various ways, one of which may be very serious and quite frequent, [that is,] when they would base themselves always on the literal meaning of words. For in that way there would appear to be [in the Bible] not only various contradictions, but even grave heresies and blasphemies, since it would be necessary to give God feet and hands and eyes, and no less corporeal and human feelings, like wrath, regret, and hatred, or sometimes even forgetfulness of things gone by and ignorance of the future. Hence, just as in the Scriptures are founf many propositions which, as to the bare senses of the words, have an appearance different from the truth, but were so put to accommodate the incapacity of the common people, so, for those few who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses and give particular reasons why they were offered in those words.
[Letter of 21 December, 1613 to Benedetto Castelli, in S. Drake, Letter to Castelli, in Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978, 224)
Galileo went on to say that in disputes about complex scientific matters that are far from the biblical message of salvation, we should look to science to give us the literal truth of the matter, because, as he says above, Scripture is often much less than literal in such things, so as to be easily received by simple folk.
The point I want to drive home is that Galileo clearly thought that the view held by those clergy who opposed him (namely that the sun travels around the earth) was literally false, and that his view (that the earth travels around the sun) was literally true.
Had there been no advances in physics over the last couple of centuries, I would have to agree with Galileo. Because there have been major advances in physics over that time, I cannot. Galileo was wrong. He was excusably wrong because of the time in which he lived, but he was wrong nonetheless. It will be at once obvious that the position of both Galileo and his clerical dissenters takes for granted the view of motion that I outlined at the start of this article: All motion has a fixed reference point; it happens against a backdrop against which it can be objectively measured. This view is no longer a tenable one, largely thanks to the work of Albert Einstein on special relativity. Without going into mind numbing detail, here’s a simple summary:
In formulating his theory, Einstein dismissed the concept of the "ether," and with it the "idea of absolute rest." Prior to the generation of Einstein's theory of special relativity, physicists had understood motion to occur against a backdrop of absolute rest (the "ether"), with this backdrop acting as a reference point for all motion. In dismissing the concept of this backdrop, Einstein called for a reconsideration of all motion. According to his theory, all motion is relative and every concept that incorporates space and time must be considered in relative terms. This means that there is no constant point of reference against which to measure motion. Measurement of motion is never absolute, but relative to a given position in space and time. Returning to Galileo's cannonball, Einstein considered this: the cannonball falling from the mast of the ship would appear to an observer standing on the deck of that ship as though it dropped straight down; however, to an observer standing on the shore, the cannonball would appear to follow a curved trajectory on its way to the base of the mast. Which trajectory did the ball actually follow? According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the answer is, both—and neither. Each observer's observation is valid in its own reference frame, yet each is no more than an artifact of the measurement, or observation, undertaken by the observer.
[added comment: Click the link to read more, but the above description applies generally to all space, to the "ether" theory, and hence has application to all motion that occurs in space, notwithstanding any more specialised focus within the theory of special relativity.]
This new (well, new at the time, anyway) view of physics reduces Galileo’s claim about which view is literally correct, his or the church’s, to rubble. If Einstein is correct, then Galileo was wrong to say that it is objectively true that the earth moves around the sun, and that it is objectively false that the sun moves around the earth. Which – if either – of those to claims is correct depends wholly on the observational perspective. An observer on the earth will correctly report that the sun travels around the earth (or stated differently, relative to the earth, the sun travels around it), and a sun dweller (!!!) will correctly report that the earth travels around the sun. Neither is incorrect, but if one accuses the other of being objectively mistaken while he himself is objectively correct, he is simply wrong (as was Galileo). This is not a defence of the Church’s claim, as obviously the principle applies to both views equally.
All this changes, of course, if there is a priveleged point from which the sun-earth relationshiop is supposed to be viewed from. Should there exist such a designated “viewing platform,” the question could be settled once and for all. If, for example, it turned out that the earth is the priveleged spot from which the relationship is meant to be observed, then the church was right all along, and a hack job has been done on the Galileo trial.
So go ahead – keep using the Galileo case to show what silly scientific conclusions theologians come to – that is, if you’re happy to push your view of physics back half a century.
EDIT: See part two HERE.
Similar Posts:
- Galileo part 2. Yes folks, he was wrong.
