The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

[Adrift]

stylehttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/

Why in the world are you conflating my use of the phrase "settled science of the day" (actually MM's usage which I agreed with), with modern "scientific method?"

[Adrift]

Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo

And from the unanimous opinion of the Inquisition at Rome:

The first proposition, that the sun is the center and does not revolve about the earth is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture ... the second proposition, that the earth is not the center but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith.

Others like Father Lecazre, the eminent theological authority and rector of the College of Dijon, described Galileo's research as "cast[ing] suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation"

It was his insistence that his discoveries needed to be taken into account when interpreting Scripture that got him in trouble especially since he wasn't able to provide truly convincing evidence to support them (that would come from Kepler and some others).

So you largely disagree with Professor Graney who pointed out that the original judgement against Galileo was, first, because heliocentrism was scientifically untenable; and second that it was theologically heretical, and O'Niell's much more damning assertion that,

[Adrift]

What about folks like Nicholas Oresme, Albertus Magnus, William of Conches, Robert Grosseteste, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, Walter Burley, Adelard of Bath, John Dumbleton, John Peckham, Bernard Silvestris, Richard of Wallingford and Jean Buridan?

Thanks to John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White and to slightly lesser extent Thomas Huxley the myth of the Dark Ages became popular but later scholarship has utterly debunked the concept to the point that the term has been abandoned by scholars today (preferring to use "Early Middle Ages" or just "Middle Ages") because there isn't much evidence that life was any worse than during the periods before or after it.

In fact they've come to understand that not only wasn't the Christian church responsible for killing science but rather it was actually largely responsible for preserving it as a succession of one "barbarian" horde after another overran Europe for several hundred years^[1] reducing the Roman Empire to nothing but dust and vague memories.

What is ironic is that one of the first people to debunk the Dark Ages myth, the French physicist and mathematician Pierre Duhem, faced a great deal of resistance from the anti-clerical elements in the intellectual elite of his time who worked to keep his from being published. It wasn't until a little over 40 years after his death, and largely due to the efforts of his daughter Helene that the entire ten volume work was finally published in 1959.

It would do you good to read a bit of what modern scholarship has to say about the scientific achievements during Medieval times and could do worse than checking out David C. Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450 (1992), Ronald Numbers' Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (2009), Edward Grant's The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (1996) and God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001), and James Hannam's God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (2009).

I imagine a lot of this talk of "Dark Ages" can be laid at the feet of overzealous Protestants who were looking for ways to denigrate the Catholic Church. Little did they realize that many years later critics of Christianity would take that ball and run with it. Edward Gibbons' hugely influential The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire obviously heaped on to all of that with his extremely critical view of Christianity, and modern historians have been working hard to undo the damage he's done.

[Mountain Man]

Why in the world are you conflating my use of the phrase "settled science of the day" (actually MM's usage which I agreed with), with modern "scientific method?"

I think this is one of those cases where he feels compelled to disagree simply because he's an atheist, and we're Christians, but he really doesn't know why, so now he's just spit-balling.

[rogue06]

So you largely disagree with Professor Graney who pointed out that the original judgement against Galileo was, first, because heliocentrism was scientifically untenable; and second that it was theologically heretical, and O'Niell's much more damning assertion that,

As shown, neither he or anyone else was getting in trouble for contradicting the scientific establishment. It was being done again and again. Galileo did it several times and that led to much of his acclaim.

He largely got in trouble because he was trying to tell the church how they should be interpreting Scripture -- in light of his discoveries. This was not appreciated even by his supporters. This combined with going out of his way to mock the pope (who until then was largely a supporter) and not having definitive evidence in support of his claims was a recipe for disaster.

As for Bellarmine who was a friend of Galileo's and at first offered tentative support... even in the aforementioned letter he made it clear that Galileo was going against what was thought at the time Scripture plainly taught.

"I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe."

Bellarmine also is on record declaring that "[Galileo's] pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation" as well as "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as the claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin."

While Bellarmine would often bring up the scientific view he always returned to how heliocentrism contradicted Scripture. For instance,



because that was what he was concerned with. And that was what Galileo got in trouble for. Science was used merely to support the belief that the Bible was correct when it taught a geocentric view.

Unfortunately this was just another of man's attempts to read the Bible as a science textbook for which it was never meant to be. And this is a lesson many still to this day have failed to grasp.

