Was Newton a real scientist?

[Argos]

Hope I´m not offending any sacred cow here. At times we hear the expression "Newton, the greatest scientist the world has known". Rigorously though, was Newton a real scientist or a "transitional" character? He exhibited definitely non-scientific attitudes during his lifetime:

1. He used to get huffy on being questioned or criticized.
2. He resorted to ad hominem and authority arguments against his detractors.
3. He was adept of secrecy (he hid his work on optics for years).
4. He was a believer.

With 1 and 2 he wouldn´t last a day on BABB. :)

Any thoughts?

[Candy]

4. He was a believer.
A believer of what? 8-[

[Eta C]

Well, I've known plenty of scientists who were huffy and resorted to insult and denigration when challenged, so I wouldn't count those against Newton. Also, I don't recall that I had to sign an oath that I was an atheist before I got my Ph.D. There have been plenty of great scientists who were also devout to their faith (Abdus Salam (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1979/salam-bio.html), one of the developers of the electo-weak theory comes to mind). The reason they were still great scientists is that they kept religion out of their scientific work and didn't let it influence their judgement. So let's not count that against Newton either.

Now, let's get on to 3. Newton's penchant for secrecy would put him somewhat out of line in today's publish or perish world, but not entirely out of place. It's common for scientists to keep their results under close hold until ready for publication. However, Newton took this to an extreme.

As to his real work, Newton experimented, and compared his theoretical results to those experiments. So in that sense yes, he was a real scientist. Of course he also messed around with alchemy which these days would disqualify him. However, in his time that was still what passed for chemistry.

[Conspiracy Cam]

1. He used to get huffy on being questioned or criticized.


Thas why he kept all of his work secret untill the last moment

2. He resorted to ad hominem and authority arguments against his detractors.
3. He was adept of secrecy (he hid his work on optics for years).

See above

4. He was a believer.

In his time, it was fatal to not be. 8-[

With 1 and 2 he wouldn´t last a day on BABB. :)

Any thoughts?

[Eta C]

Also a quick note on Newton's faith. He was very unconventional in his Christianity. He had to get a royal exception to the rule that all Cambridge professors had to be ordained in the Church of England. I recommend James Gliek's recent biography of Newton for an exploration of the man's beliefs and their impact on his science.

[Swift]

4. He was a believer.
A believer of what? 8-[
I'm guessing Argos is referring to things like alchemy, which Newton not only believed in (IIRC), but even studied.

Back to Argos' question... I'd say Newton was a scientist, particularly in the context of his time. If being huffy when criticized meant you were not a scientist, then most of us scientist types would lose our scientist stripes, at least at one time or another. We're also human (well, most of us are :wink: ).

[Argos]

The reason they were still great scientists is that they kept religion out of their scientific work and didn't let it influence their judgement. So let's not count that against Newton either.

I don´t think Newton separated those things well. He could go further in his revolution, if his thoughts weren´t "contaminated" by his underlying beliefs (and this holds true for every scientist, methinks).

[Argos]

4. He was a believer.
A believer of what? 8-[
I'm guessing Argos is referring to things like alchemy, which Newton not only believed in (IIRC), but even studied.

I can forgive him for alchemy, considering the time he lived. But I was referring to his profound belief in a "superior" entity. Even Hipatia, many hundreds of years earlier, had abandoned beliefs.

[Eta C]

The reason they were still great scientists is that they kept religion out of their scientific work and didn't let it influence their judgement. So let's not count that against Newton either.

I don´t think Newton separated those things well. He could go further in his revolution, if his thoughts weren´t "contaminated" by his underlying beliefs (and this holds true for every scientist, methinks).

Methinks not. I've known good scientists who were deeply religious and those who were absolute atheists. One's religion or lack thereof need not have any impact on one's ability as a scientist.

[Argos]

The reason they were still great scientists is that they kept religion out of their scientific work and didn't let it influence their judgement. So let's not count that against Newton either.

I don´t think Newton separated those things well. He could go further in his revolution, if his thoughts weren´t "contaminated" by his underlying beliefs (and this holds true for every scientist, methinks).

Methinks not. I've known good scientists who were deeply religious and those who were absolute atheists. One's religion or lack thereof need not have any impact on one's ability as a scientist.

Obviously I´m not willing the discussion to orbit religion, but I think non-believer (skeptical) scientists are always one step ahead.

[papageno]

The reason they were still great scientists is that they kept religion out of their scientific work and didn't let it influence their judgement. So let's not count that against Newton either.

I don´t think Newton separated those things well. He could go further in his revolution, if his thoughts weren´t "contaminated" by his underlying beliefs (and this holds true for every scientist, methinks).

Methinks not. I've known good scientists who were deeply religious and those who were absolute atheists. One's religion or lack thereof need not have any impact on one's ability as a scientist.

Obviously I´m not willing the discussion to orbit religion, but I think non-believer scientists are always one step ahead.
I don't think that Einstein was an atheist.

[Argos]

The reason they were still great scientists is that they kept religion out of their scientific work and didn't let it influence their judgement. So let's not count that against Newton either.

I don´t think Newton separated those things well. He could go further in his revolution, if his thoughts weren´t "contaminated" by his underlying beliefs (and this holds true for every scientist, methinks).

Methinks not. I've known good scientists who were deeply religious and those who were absolute atheists. One's religion or lack thereof need not have any impact on one's ability as a scientist.