- 2009's Greatest Hits
- The cause of death: Arguments from silence – Quantum physics and the Cosmological argument
- Numerical identity does not require Qualitative identity
- On dialogue with the Orthodox
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Tags: einstein, galileo, physics, science
Yes, I correctly referred to my model as the right hand side (you thought I meant really left, but I didn’t), but (my bad) I also referred to Ptolemny’s model as the right hand side, when it’s actually the left.
Your point about 2d vs 3d changes nothing at all. It has no impact on anything said here. It is literally irrelevant.
Bugger – what happened to Bob’s comments? I wanted to get a copy and also reply to him.
Also he was quoting something from Hoyle – where is that?
Ken, click on “older comments” to see, well, the older comments (including Bob’s).
Thanks Glenn – missed that.
Now, Bob, I can appreciate that you as you say, “didn’t know anything about this before” [reading] Glenn’s post.” However, this should have suggested to you a bit of humility and warned you to actually read a bit more deeply (there are some fabulous modern books on astronomy available) before lining up with Glenn against everyone else – including all astronomers.
You should surely have been aware of the trap of “quote mining.” You have searched for a quote to use to support a position – and produced something out of context. I am sure if I had Hoyle’s book I could produce quotes from it to show that he accepted that the earth orbited the sun. Unfortunately I can’t find the text of that book on-line.
This particular quote from Hoyle is commonly used by creationists and crackpot theologians to make various points. It is usually used inappropriately (much as you have used it Bob).
You and Glenn have been confused about the use of words like geocentricism and heliocentrism – and are therefore taking quotes like this out of context.
In the old day these were basically theological terms – Geocentricism was derived from scriptures and meant that the earth was the centre of the universe.
As we started to use evidence rather than scripture this changed to a Heliocentric model – which considered the sun as the centre of the universe.
More evidence, mathematics, etc., we started to accept that the sun was at the centre of the Solar System – and there was no such thing as the centre of the universe.
In modern usage heliocentric usually means from the viewpoint of the sun, and geocentricism from the viewpoint of the earth. This is the way that Hoyle uses the terms. (Although we may also still talk about a heliocentric solar system meaning the planets orbit the sun).
Now from Galilean relativity (later incorporated into Special relativity) it doesn’t matter what viewpoint you use and, for bodies undergoing uniform motion, one cannot say which body is moving in absolute terms. There is no such thing. We talk about relative motion. So we can determine relative motion – and we can determine when that motion changes because one or other, or both, of the bodies are accelerating (as it is if in orbit and if in a gravitational field).
What this relativity means is that it doesn’t matter if Galileo was on the sun or the earth he would have still concluded that the earth orbited the sun.
Now some of his evidence may have differed because of the viewpoint. Things appear to move in different directions, etc. But he would still have detected the orbiting of Jupiter’s moons. As an extra he would have detected the orbiting of our moon. He would have missed the phases of Venus (and all the other planets). So some things differ because of perspective. But the objective facts don’t change. The planets still orbit the sun. And Galileo’s observation and mathematical analysis would have produced the same conclusion.
Hoyle’s quote is a clear support for the position I have described. Because of your preconceived position you have interpreted it wrongly. What it means is that the theological position is destroyed by relativity. We cannot say that either the earth or the sun (or anything) is at the centre of the universe. There is no such thing. But we can say, because of the mass of the objects, the gravitational fields, our measurement of the relationships between them and our detection of their acceleration (whatever our perspective) that the earth and other planets (and many other bodies in our solar system) orbit the sun.
All this is pretty basic science which would be taught in schools.
I think if you avoid words like heliocentricity and egocentricity and stick to the question of the relationship between the sun and the earth – which orbits which, you will be less confused.
Freudian slip in last sentence – I meant geocentricity, not egocentricity, although there might be something in that other word.
Ken: “This particular quote from Hoyle is commonly used by creationists and crackpot theologians to make various points. It is usually used inappropriately (much as you have used it Bob).”
Since you admit that you have never seen the book and do not know the context, it’s interesting that you claim as fact that Bob has misused Hoyle, and that Hoyle didn’t mean what he appears to mean.
Funny, Hoyle says everything that would be necessary to express agreement what my point, yet because you are unwilling to think that a scientist could disagree with you (especially an astronomer of Hoyle’s standing), he couldn’t possibly mean what he seems to say.
