[chris v]

I was referring more to the idea that until at least Descartes, if one's science strayed too far from church doctrine, one stood the real chance of being burned at the stake. He (Descartes) worked in constant fear of the church, and moderated his publications in accordance with those fears -- he had Bruno to hold up as a very real example of what happened when logic and reason contradicted doctrine. Galileo might not have been burned, but the church sure screwed him over.

Notions about the mechanics of our world were supposed to be revealed by divine truth, and not by experimentation and empirical observation, because the latter showed a lack of faith. It was the mid-1600's when all that really turned around as far as widespread thinking.

But even today, we have a conflict between those who want to accept doctrinal dogma over observed, proofed and widely accepted science, so the problem has not gone away entirely.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by chris v

Notions about the mechanics of our world were supposed to be revealed by divine truth, and not by experimentation and empirical observation, because the latter showed a lack of faith. It was the mid-1600's when all that really turned around as far as widespread thinking.

What's not to like about crystaline celestial spheres and perfect motion?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by chris v

I was referring more to the idea that until at least Descartes, if one's science strayed too far from church doctrine, one stood the real chance of being burned at the stake. He (Descartes) worked in constant fear of the church, and moderated his publications in accordance with those fears -- he had Bruno to hold up as a very real example of what happened when logic and reason contradicted doctrine. Galileo might not have been burned, but the church sure screwed him over.

Notions about the mechanics of our world were supposed to be revealed by divine truth, and not by experimentation and empirical observation, because the latter showed a lack of faith. It was the mid-1600's when all that really turned around as far as widespread thinking.

But even today, we have a conflict between those who want to accept doctrinal dogma over observed, proofed and widely accepted science, so the problem has not gone away entirely.

Yeah, I see what you mean, but - since part of my minor has been focused on the history of science and technology since the Greeks - I feel that any sort of notion that religion or theology has somehow "hindered" or "conflicted" with the development of natural philosophy and/or science.

While it's true that some real trouble could happen to people who directly opposed the established religion (whether in Islamic or Christian variations), what most people don't realize is that almost to a man the great "scientists" were all quite religious. Even better, the work they did was often considered for their religion or God - to somehow prove or explore the wonders of such a divine being's Creation, if you will. You mention Descartes and/or Galileo as examples, but both were devoutly religious - Galileo ever considered himself a son of the Church right up until his death, despite the accusations and trial thrown against him. Newton himself was said to be the greatest living anti-Trinitarian theologian" who took some time off theology to write about the natural world! You can observe this pattern in many of the great Christian natural philosophers of the middle ages, right along into the Islamic period before that.

While I do agree with your comments on doctrinal dogma sometimes getting in the way of the acceptance of new beliefs and scientific discoveries, I think it would be a mistake to say that it has been something which has historically hindered the "progress of science" - in fact, I think many historians would argue that religion worked hand-in-hand with science and helped it grow. I think it's equally a mistake to say that before the "scientific revolution" natural philosophy was to be revealed by divine truth rather than empirical observation and experimentation - the rise of both during this period is a topic which has a hundred culminating reasons involving social, religious and industrial aspects of medieval life (such as an emphasis on "testing Nature" so she could reveal her secrets, advocated by Francis Bacon - who was a witness to such attempts on humans in the torture chamber). The Islamic scientists who were so important in molding Greek knowledge and passing it on to the Europeans were quite well-known for their early forms of experiments, and the Aristotelian fundamentals of reason, logic and observation were the basis of natural philosophy.

Anyways, yeah. Off-topic or something.

greg

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

If everyone had always thought this way, we'd still be struggling to accept the Earth not being the center of the universe.

Well, the Earth IS the center of the universe…insofar as it is manifested in OUR observation of it from THIS point of reference right here. [points to head] It is science that is being unreasonable by trying to project themselves into a part of the universe which they BELIEVE to be the center. Since all observations are subject to the observers point of reference it is wrong to try and inject ourselves to the theoretical center of the universe, since the rest of the universe can be no more correctly observed from any other single point of reference…

(um…did someone ask for some amateur philosophy? )

[besson3c]

smacintush, how come you hate science? Did it sleep with your wife or something?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Retirement community: liberal

Not from what I have seen.

Online community: conservative

You are kidding right?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, the Earth IS the center of the universe…insofar as it is manifested in OUR observation of it from THIS point of reference right here. [points to head] It is science that is being unreasonable by trying to project themselves into a part of the universe which they BELIEVE to be the center. Since all observations are subject to the observers point of reference it is wrong to try and inject ourselves to the theoretical center of the universe, since the rest of the universe can be no more correctly observed from any other single point of reference…

It's kinda funny, you're 1/2 right by accident. "Science" does not try to inject people about the theoretical center of the universe, because there isn't one. The "center" is always the reference point form which you make the observation.

If you imagine the universe as the surface of an expanding bubble, where's the center of that surface? That's one thing that Edwin Hubble helpled to establish that led us to figure out the shape of the universe. No matter where you are, all objects in the universe appear to be accelerating away from you.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It's kinda funny, you're 1/2 right by accident. "Science" does not try to inject people about the theoretical center of the universe, because there isn't one. The "center" is always the reference point form which you make the observation.

If you imagine the universe as the surface of an expanding bubble, where's the center of that surface? That's one thing that Edwin Hubble helpled to establish that led us to figure out the shape of the universe. No matter where you are, all objects in the universe appear to be accelerating away from you.

Actually, I'm 1/2 right by design.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Actually, I'm 1/2 right by design.

Edwin Hubble was able to prove his theory, why don't you prove yours?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Edwin Hubble was able to prove his theory, why don't you prove yours?

'Cuz I don't have to and It's not a theory I actually believe in! Just like 80% of the crap I type in these forums!

[d4nth3m4n]

anyone just see them ripping on this on VH1's "best week ever"?