Obviously I´m not willing the discussion to orbit religion, but I think non-believer scientists are always one step ahead.
I don't think that Einstein was an atheist.

He wasn´t. That´s why he refused Quantum Mechanics.

[worzel]

4. He was a believer.In his time, it was fatal to not be. 8-[
He didn't just pay lip service to the state religion though, If I remember correctly, I read in "The Last Sorcerer - Michael White" that Newton spent many years trying to prove, scientifically, the existence of God. And his interests in alchemy went beyond protochemistry into the occult.

Newton was a great scientist, though, because whatever else he thought or did, he left behind some great science.

[Fram]

The reason they were still great scientists is that they kept religion out of their scientific work and didn't let it influence their judgement. So let's not count that against Newton either.

I don´t think Newton separated those things well. He could go further in his revolution, if his thoughts weren´t "contaminated" by his underlying beliefs (and this holds true for every scientist, methinks).

Methinks not. I've known good scientists who were deeply religious and those who were absolute atheists. One's religion or lack thereof need not have any impact on one's ability as a scientist.

Obviously I´m not willing the discussion to orbit religion, but I think non-believer scientists are always one step ahead.
I don't think that Einstein was an atheist.

And didn't that cause him great problems to accept his own theories and the consequences thereof? Who knows what other things he might have achieved if he hadn't had those problems and could have spend more time on creating instead of reconciling and fretting.
Well, that's a 'what if', so we'll never know of course.
Don't get me wrong, I consider Einstien as one of the all time greats anyhow 8)

[worzel]

I never thought that when Einstein said "God does not play dice" he literally meant God, and would otherwise not have a problem with quantum physics. I thought he was just expressing the fact that he didn't believe that the universe operated that way.

[Eta C]

Obviously I´m not willing the discussion to orbit religion, but I think non-believer (skeptical) scientists are always one step ahead.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I believe you're wrong. As I said before, in my experience as a physicist it need not make any difference. One can go through the list of Nobel winners and find the whole range of religious belief. You could probably do the same with the author list of a typical particle physics experiment. (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000094000009091 802000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes)

As to Newton, just what great discoveries do you think were lost because of his belief in a divine being?

[Captain Kidd]

I never thought that when Einstein said "God does not play dice" he literally meant God, and would otherwise not have a problem with quantum physics. I thought he was just expressing the fact that he didn't believe that the universe operated that way.
NPR had a segment with somebody the other day. I think he had a new biography of Einstein coming out.

That question was asked; it wasn't God god, but that Einstein believed that things could/should be explainable by equations and set laws. The implications of randomness in QM apparently bothered him immensely.

Disclaimer: I was dodging suicidal commuters at the time, so if I got anything wrong, blame them.

[Argos]

As to Newton, just what great discoveries do you think were lost because of his belief in a divine being?

Mind you, I´m playing the devil´s advocate here, only. I´m not disputing the greatness of Newton (or Einstein), whom I myself admire. That said:

I think that a genuine scientific attitude helps much in the search for the truth. You´ve got to get rid of all noise in order to make science. This means controlling your ego, opening your mind, listening to others, and keeping a skeptical attitude. Your science will have superior quality if you do so. I can´t say about Newton, but if Einstein was a skeptical he would have saved himself years of wandering in mistake. In his case, his inner beliefs (or noises in the conceptualization of reality, if you will) caused him to deny a legitimate formal concept, the Uncertainty Principle.

What would you tell a kid who wants to be a scientist? Would you recommend him/her one of the above mentioned Newton´s attitudes? Would you recommend believing in divinities?

We´re all enthusiats of the scientific thinking, so I´m trying to analyse a given historical period and define what makes a real scientist, putting Newton´s thoughts in an exact historical perspective. He´s an example of a great mind, but not a great scientist, aware of his responsibilities. I´d call him a proto-scientist.

[tofu]

Obviously I´m not willing the discussion to orbit religion, but I think non-believer (skeptical) scientists are always one step ahead.

I just think that's incredibly narrow minded of you.

Many people who have religious beliefs are of the opinion that the universe is complex (and interesting) precisely because it was made by a god who intended for us to probe its complexity.

Still others believe that understanding the universe *is* understanding their god.

There is, of course, that third category of people who, for whatever reason, seem to think that the universe operates on magic and that we shouldn't look too closely at it.

Given those three possibilities, you've generalized so that everyone falls into the bad category. So like I said, I think you're being very narrow minded here.

[farmerjumperdon]

Doesn't it depend on their specific beliefs and how those beliefs are allowed to influence their work?

I mean, if someone has a literal interpretation of the bible as a hard-core belief, and in no way will accept the Earth as being more than a few thousand years old, they'd make a pretty poor scientist in certain fields wouldn't they?

[W.F. Tomba]

I think that a genuine scientific attitude helps much in the search for the truth. You´ve got to get rid of all noise in order to make science. This means controlling your ego, opening your mind, listening to others, and keeping a skeptical attitude. Your science will have superior quality if you do so. I can´t say about Newton, but if Einstein was a skeptical he would have saved himself years of wandering in mistake. In his case, his inner beliefs (or noises in the conceptualization of reality, if you will) caused him to deny a legitimate formal concept, the Uncertainty Principle.
I think you're making an unwarranted assumption that in order to keep a scientific attitude in one's scientific work, one must apply that attitude to all parts of life, i.e. undergo a complete personal conversion to skepticism. I am not convinced of that. Plus I think you're setting an impossible standard that no scientist, atheist or believer, has ever met.