Ken, you need to re-think that method, because it rules out the possibility of learning.
I haven’t seen the book Glenn, either has you or Bob. To me the science in Hoyle’s statement is obvious. I think any other scientist would explain it to you in the same way.
Ideally I would like to get the book and quote from it references to Hoyle referring to the earth orbiting the sun. Can’t do that, because the text is not available. So what about other writing of his. Most of his work was on cosmology, stellar genesis, element formation, etc. And, unfortunately, as I no longer have the subscription status I had before retirement most of his papers are only available to me as an abstract or first page. (His specific choice of journals for publication obviously don’t support Open Source).
He’s a difficult man to get text from (although I noted that a lot of creationists sites use the quote Bob did). However, this from Evolution of Life: A Cosmic Perspective
N. Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle where the authors refer to “resulting ejecta [from mars] orbited the sun until 13,000 years ago when it plunged into the Antarctic and remained buried there in ice until its discovery.” And “Carbonaceous chondrites can thus be thought of as fragments of biological comets that have been progressively stripped of volatiles, and within which sedimentation and compaction of microorganisms may have occurred over hundreds of orbits around the Sun.”
Now they are on their hobby horse of panspermia – but the point is their concept of the solar system which has planets, meteors and other bodies orbiting the sun.
I only did a brief search for “orbit” but I think it’s clear that Hoyle has the same picture of the solar system as all other astronomers today. Of the planets, meteors, asteroids, comets, etc., orbiting the sun.
What about this though? You are the one making the claims. How about you producing a quote from Hoyle specifically referring to a denial that one can determine if the earth orbits the sun. Nothing to do with relativity – which you continue to interpret wrongly.
OK – Hoyle is difficult to find quotes for. What about any other reputable astronomer?
PS: Like any great scientist Hoyle had some things right and some things wrong. In my youth I would have agreed with him about the Steady State universe – not any longer. But then we have more evidence now – that’s how we learn.
Hoyle was also known for making extreme and provocative statements which sometimes get used against science. But I have known many scientists like that. They are human after all.
Just be aware that quote mining will usually give you the wrong take on the science. But then again – if that’s what you want, you will quote mine till you find what you want.
Bob – do you understand my explanation of the Hoyle quote?
“I only did a brief search for “orbit” but I think it’s clear that Hoyle has the same picture of the solar system as all other astronomers today”
Not the point, Ken. The way you are replying really does suggest that you don’t quite understand what is being said to you. Are you sure you see the position I am advocating for what it is?
Hoyle is pretty easy to find quotes for, in the following way: My local library has the book in question, and after work today I will be checking out a copy. I will get back to you and inform you of what Hoyle said and in what context. Then you can stop guessing about what he must have meant instead of what it looks like he meant.
Watch this space.
“Not the point, Ken. “
WTF is the point, then? You say Galileo was wrong – specifically about his picture of the solar system. And then you say I don’t understand!! What is there not to understand?
How about a simple 1 or 2 sentence statement of your point. Was Galileo right or wrong about his claim that the earth orbits the sun?
Well – we will see what you can find in the book. Specifically about the earth orbiting the sun.
Ken, no need to get angry. I have been clear all along what I mean. I have been saying from the very beginning that the claim that the earth moves around the sun is no more objectively true than the view that the sun moves around the earth. I have stated that these two viewpoints would not require different observations to be made. In fact I believe I’ve even used the phrase “observationally identical.”
That Hoyle has the same picture of the solar system as Galileo as far as observations go is, therefore, trivial and beside the point. If you don’t realise this, then you total lack of grasp on what is being said here (and also said by Hoyle) explains why you are responding as you are.
I now hold in my hand a copy of Hoyle’s book, and as I suspected (but could not definitively claim until checking), you were wrong in your assumption about him. In fact, he meant to say exactly what Bob and I thought. That particular quote, far from being “mined” as you unfairly claimed (unfair because you admitted to not ever have read the work), is only reinforced at numerous other places int he same work, and definitely means what I have said.