[rogue06]

I imagine a lot of this talk of "Dark Ages" can be laid at the feet of overzealous Protestants who were looking for ways to denigrate the Catholic Church. Little did they realize that many years later critics of Christianity would take that ball and run with it. Edward Gibbons' hugely influential The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire obviously heaped on to all of that with his extremely critical view of Christianity, and modern historians have been working hard to undo the damage he's done.

The idea of a Dark Age actually had its origins with the writings of Petrarch in the 1330s. He was incredibly enamored with all things Roman and pushed the idea that anything that followed was at best a pale comparison.

Later on, after the Reformation a number of Protestants also adopted this view as well but added in their own anti-Catholic views.

[Adrift]

As shown, neither he or anyone else was getting in trouble for contradicting the scientific establishment. It was being done again and again. Galileo did it several times and that led to much of his acclaim.

He largely got in trouble because he was trying to tell the church how they should be interpreting Scripture -- in light of his discoveries. This was not appreciated even by his supporters. This combined with going out of his way to mock the pope (who until then was largely a supporter) and not having definitive evidence in support of his claims was a recipe for disaster.

As for Bellarmine who was a friend of Galileo's and at first offered tentative support... even in the aforementioned letter he made it clear that Galileo was going against what was thought at the time Scripture plainly taught.

"I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe."

Bellarmine also is on record declaring that "[Galileo's] pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation" as well as "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as the claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin."

While Bellarmine would often bring up the scientific view he always returned to how heliocentrism contradicted Scripture. For instance,



because that was what he was concerned with. And that was what Galileo got in trouble for. Science was used merely to support the belief that the Bible was correct when it taught a geocentric view.

Unfortunately this was just another of man's attempts to read the Bible as a science textbook for which it was never meant to be. And this is a lesson many still to this day have failed to grasp.

Hmm. So, if you had to guess where do you think that O'Niell (a skeptic, as you yourself noted) and Professor Graney got this idea from that it had as much, if not more, to do with the the science of the period as it did religious heresy?

[rogue06]

Hmm. So, if you had to guess where do you think that O'Niell (a skeptic, as you yourself noted) and Professor Graney got this idea from that it had as much, if not more, to do with the the science of the period as it did religious heresy?

I'm not a mind reader but if I had to hazard a (wild) guess, I'd say that they're tending to over-correct by putting too much stress on a factor that wasn't getting much attention.

[Sparko]

style of attempting to overwhelm your opponent,

Aww... did rogue's pesky little fact-thingies overwhelm wittle Tassywassy?


























[and yes, Chuck, that was an ad hom]

[Sparko]

Obviously it was called, "the Dark Ages" because they hadn't invented light bulbs yet. duh.

It was also back when the world was still in black and white.

[Tassman]

It would help if you actually knew what a Gish Gallop was rather than just ignorantly slinging it about in the same manner that a 4 year old uses a swear word he overheard and has no idea what it means but is only aware that it is something bad.

A Gish Gallop is when a debater throws out a myriad of unrelated or at best loosely connected claims in an attempt to swamp his opponent. It is usually used in oral debates where there is a limited amount of time and it is impossible to address each charge leaving the usually false impression that the person was incapable of answering some of the claims and hence they might be valid.

style

In sharp contrast I'm making a single claim -- namely that the notion of a Dark Ages has been discredited and offered something like four examples to substantiate my claim.

B]ETA:[/B] And while Bacon typically gets the credit,

Yes. For the very good reason that Bacon was the first to systematize scientific methodology as we know it today.



https://www.famousscientists.org/francis-bacon/

Just as I argued previously.

[shunyadragon]

Yes. For the very good reason that Bacon was the first to systematize scientific methodology as we know it today.



https://www.famousscientists.org/francis-bacon/

Just as I argued previously.

I believe the Islamic contribution of the evolution of the Scientific Method deserved its place in history.

[Adrift]

style

[Tassman]

I believe the Islamic contribution of the evolution of the Scientific Method deserved its place in history.

Oh certainly. Islamic scientific achievements during its Golden Age had a considerable impact on European scientific development.

[Adrift]

Indeed. It goes both ways. As Christianity influenced Kalam, Kalam influenced Christianity, and thanks to Kalam scholarship, Christian theologians and philosophers were able to move beyond outdated pagan Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian schools of thought, and furthered Christian views on natural philosophy (science) and theology in ways that we're still benefiting from.