[Argos]

I think you're making an unwarranted assumption that in order to keep a scientific attitude in one's scientific work, one must apply that attitude to all parts of life.

I´m talking about mental discipline and coherence. Farmerjumperdon has given a good example of how thought contamination can hinder scientific research.

Edited for grammar and style.

[Sam5]

Hope I´m not offending any sacred cow here. At times we hear the expression "Newton, the greatest scientist the world has known". Rigorously though, was Newton a real scientist or a "transitional" character? He exhibited definitely non-scientific attitudes during his lifetime:

This is an interesting question and it could apply to Edison and others as well. Was Edison a “scientist”?

What is a “scientist”? Someone who gets a job as a “scientist”? Someone who looks at nature and tries to figure it out, like Newton? Someone who invents things like Edison? Someone who reads other people’s papers and then tries to come up with his own unique ideas about how things work, like Einstein?

I think there are many different kinds and types of scientists, such as Newton, Edison, and Einstein. Newton’s so-called “alchemy” investigations were merely early chemistry investigations carried out in an era before chemistry was understood. Even in the early 19th Century there were professional scientist/chemists and doctors who were still mixing various chemicals and stuff (such as ground up oyster shells) together to see what happened when they were combined. It wasn’t until the late 19th Century when chemists began to figure out how elements worked and how they combined with other elements.

[farmerjumperdon]

I think Tomba brushed up against a good issue there when he mentioned having to, (or was it not having to), bring a certain attitude to all parts of life.

I do firmly believe that to live effectively, you must bring the same principle-centered beliefs to all parts of your life. If you believe in Creationism, how could you possibly be a scientist in any field having to do with genetics? (Might not be the best example, but I'm guessing you know where I'm going).

So again, it makes me wonder how someone who believes the literal interpretations of many of the stories conveyed via organized religions can make objective observations and valid conclusions in certain fields.

And if we are concerned about scientists, what about school administrators and public policymakers? What if a person making decisions about a biology curriculum believes in . . . .

Oh yeah, that already is happening. 8-[

[TriangleMan]

I´m talking about mental discipline and coherence. Farmerjumperdon has given a good example of how thought contamination can hinder scientific research.
But it works in reverse as well Argos, IIRC there was some resistance at first to the concept of the Big Bang theory because it hinted at "something from nothing". If so then it is an example of science being impeded because of atheism rather than due to a religious belief.

[Sam5]

I think Tomba brushed up against a good issue there when he mentioned having to, (or was it not having to), bring a certain attitude to all parts of life.

I do firmly believe that to live effectively, you must bring the same principle-centered beliefs to all parts of your life. If you believe in Creationism, how could you possibly be a scientist in any field having to do with genetics? (Might not be the best example, but I'm guessing you know where I'm going).


Just about everybody believes in something. Some people believe that every physical thing in the universe just came about by “accident”, while others believe every physical thing was “designed” by an intelligent entity that is beyond our human understanding.

[Disinfo Agent]

[...] IIRC there was some resistance at first to the concept of the Big Bang theory because it hinted at "something from nothing". If so then it is an example of science being impeded because of atheism rather than due to a religious belief.
What does that have to do with atheism? :-?

[Disinfo Agent]

Just about everybody believes in something. Some people believe that every physical thing in the universe just came about by “accident”, while others believe every physical thing was “designed” by an intelligent entity that is beyond our human understanding.
And then there are those who "believe" they don't really know. :P

[Sam5]

I´m talking about mental discipline and coherence. Farmerjumperdon has given a good example of how thought contamination can hinder scientific research.
But it works in reverse as well Argos, IIRC there was some resistance at first to the concept of the Big Bang theory because it hinted at "something from nothing". If so then it is an example of science being impeded because of atheism rather than due to a religious belief.

You are certainly right about that. Newton argued that the earth and universe had not always existed and came into being at some time in the past. The atheists (“philosophers”) of that era disagreed with him and claimed that the universe had “always existed”. This atheist theme was carried on through to the 1920s in atheist science texts. I’ve got an atheist book here by George Morehouse, published in 1898, titled “Wilderness of Worlds.” In the book Morehouse said,

”Those who assume the existence of an intelligent
power or creative force, back of, or outside of matter,
have very little real insight into the working of Nature.
They take the form for the substance. They measure
Nature with a human micrometer as the standard. To
them words and catalogues are greater than works and
a thorough understanding of principles and substance.
There is no evidence of the characteristic caprice of in-
telligence in the always uniform order of Nature. The
Universe was not created, but always existed.

All things go through their natural changes and are
the manifestations of the properties of the Universe, and
contain in and of themselves, and ever have, and ever
will, all there is of eternal energy. The infinite and
eternal energy, in all its protean forms, is ever at one
with matter, whether optically visible or not, and the
energy is no more a product of matter than matter is of
it; but simply a property of matter from which it can-
not be separated. In this idea we have the true Monistic
conception of the Universe. The material Universe is
all there is of it, but in the broad sense-it is potent and
living material.”