Ken, I know you will not be happy about me saying this – but given that you freely admitted to being completely unfamiliar with the connection between Einstein and this subject and given that you were absolutely confident that no reputable scholar would ever suggest the things I have suggested and (as you’ll soon see) a highly esteemed astronomer did just that, I would back of witht he hubris just a bit. You do, actually, have something to learn here. I’m not saying this to be adversarial.
Now that I’ve had a further look at Hoyle’s work I’ve decided to writer “Part 2″ to this blog where I sketch my initial argument and outline Hoyle’s strong support of it. In the meantime I’ll have a scout around and see if others have written on this too.
Expect this new post within the next few days. Please be patient until then.
Well, Glenn, what about quoting and referincing whY Hoyle says about the earth orbiting the sun, vice versa, or stating it I’d possible to know?
What about the quote from Hoyle that says Galileo was wrong?
I have already quoted Hoyle’s comments about bodies orbiting the sun. Don’t be coy. If you can quote Hoyle saying they don’t and that Galileo was therefore wrong, let us have it. The actual quote – not your interpretation or unwarranted assertion.
Sorry, you may have to interpret some of those words. Not easy on an iPod.
Ken – as I said, there’s a new blog post on the way where I will show that Hoyle supports the position that I have been maintaining here.
Hoyle has no need to use the phrase that you demand – “Galileo was wrong.” It’s about whether or not he supported the idea that I am expressing. I am not interested in moving the goalposts for you now, and raising the hurdle so that you can deny that I am correct about Hoyle unless he uses that exact phrase, now that it looks like you might have to eat a little crow. It can be a very self improving exercise, Ken, trust me.
So I say again – there will be a new post on this in the next few days. I have a couple of exams next week, so I’m a busy man at present. Patience is the order of the day.
Glenn – the idea you were expressing was that ”
Galileo was wrong. Specifically stated “this guy was wrong”.
This is what I have been asking evidence from you for.
I suspect you may just try to repeat the essence of the quote used by Bob. If that is your plan then gave a careful read of my respose to Bob. I would expect you to understand and deal with my points. After all they were made as a clarification for Bob. As I said the quote from Hoyle actually supports the argument I have been making.
By the way – Bob. Did you understand my explanation of Hoyle’s quote?
Ken, once again, it is not necessary to find the words “Galileo was wrong” in Hoyle.
I represented Galileo’s view as the conjunction of at least two claims: 1) it is objectively true that the earth moves around the sun, AND 2) it’s objectively false that the sun moves around the earth. It is, of course, far too late now for anyone to imply that this is not the view that I called “false.” Nobody intervened, saying “no, wait, that’s not Galileo’s view.” So I am assuming that you attribute this view, the one that I call false, to Galileo. So do I. The essence of my post was to state why this view is wrong, and this exact same explanation of astronomical facts is expressed by Hoyle. Too late for goalpost shifting. Too late to attribute a different argument to me. it’s all on the record.
And yes, this position of mine, as clearly and repeatedly expressed by myself in the original blog post and again in the comments is indeed endorsed by Hoyle.
As for the quote from Hoyle that you commented on, you have misunderstood him, as you will see after a few days. But look – now you’re building up the dramatic tension by forcing me to remind you to be patient! Not all of us are retired, you know!
There is an issue of professional integrity here, Glenn.
You did say Galileo was wrong to claim the planets orbit the sun. You claimed that this position, and the alternative sun orbiting the earth were equally wrong. That is what is at issue.
Now you justified your poition by using a midundertsanding of Galilean relativity. I believe you are still confused in your understanding of this and that is why you cannot see what Hoyle is saying in Bob’s quote. A hint, although I have already explained it, is in appreciating how Hotle uses the tea heliocentric and geocentric as applying to the concept of a priveliged position in the universe – not to the solar system. Galilean relativity says there is no priveliged
position.
But this is irrelevant to the structure of the solar system which we know is composed of bodies orbiting the sun. You deny we can know that. So your task is to find a credible quite in this book saying that. Saying Galileo was wrong or that we just don’t know if the anets and other bodies in our solar syst orbit the sun.
I have made that clear many times and stress it now so that you are aware that further attempts to create confusion over relativity as regards heliocentricity or geocentricity of the universe are going to be obvious.
Ken, again, you have not even read Hoyle. I can tell you that you are making an incorrect claim about what he was referring to based on how he uses terms.