[Sam5]

Just about everybody believes in something. Some people believe that every physical thing in the universe just came about by “accident”, while others believe every physical thing was “designed” by an intelligent entity that is beyond our human understanding.
And then there are those who "believe" they don't really know. :P

I “believe” that I don’t know most of the details, and I’ve been trying to figure them out for the past.... uhh, about 50 years. :D

[Disinfo Agent]

But it works in reverse as well Argos, IIRC there was some resistance at first to the concept of the Big Bang theory because it hinted at "something from nothing". If so then it is an example of science being impeded because of atheism rather than due to a religious belief.
You are certainly right about that. Newton argued that the earth and universe had not always existed and came into being at some time in the past. The atheists (“philosophers”) of that era disagreed with him and claimed that the universe had “always existed”.
I'm sure there were many religious philosophers in Newton's time -- including him, right? And "the atheist philosophers of Newton's time" don't represent all atheists, anyway.

P.S. Also, the Big Bang theory was proposed a little later than that. :)

[Sam5]

P.S. Also, the Big Bang theory was proposed a little later than that. :)

Actually, Newton suggested it. He wrote letters to various people in which he did a lot of speculating. Some of these letters were later collected and published in books. The fact that the universe contained a lot of gravity with all the stars, led Newton to speculate that it might be contracting, expanding, or revolving.

[Sam5]

Years ago I started collecting old books, mainly because the ones from the 19th and 18th Centuries were sold in junk stores for .25¢ back in the 1950s and ‘60s, and these were the cheapest “antiques” I could find back when I was in school. So I bought books about subjects I was interested in, such as science and astronomy, and to my surprise, in them I found many modern hypotheses that most modern books claim were thought up only in the 20th Century.

For example, here is a hint of Newton’s “big crunch”/”big bang” hypothesis, as published in 1803 in “Natural Theology”, by Rev. William Paley, Arch-Deacon of Carlisle. I found this quote on page 276 of the book...

“But many of the heavenly bodies, as the sun and fixed stars are stationary. Their rest must be the effect of an absence or of an equilibrium of attractions. It proves also that a projectile impulse was originally given to some of the heavenly bodies, and not to others. But further; if attraction act at all distances, there can be only one quiescent center of gravity in the universe: and all bodies whatever must be approaching this center, or revolving around it. According to the first of these suppositions, if the duration of the world had been long enough to allow it, all its parts, all the great bodies of which it is composed, must have been gathered together in a heap round this point.”

The religious scientists were considering the big-bang/big-crunch theory back in those days, back when the atheists were claiming the universe had “always existed”. Boy, were the atheists surprised when Hubble made his announcement in 1929.

[Disinfo Agent]

Actually, Newton suggested it. He wrote letters to various people in which he did a lot of speculating.
But did he have the evidence to support such a theory?

[Sam5]

Actually, Newton suggested it. He wrote letters to various people in which he did a lot of speculating.
But did he have the evidence to support such a theory?

Yes. An understanding of gravity and visual evidence of a lot of mass in stars. He figured the stars had to be doing something other than just sitting still in space.

That 1803 book cost me $12 back in the 1980s. It turns out to be a first edition, and now it is selling for up to $350.

LINK TO BOOK (http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?gpnm=All+Book+Stores&an=paley&ph=2&k n=1803&tn=natural+theology)

[W.F. Tomba]

I do firmly believe that to live effectively, you must bring the same principle-centered beliefs to all parts of your life.
I do not firmly believe that. I think it's a view that has some merit, but it does not entirely convince me. One reason for that is that I am doubtful that such a life is even achievable.

[Disinfo Agent]

Yes. An understanding of gravity and visual evidence of a lot of mass in stars. He figured the stars had to be doing something other than just sitting still in space.
Then why did Einstein still think the universe was static, over a hundred years later -- because he was an atheist? :)

[Sam5]

Yes. An understanding of gravity and visual evidence of a lot of mass in stars. He figured the stars had to be doing something other than just sitting still in space.
Then why did Einstein still think the universe was static, over a hundred years later -- because he was an atheist? :)

I think he thought so because spectrography was still fairly new in 1915-17, and many astronomers were still reporting a fairly “static” universe in which the stars seemed to be “fixed”, except for some small motions that were not much faster than the speed of the earth around the sun. I’ve actually researched this. I think he was misled by the lack of spectrographic evidence of rapid star and galaxy motion. One problem that slowed down that progress was the insensitivity of old film and glass plates. So, the expert spectrographers could not get good spectrographic pictures of distant galaxies and their high redshifts until some years later. Hubble had the advantage in the 1920s of a larger telescope (100 inches, I think), plus much more sensitive glass plates. Einstein, being somewhat youthful and very precocious, didn’t want to wait 50 years until more was known before he started suggesting ideas about the universe.

Einstein wasn’t quite an “atheist”, thus his remark about the “dice”.

[Disinfo Agent]

His remark on dice had more to do with the fact that he was a determinist. But I was being ironic. :wink:

[Argos]

...It works in reverse...

Agreed, Tman, and I think both ways are harmful.

To the Board:

With this thread I originally thought of discussing Newton´s departude from the modern scientific behavior. Of course Newton has represented an advance in human thinking. But he lacked a method. He had a powerful mind but lacked the understanding of the impact of his work on society, which I call responsibility, a modern scientific characteristic. And there´s all his superstition. Descartes had just finished his "discourse on the method", so you wouldn´t expect a full-fledge scientific behaviour those times. In fact, I find it amazing that gravity and calculus could come to light in the pre-scientific era, in spite of the "zeitgeist".

[Sam5]

...It works in reverse...

Agreed, Tman, and I think both ways are harmful.

To the Board:

With this thread I originally thought of discussing Newton´s departude from the modern scientific behavior. Of course Newton has represented an advance in human thinking. But he lacked a method. He had a powerful mind but lacked the understanding of the impact of his work on society, which I call responsibility, a modern scientific characteristic. And there´s all his superstition. Descartes had just finished his "discourse on the method", so you wouldn´t expect a full-fledge scientific behaviour those times. In fact, I find it amazing that gravity and calculus could come to light in the pre-scientific era, in spite of the "zeitgeist".

Uhh, maybe I’m a little dense, or something, but what is the modern “scientific behavior” supposed to be?

When Newton was about 22 years old he was off from college a couple of years because of the plague in the big cities, so he went to his family farm and conducted experiments with prisms in his family barn. Through these experiments he learned a lot about light. Then he tried to figure out a way to get around the problem of lens aberration in telescopes in those days, and he thought up the idea of making a mirror reflecting telescope, which is still a major kind of telescope in use today. Then he took some of the old information about the orbits of the planets and figured out an equation of gravity that NASA still uses today. So in what way do you think he did not act properly regarding modern “scientific behavior”? In what way did he “behave” that you don’t like?

[A Thousand Pardons]

Hope I´m not offending any sacred cow here. At times we hear the expression "Newton, the greatest scientist the world has known".
I dunno, I googled on it, and came up with zero hits :)
[...] IIRC there was some resistance at first to the concept of the Big Bang theory because it hinted at "something from nothing". If so then it is an example of science being impeded because of atheism rather than due to a religious belief.
What does that have to do with atheism? :-?
In another thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=430587&highlight=lemaitre#430587), Sam5 brought up LeMaitre, a Catholic Priest, who came up with the Big Bang theoy, and that there was some resistance.

[papageno]

With this thread I originally thought of discussing Newton´s departude from the modern scientific behavior. Of course Newton has represented an advance in human thinking. But he lacked a method. He had a powerful mind but lacked the understanding of the impact of his work on society, which I call responsibility, a modern scientific characteristic. And there´s all his superstition. Descartes had just finished his "discourse on the method", so you wouldn´t expect a full-fledge scientific behaviour those times. In fact, I find it amazing that gravity and calculus could come to light in the pre-scientific era, in spite of the "zeitgeist".
Pre-scientific era?
Galileo Galilei lived and worked before Newton.
He pointed out that the language of mathematics had to be used to read the book of Nature. And that experiments determine what is correct.
The "modern" scientific behaviour was put into words by Galilei.

[Disinfo Agent]

[...] IIRC there was some resistance at first to the concept of the Big Bang theory because it hinted at "something from nothing". If so then it is an example of science being impeded because of atheism rather than due to a religious belief.
What does that have to do with atheism? :-?
In another thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=430587&highlight=lemaitre#430587), Sam5 brought up LeMaitre, a Catholic Priest, who came up with the Big Bang theoy, and that there was some resistance.
When the modern big bang theory was invented by Lemaitre in 1927, it was ignored because he was a Catholic Priest working for a Vatican observatory. But when Hubble made his startling announcement in 1929, all of a sudden the atheists started tracing the radial movement of the galaxies backwards and realized that if the universe was indeed expanding, it had a beginning a few billion years earlier, then all the atheist textbooks and popular books were changed to support the new “expansion of the universe” theory. They gradually began to admit that the universe did apparently have a beginning after all, but they failed to credit religious people like Lemaitre, Newton, and Bentley, who had been claiming this was true for hundreds of years.
It sounds like a very simplistic, black-and-white, Christians=good/atheists=bad description, but, since I haven't researched the history of the Big Bang theory, I'll shut up now.

[A Thousand Pardons]

It sounds like a very simplistic, black-and-white, Christians=good/atheists=bad description
I think TriangleMan was just countering (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=432010#432010) the opposite simplification from Argos and Farmerjumperdon

[Disinfo Agent]

I confess that my first reaction to Argos’s question was to think ‘Well, of course one thing has got nothing to do with the other!’, but then I realised that I was only looking at the “hard” sciences.

In math, or physics, or astronomy, I do think religious beliefs and science are pretty much orthogonal these days, although it wasn’t always so (Tycho’s model of the solar system comes to mind).

But, even today, I think religious convictions and science sometimes clash against each other in the “softer” sciences. For example, inspired by my numerous disagreements with Sitchin supporters like A.DIM and Outcast in these forums, I finally decided to get Samuel Noah Kramer’s History Begins at Sumer. I’ve been enjoying it, even though Kramer's writing can be a bit dull at times.

One of the subjects he of course mentions is how certain Biblical tales have Sumerian predecessors. He even goes so far as to say that the Biblical version was based on the Sumerian myth! (Can I use this word without offending Sam5? :P) However, he’s always very quick to add that the Biblical version of the tale is superior. Isn't that a matter of opinion?

Once, he even said that about a text which, he admitted, had still not been well translated at the time, and whose translation was likely to be improved upon further research. So how did he know that the text would be inferior to its Biblical counterpart?! [-X :evil:

[Eta C]

In math, or physics, or astronomy, I do think religious beliefs and science are pretty much orthogonal these days, although it wasn’t always so (Tycho’s model of the solar system comes to mind).