And also again, I have made my position crystal clear, and don’t need to change it. My position was, and is: Heliocentrism (your term in post 1 for the view that the earth, as an objective fact, moves around the sun and not vice versa) and geocentrism (the view that the sun, as an objective fact, moves around the earth and not vice versa are both wrong. Galileo, I have said (and nobody has corrected me), advocated the former view, and for that reason, he was wrong. Hoyle provides support for this conclusion by supporting the claim I make about the earth and the sun.
Again, Ken: Patience. You’re like a kid full of food colouring and sugar!
I think Ken makes a very good summary of the facts in his November 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm post, so I have nothing more to add to that.
Glen, your point is not hard to understand. Of course you can look at things from different frames of reference, of course later knowledge gained by Newton and Einstein provides a more correct model of reality than that provided by Galileo. This is obvious.
I don’t personally know what Galileo believed (he was a little before my time), and I have not read any of his books (a bit remiss on my part, but I have heard that he had a few constraints on his writing), but he was correct for backing an heliocentric model because that is what his evidence showed. This was major progress over what came before as it set the scene (along with his other work) for everything that came later. Imagine trying to come up with a theory of gravitation consistent with the Ptolemaic system.
I strongly suspect that the root problem here harks back to your views on knowledge. The way that you sprinkle words such as “objectively” and “literally” around in your original post provides, I think, the key to your thinking. Example:
The point I want to drive home is that Galileo clearly thought that the view held by those clergy who opposed him (namely that the sun travels around the earth) was literally false, and that his view (that the earth travels around the sun) was literally true.
Your usage of the word “literally” here is the smoking gun. What exactly does “literally true” or “literally false” mean? I suspect this is related to your belief in 100% certain knowledge. Judged to this standard, then all models of reality are incorrect. Although a much better word is incomplete.
The most obvious and often used example here is Newtonian mechanics which provides a very good approximation that is later superseded by Einstein, which provides a much better approximation. You will find that Newtonian mechanics is still used today for all sorts of calculations. But you will have heard all the before.
The point is, there will always be some observations that are problematic when it comes to knowledge. This is also the case with general relativity (search Pioneer anomaly perhaps). This does not make the knowledge untrue, unless you define “true” as meaning 100% certain. It just means that there is some level of uncertainty.
So how then do we handle knowledge in an uncertain universe? This seems to be something that a lot of (but not all, or only) religious people have trouble with. The answer is: We need to evaluate as best as possible the levels of (un)certainty about the knowledge when we are using it. We need to balance the risks brought about by these uncertainties when applying the knowledge, and also be clear about the context and limitations about any piece of knowledge. Last but not least, we need to also review, refine and/or correct knowledge in the light of new evidence. Does this sound familiar to you? Of course I am referring to the “scientific method” in all it’s many wonderful/messy forms. You might have heard Ken making some mention of this on his blog
The fact is that Galileo was right to challenge the Ptolemaic system of planetary motion for the simple fact that he had better evidence for the Copernican model. The fact also is, that the church were not interested in the evidence, but were instead interested in controlling what people thought.
This brings me to my last point. What were you actually trying to achieve with your post? Increasing knowledge definitely doesn’t seem to be your objective. It seems to me that your objective is to raise doubts about scientific knowledge in the mind’s of people who read this that don’t necessarily know better. Perhaps you feel that science is attacking your cherished beliefs, so you must defend the ramparts.
Thats probably enough for one post. The very last thing. If anybody is reading this thread and would like to know in more detail where Glenn stands on the 100% certainty of knowledge issue, I would recommend you have a look at the following thread on Glenn’s blog:
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/nuts-and-bolts-what-is-knowledge/
It’s a bit heavy going, but for entertainment value, you get to observe me “floundering like a fish out of water” or some such thing.
PS. Good luck hitting the books….
I forgot to mention one of the most important things about evaluating knowledge in an uncertain world. That is, how do we compare two competing hypotheses about something? The answer is: We compare and weigh the differing evidence.
And a relevant example of this:
Any object that orbits another can also be considered to orbit the other when looked at from the frame of reference of the other object.
At this level, when considering the sun and the earth, you could equally validly say that the sun orbits the earth as that the earth orbits the sun, depending on your reference point.