Again, I would respectfully disagree. The "a physicist must be an atheist" stereotype is as invalid as the "all Christians oppose evolution" one. As I pointed out several times yesterday, a simple examination of the Nobel winners over the last century shows a whole range of beliefs. Perhaps agnostics and atheists predominate, but I would argue that being religious is not necessarily an impediment to being a productive, or even a great, scientist

[Argos]

So in what way do you think he did not act properly regarding modern “scientific behavior”? In what way did he “behave” that you don’t like?

MY like is not in dispute.

One of the pillars of the scientific method, nowadays, is peer-reviewing, would you agree? Now, how would Newton react, being so secretive, if you said to him that his work had to be reviewed by others prior to publishing? Today, Newton would be crushed by the common university department, the academic establishment (in fact, the establishment had a beef with him that time, for other reasons). There would hardly be room for a scientist (better, a pre-scientist) like him today.

[Disinfo Agent]

In math, or physics, or astronomy, I do think religious beliefs and science are pretty much orthogonal these days, although it wasn’t always so (Tycho’s model of the solar system comes to mind).
Again, I would respectfully disagree. The "a physicist must be an atheist" stereotype is as invalid as the "all Christians oppose evolution" one. As I pointed out several times yesterday, a simple examination of the Nobel winners over the last century shows a whole range of beliefs. Perhaps agnostics and atheists predominate, but I would argue that being religious is not necessarily an impediment to being a productive, or even a great, scientist
I think you've misunderstood me. By "orthogonal" I mean that neither being religious nor being an atheist are a hindrance to the good practice of those sciences. :)

[farmerjumperdon]

I'm too lazy to copy the quote, but someone mentioned collecting old science books. I too have picked up a few on topics that interest me (geography, astronomy, etc.) and they are rellay fun reads. Very interesting, and sometimes ironic, the path history takes.

[Normandy6644]

In math, or physics, or astronomy, I do think religious beliefs and science are pretty much orthogonal these days, although it wasn’t always so (Tycho’s model of the solar system comes to mind).
Again, I would respectfully disagree. The "a physicist must be an atheist" stereotype is as invalid as the "all Christians oppose evolution" one. As I pointed out several times yesterday, a simple examination of the Nobel winners over the last century shows a whole range of beliefs. Perhaps agnostics and atheists predominate, but I would argue that being religious is not necessarily an impediment to being a productive, or even a great, scientist
I think you've misunderstood me. By "orthogonal" I mean that neither being religious nor being an atheist are a hindrance to the good practice of those sciences. :)

I thought you meant perpedicular! :D

[Argos]

I think you've misunderstood me. By "orthogonal" I mean that neither being religious nor being an atheist are a hindrance to the good practice of those sciences. :)

Sorry, DA. I really can´t see how a believer can investigate the material world. I see a deep contradiction in this. It may be a simplification, but I think these things are quite simple, indeed.

Show me a cutting-edge "hard" researcher who adheres to a system of belief.

[ngc3314]

I think you've misunderstood me. By "orthogonal" I mean that neither being religious nor being an atheist are a hindrance to the good practice of those sciences. :)

Sorry, DA. I really can´t see how a believer can investigate the material world. I see a deep contradiction in this. It may be a simplification, but I think these things are quite simple, indeed.

Show me a cutting-edge "hard" researcher who adheres to a system of belief.

Alan Sandage? Arno Penzias? Apparently Charles Townes? Alan Stockton?

(and getting beyond "cutting-edge", me, taking some care not to "out" any astronomers who aren't aleady public on this matter). This is a stereotype that just won't die. Mind you, there are religious traditions which distinctly do not favor the kind of public expression that's popular among many evangelical Christian denominations, so one migh tnever realize this of lots of folks.

(I'm a teeny bit surprised that this thread has yet to attract the Bad Locksmith!)

[Argos]

(I'm a teeny bit surprised that this thread has yet to attract the Bad Locksmith!)

If you cannot discuss systems of belief as opposed to the scientific method, then you can´t discuss science. In fact I was more interested in discussing items 1 and 2 of the OP.

[Disinfo Agent]

In math, or physics, or astronomy, I do think religious beliefs and science are pretty much orthogonal these days, although it wasn’t always so (Tycho’s model of the solar system comes to mind).
[...] By "orthogonal" I mean that neither being religious nor being an atheist are a hindrance to the good practice of those sciences. :)
I thought you meant perpedicular! :D
orthogonal:

adj 1: not pertinent to the matter under consideration; "an issue extraneous to the debate"; "the price was immaterial"; "mentioned several impertinent facts before finally coming to the point" [syn: extraneous, immaterial, impertinent] 2: statistically unrelated 3: having a set of mutually perpendicular axes; meeting at right angles; "wind and sea may displace the ship's center of gravity along three orthogonal axes"; "a rectangular Cartesian coordinate system" [syn: rectangular]
:P
O.K., I probably should have written "religious beliefs or the lack of them are pretty much orthogonal to science these days".

Sorry, DA. I really can´t see how a believer can investigate the material world. I see a deep contradiction in this. It may be a simplification, but I think these things are quite simple, indeed.

Show me a cutting-edge "hard" researcher who adheres to a system of belief.
Doesn't Einstein count? Unlike Newton, he never delved into mysticism, AFAIK.

[Argos]

Doesn't Einstein count? Unlike Newton, he never delved into mysticism, AFAIK.

Einstein was hindered by his outlook of the reality. The denial of the principle of uncertainty (this was his biggest blunder to me) has much to do with the way he believed the universe worked. He refused the idea without taking the time for a deeper analysis of the formal concept.