This changes however, when you look at the motion of the other planets (something that Galileo is famous for providing evidence of :-;)
It is clear in this case that the other planets do not orbit the earth regardless of whether you use the sun or the earth as the reference point.
What is also clear, is that the other planets also orbit the sun, and do so regardless of your reference point.
We now have a clear point of difference between the two hypotheses (sun or earth centric). The fact that all the planets, including the earth appear to orbit the sun, but only the sun appears to orbit the earth (when taken from the earth ref point) is telling us something.
It is telling us there there must be an underlying reason behind this behavior (something to do with the sun perhaps).
Given this information, then it should be clear that taking the sun as the reference point is more correct, and that a heliocentric model has more explanatory power. In short, a heliocentric model is more correct than an earth centric model.
Pretty much every comparison of competing hypotheses can be broken down in a similar fashion. Without the ability to compare hypotheses in this way, we could gain no knowledge. Something that any self respecting (self declared?) epistemologist should be right into I would have thought.
Here’s another way to get Hoyle quotes:
http://books.google.co.nz/books?as_q=earth+orbits+sun&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&as_auth=Hoyle&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_maxm_is=0
No, nick. My use of “objective” and “literal” here does not in any way, shape or form relate to my view on knowledge (externalism). I think my use of those terms is very clear.
PS. Externalism, the view I hold, is not the view that we must experience 100% certainty in order to have knowledge. This is just a further illustration of how you misunderstand epistemology.
“What is also clear, is that the other planets also orbit the sun, and do so regardless of your reference point. ”
But they don’t orbit the sun. In fact the sun also moves/orbits.
Glenn, thanks for clearly stating your position. It is exactly as I thought it was. Exactly as I have been arguing against and clearly shows the origin of the confusion in your specific definitions of heliocentricism and geocentricism.
So your position – in your own words – is:
“My position was, and is: Heliocentrism (your term in post 1 for the view that the earth, as an objective fact, moves around the sun and not vice versa) and geocentrism (the view that the sun, as an objective fact, moves around the earth and not vice versa are both wrong. Galileo, I have said (and nobody has corrected me), advocated the former view, and for that reason, he was wrong.”
Hoyle’s quote actually does not support your position – because his use of the words geocentricity and heliocentricity have the normal definitions (relationship to the universe, not solar system).
Hoyle’s quote, as for Bob with the extra as usually added by creationist and theological web sites, is:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view … . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.”
OK, we can’t necessarily trust creationist sources and one can well ask what was deleted where the …. are. But to me it sounds correct and I agree with the meaning of it completely as representing modern scientific views.
Now, Glenn, be aware of, for example, the Wikiperdia definitions:
“heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is stationary and at the center of the universe.” and the Copernican principle means “the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position” in the universe.
And:
the Ptolemaic principle “that the Earth is the center of the universe and other objects go around it.”
With those clear and traditional meanings of heliocentricism, copernican, geocentricsim and ptolemaic, we can see that Einstein’s Special relativity (basically in this case Galilean relativity) applies. Neither of these positions agrees with reality because that says there is no preferred position. Everything must be considered relative. There is no centre to the universe.
Your mistake is that you have taken that correct principle, the one that all astronomers including Hoyle agree with, and then applied it to different meanings of the words heliocentricism and geocentricism.
You are using those words to describe models of the solar system – not the universe.
It is really very simple and very clear. I would think that even the average science student at school could see this.
Yes, Glenn, I have read a bit of Hoyle (so I can appreciate and understand his style) – but not this book and clearly I don’t have access to it. However, I can clearly understand what he says in these quotes. It may help that I have had some training in this sort of thing but I would have thought the meaning should be clear to anyone.
I agree with Nick that your problems with this discussion possibly originate from your concept of knowledge which, to me, seems to conflict with scientific epistemology.
Bob, from your most recent comment I see you still do not understand the issue. The fact that the planets and other bodies orbit the sun is accepted by all astronomers. The sun also orbits – but it orbits the Galaxy, not the earth, mars, the moon, every comet, asteroid, speck of dust. That would be stupid.
Bob, I hope with this comment and the previous one explaining Hoyle’s quote that this is now clear to you. If not, can explain specifically what aspect you have problems with.