[Disinfo Agent]

Maybe, but was his adherence to determinism a result of religious convictions, or of philosophical principles?
I see nothing in the Bible that prohibits the ideas of QM from being true. I think it had more to do with philosophical assumptions about the universe that classical physicists (the overwhelming majority of them, either religious or not) had taken for granted until then.

[Argos]

Maybe, but was his adherence to determinism a result of religious convictions, or of philosophical principles?

Regardless of his principles, the fact is that he failed to inspect a new concept without passion, as every scientist should.

[papageno]

Doesn't Einstein count? Unlike Newton, he never delved into mysticism, AFAIK.

Einstein was hindered by his outlook of the reality. The denial of the principle of uncertainty (this was his biggest blunder to me) has much to do with the way he believed the universe worked. He refused the idea without taking the time for a deeper analysis of the formal concept.

Einstein's debate with Bohr (if I remember correctly) was a factor in deepening the understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
Bohr never conclusively refuted Einstein's criticisms about QM.

Einstien was trying to find the determinism beneath the Uncertainty Principle.
His belief in the fundamental determinisn of the Universe was not based on religious convictions, but philosophical.

[Fram]

Maybe, but was his adherence to determinism a result of religious convictions, or of philosophical principles?

Regardless of his principles, the fact is that he failed to inspect a new concept without passion, as every scientist should.

I'ld rather have them inspect it with passion, but without prejudice. But the latter is in reality impossible. You can aim for objectivity, but you will always have a subjective outlook. If someone claims that c is not the same for everyone, no matter what relative speed you have, I will look at that with more interest (as the opposit is highly counterintuitive for me and many people apparently) or with a more believing attitude than when someone says that G is not a constant (to take an example from on this board). But starting from that subjective, personal point of view, I try to be honest and open about it and look at both issues (or all issues) objectively.

[Disinfo Agent]

I see nothing in the Bible that prohibits the ideas of QM from being true.
Of course, I really should have looked at the Talmud instead, since Einstein was actually a Jew. :roll:

[Eta C]

(I'm a teeny bit surprised that this thread has yet to attract the Bad Locksmith!)

If you cannot discuss systems of belief as opposed to the scientific method, then you can´t discuss science. In fact I was more interested in discussing items 1 and 2 of the OP.

Unfortunately items 1 and 2 (being obnoxious to opponents and calling them names while rebutting them) really aren't valid discriminants for identifying a scientist from a non scientist. Sad to say, I've been in many a meeting where such tactics have been used. Fortunately, in science, the facts ultimately speak for themselves. Number 3 (secrecy) is also not a good discriminant many scientists withold new results until they are sure of them. Newton was an extreme example of this.

That leaves us with number 4 (belief). Here, many people do have the impression that religious belief and science are mutually exclusive. So that's why the discussion has focused on that.

P.S. to Disinfo agent, sorry if I misunderstood you. I took your use of orthogonal to be in the popular vein of "mutually exclusive" rather than in the scientific one of "not related to each other."

[A Thousand Pardons]

One of the pillars of the scientific method, nowadays, is peer-reviewing, would you agree? Now, how would Newton react, being so secretive, if you said to him that his work had to be reviewed by others prior to publishing? Today, Newton would be crushed by the common university department, the academic establishment (in fact, the establishment had a beef with him that time, for other reasons). There would hardly be room for a scientist (better, a pre-scientist) like him today.
Naw, depends upon what you mean by "today". Einstein had a similar reaction when he was subjected to peer-review, and no one thinks much less of Einstein for it. :)

[Argos]

Unfortunately items 1 and 2 (being obnoxious to opponents and calling them names while rebutting them) really aren't valid discriminants for identifying a scientist from a non scientist.

But they are examples of attitudes that are anything but commendable in the scientific environment, a university department for instance.

Edited

[Disinfo Agent]

But they are examples of attitudes that are all but commendable in the scientific environment, a university department for instance.
"Anything but comendable"? :wink:

[Argos]

Hardly commendable? 8) Thanks.

[Sam5]

So in what way do you think he did not act properly regarding modern “scientific behavior”? In what way did he “behave” that you don’t like?

MY like is not in dispute.

One of the pillars of the scientific method, nowadays, is peer-reviewing, would you agree? Now, how would Newton react, being so secretive, if you said to him that his work had to be reviewed by others prior to publishing?



Some guys like to work alone, like me, the Wright Brothers, and to some extent Edison. Do you think the Wright Brothers weren’t “scientists” and should not have been allowed to experiment and fly airplanes because they weren’t “peer reviewed”? Remember, all that stuff about the earth being in the center of the solar system was “peer reviewed” for thousands of years. So, peer reviews can stand in the way of progress at times. Such as when “catastrophism” was outlawed in science for more than 100 years until Alvarez brought it back in the 1970s.

If your “peers” are prejudiced in one way or another, they are to be avoided, in my opinion.

Newton’s publishing technique was to publish late, not early. He wanted to be sure he was right before he went to press with his ideas. Other guys have the urge to publish early and become famous, then they spend the next 50 years trying to correct their earlier mistakes.




Today, Newton would be crushed by the common university department, the academic establishment (in fact, the establishment had a beef with him that time, for other reasons). There would hardly be room for a scientist (better, a pre-scientist) like him today.