Ken, once again, it is unwise of you to make confident claims about how Hoyle uses the terms if you have not even read Hoyle. Having read the chapter in question and observed what Hoyle himself says that he is talking about, I am in a position to know that your assumption – one that you admit is not informed by having read the work in question – is just flat wrong.
You will see this when I present the post elaborating on what Hoyle said. Don’t you think it’s best to minimise the amount of crow you’ll have to eat by waiting until you’ve seen the facts?
Your usage of the words “objective” and “literal” seem to the the linch pins of whatever you are trying to say. What do you mean by them then?
Do you or do you not accept that all knowledge is functionally/practically provisional?
Can you see why a heliocentric model is more correct than a geocentric model given my previous explanation? Or are you still saying these are equally incorrect.
Of course a general relativistic model is also more correct than a simple heliocentric model.
The 100% certainty point was the impression I was left with after the last discussion with you. I don’t think this was something you directly said. But it certainly seems to fit with this post also. Particularly as you seem to not be able to distinguish the quality difference between an heliocentric vs a geocentric model of the solar system.
But again, I would ask, what are you trying to achieve with your post? If as I suspect, your are trying to discredit/devalue science, then congratulations, you certainly seem to have successfully confused Bob about the orbit of the planets.
Oh, and Ken, in addition to the fact that I know that Hoyle meant to talk about the relationship between the earth and the sun, as a second and also sufficient rebuttal to you is to point you to what you yourself have quoted. According to you, Hoyle is saying that it’s not objectively false to claim “that the Earth is the center of the universe and other objects go around it.”
Really Ken? Even the sun? Oh dear.
So there are two responses: Firstly I know that Hoyle was actually talking about which goes around which: the earth, or the sun. That’s also what I was originally talking about, and have been all along.
Secondly, if Hoyle said what you claim he said, then he was also saying that Galileo was wrong, for if the entire universe revolves around the earth, then the sun does too.
Double fail.
You seem to think that mining up a load of Hoyle quotes from a book that nobody else has access to is going to win you some sort beauty contest Glenn.
Can’t you describe what you mean in your own words? Or failing that, surely in the whole big wide internet you could find some sort of reference information (including context) to link to that explains what you mean for you.
But this is not what you really want is it? Clarity and understanding are enemies to your true purpose. Which as far as I can see is to try to and devalue Galileo’s contribution to science and humanity by dragging him down to the level of the ignorant, persecuting and dictatorial church authorities at the time.
This sort of stuff is precisely why the concept of non overlapping magesteria does not cut it.
Glenn – this sounds a bit like revelation to me. “I know what God (Hoyle) thinks, take my word for it. You don’t have the access to God (Hoyle) that I have”
No, we don’t have that book – and you can therefore put whatever words you like into his mouth (after all this is what the tele-preachers do, don’t they?).
But you forget that scientific knowledge is available to everyone. We don’t need to rely on a specific book (scripture or revelation). That is what you must deal with.
However, I don’t believe you can find anything in Hoyle to support you on this specific issue (he has some weird statements in other areas which theists us). And, I have already quoted from one of his papers which makes clear that he supports the view that the earth and other bodies in the solar system orbit the sun. Of course, you have ignored those specific quotes because you can’t manipulate them.
However, it is going to be fun to see you try distorting some more extracts. Let the show begin.
But I am not holding my breath and am willing to continue this discussion with Bob, who is the only other person supporting your viewpoint here.
Nick you make a valid point about the current attempts to whitewash the church, discredit Galileo and misconstrue modern science.
This surely shows that Gould’s idea of NOMA really doesn’t hold water – nor should it be allowed to get off without criticism.
It’s incredible the arrogance of many theists today who make scientific claims (like the current one) despite their complete lack of expertise or any attention being paid to accumulated scientific knowledge.
I think this is basically because religion, in its more popular formats, does intrude into the area of science because it attempts to make fact claims about reality.
(I am sure they feel we intrude into their space when we attempts to objectively investigate consciousness, morality and the evolution of religion. So conflict is inevitable).
This is starting to piss off many scientists so there will be some sort of fight-back. Richard Dawkins normally strikes me as very much a gentleman but I have heard him get angry in a few situations Particularly when he gets some moron ring up during a radio interview to inform him there is no evidence for evolution, there is no fossil evidence, or that there are no transitional forms in fossils. (The other time has been on panels when an Islamic cleric tries to justify the death penalty for apostasy). His anger is pretty understandable.
More scientists are now challenging the accomadationist attitude towards religion and the idea that it is somehow impolite to critique religious claims. We are actually taking off the kid gloves and starting to treat the religious as adults with claims that should undergo the same evidence requirements as any other claim about reality.
So, I see more conflict in the future – it is a conflict that some religious people deny – but they should be honest about what is causing it.
Another religious claim I hear lately is that science grew out of Christianity. This is a silly claim, easily shown to be untrue and culturally insensitive to Islam, the Greeks, the Indians, the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Romans, etc.
I can see this is one that we will have to spend some time arguing about.
I’m a bit confused now with all the anger and hostility.
The points that Glenn’s post is trying to make is that, scientific theory should not be taught as fact.
Was Galileo right or wrong? Well he was right about somethings and wrong about other things. But he was wrong to claim his scientific theory as fact because in fact his scientific theory has been shown to be less than correct.
He held heliocentrism:
In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is stationary and at the center of the universe.
We now know this is not correct. And this means that the view that Galileo represented in his time as fact, was not so.
This is not to discredit Galileo or any scientist, but to illustrate that no scientific theory should be taught as fact. History is littered with such examples we can learn from.
On another note, discussion about theory vs fact is not scientific domain, but the domain of philosophy.
“Another religious claim I hear lately is that science grew out of Christianity.”
I think you meant modern western science? Also any reference on who made that exact claim?
But for start, don’t forget that Galileo was a theist (religious). From Wikipedia:
Galileo has been called the “father of modern observational astronomy,”[6] the “father of modern physics,”[7] the “father of science,”[7] and “the Father of Modern Science.”[8] Stephen Hawking says, “Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science.”[9]
Ken, you’re merely lying when you imply that I am whitewashing the church. You know that I have said the church was wrong. You are lying.
You’re also getting desparate now and further poisoning the well by suggesting that I will simply put words in Hoyle’s mouth. Your lack of patience is surprising for a grown man. Why not simply wait to see what I reproduce from Hoyle?
Nick: “Can’t you describe what you mean in your own words?” I already have. Even Ken, obstinate though he has been, has admitted this.
Nick, the reason that I will be using Hoyle is not because I cannot express my view. I have done so very clearly. I will be using Hoyle to show that Ken’s claim is false when he alleges that absolutely no reputable astronomer/physicist would support my position.
It’s also premature and pre-judgmental to say that what I will be doing with Hoyle is “quote mining.” Like Ken, you actually need to see what I say about Hoyle before making this claim.
All of this confirms that both of you are not willing to listen, as you have pre-judged all matters.
Fine. My next post on the subject will be for the fair minded. The best thing to do at this stage is to close this thread, and you can all be patient, then observe the evidence about what Hoyle said, and comment after you’ve seen it.
Maybe I wasn’t very precise with my sentence there Glenn. Here, I will correct it for you:
“believing that something was true without requiring evidence/justification” without the punishment bit.
Then Nick, Glenn’s point would still stand because all foundationalists accept this, whether externalist or internalist. Moreover, taking the term “evidence/justification” the way Glenn meant it pretty much all coherentist systems (which are internalist) believe this too. There is almost no one in epistemology who believes that every true belief needs to be justified by an inference from another (which is how the term evidence is used in the context Glenn is refering to) and this has been pretty much established since the time of Aristotle.
Thats the problem Nick, people like you and Ken come in, make outright false statements showing you misunderstand the basics of another field and then repeat these dogmatically.
OK, as promised, I’m closing this comment thread.
The primary reason for doing this is that people (especially Ken) are endlessly making claims that are repeats of earlier claims, and which are actually claims about Hoyle that need to be based on what Hoyle said. At this stage, I’m the only one with a copy of Hoyle’s book. In the post that I am putting together, I am including sufficient material from Hoyle to clearly demonstrate what he actually meant, so the need for speculation on Ken’s part (and the part of anyone else wishing to engage in it) will not continue.
I’d like this discussion (when it continues after the next blog on the subject) to maintain a high level of honesty. That will mean not pretending to know what a person meant beyond what they actually said.
Until then
Glenn