That suggests to me that there is something wrong with the system today. For example, how would Newton be treated on this board if he came here to express his religious beliefs?

[Disinfo Agent]

He'd be told to read the Forum Rules. :)

[Sam5]

Good advice from Newton:

“That religion & Philosophy are to be preserved distinct. We are not to introduce divine revelations into Philosophy, nor philosophical opinions into religion.”

LINK (http://nausikaa2.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/toc/toc.x.cgi?dir=keynes6&step=thumb)

LINK (http://nausikaa2.rz-berlin.mpg.de/digitallibrary/digilib.jsp?fn=/permanent/echo/newton_project/keynes6/pageimg&pn=1)

[papageno]

Remember, all that stuff about the earth being in the center of the solar system was “peer reviewed” for thousands of years.
No, it was accepted by authority and endorsed by the Church.
Challenging that dogma meant challenging the authority of the Church, which is what got Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei into trouble.
Kopernik got away with his heliocentrism for a while, because it was presented as a mathematical model which made calculations easier.

[Disinfo Agent]

Kopernik got away with his heliocentrism for a while, because it was presented as a mathematical model which made calculations easier.
IIRC, he waited to publish his work posthumously (or very near his death), didn't he?

[papageno]

Kopernik got away with his heliocentrism for a while, because it was presented as a mathematical model which made calculations easier.
IIRC, he waited to publish his work posthumously (or very near his death), didn't he?
There was also a disclaimer at the beginning of the book, which basically said "it's just a theory"... 8-[

[Disinfo Agent]

The more things change, the more they stay the same, hey? ;)

IIRC, the disclaimer was put there by the editor without Copernicus's knowledge.

[papageno]

The more things change, the more they stay the same, hey? ;)

IIRC, the disclaimer was put there by the editor without Copernicus's knowledge.
Yes, and, ironically, that is what saved the book from being banned.
This allowed the diffusion of Kopernik's ideas.
When the book was finally banned (I think, because of the mess Galilei made), it was too late.

[Disinfo Agent]

The reason they were still great scientists is that they kept religion out of their scientific work and didn't let it influence their judgement. So let's not count that against Newton either.
I don´t think Newton separated those things well. He could go further in his revolution, if his thoughts weren´t "contaminated" by his underlying beliefs (and this holds true for every scientist, methinks).
I've given more thought to Argos's idea. It's an interesting question, but I don't think it has a simple answer.

Instead, I'd like to turn his question around, and ask: Do you think that Newton would have got as far as he did in science, if it weren't for his mystical view of the universe?

Here's a simple example: Kepler. He was absolutely convinced that God had made the universe behave according to laws, and that those laws could be described through geometry. It took him a very long time, lots of hard work, and much trial-and-error to discover his three laws of planetary motion. If Kepler had had a little less faith in the regularity of the cosmos, or in the ability of geometry to describe that regularity, would he have persevered as much as he did? Would he simply have thrown his hands up in the air and told himself: 'Oh, well, maybe there aren't any underlying geometric laws to the motions of the planets after all, and I should just give up this folly, and find a real job'?

We could ask the same about Einstein: if he hadn't believed in a deterministic universe, would he have got as far as he did?

Maybe Newton's famous statement "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" has a corollary: the giants on whose shoulders we now stand had a different view of the world than we do.

[Frog march]

the only thing that god cannot predict is what PEOPLE will do, basing their action upon freewill, and as everything in the natural world is affected by what we or perhaps animals or ET do(ie the butterfly effect)then perhaps god has no choice BUT to play dice at every level including the atomic level.

[Argos]

The reason they were still great scientists is that they kept religion out of their scientific work and didn't let it influence their judgement. So let's not count that against Newton either.
I don´t think Newton separated those things well. He could go further in his revolution, if his thoughts weren´t "contaminated" by his underlying beliefs (and this holds true for every scientist, methinks).
I've given more thought to Argos's idea. It's an interesting question, but I don't think it has a simple answer.

Instead, I'd like to turn his question around, and ask: Do you think that Newton would have got as far as he did in science, if it weren't for his mystical view of the universe?

Here's a simple example: Kepler. He was absolutely convinced that God had made the universe behave according to laws, and that those laws could be described through geometry. It took him a very long time, lots of hard work, and much trial-and-error to discover his three laws of planetary motion. If Kepler had had a little less faith in the regularity of the cosmos, or in the ability of geometry to describe that regularity, would he have persevered as much as he did? Would he simply have thrown his hands up in the air and told himself: 'Oh, well, maybe there aren't any underlying geometric laws to the motions of the planets after all, and I should just give up this folly, and find a real job'?

We could ask the same about Einstein: if he hadn't believed in a deterministic universe, would he have got as far as he did?

Maybe Newton's famous statement "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" has a corollary: the giants on whose shoulders we now stand had a different view of the world than we do.

Yeah, good points. So, if people are capable of such achievements without acting strictly upon the scientific method, then the scientific method is just a collection of loose idealistic rules. Individual intellectual outbursts ("Eureka") drive the progress of human knowledge.

[Disinfo Agent]

I would put it a bit differently: the "Eureka", as you say, the expectations, or beliefs, or intuitions, are the creative part of scientific research. The formalities of the scientific method, or peer review, or logical rigor, are its critical part, the "checks and balances", if you will.

[Frog march]

a lot of scientific descovery is based upon serendipity, itselve perhaps occuring because of a god combined with the willingness to experiment and focus on a problem.

[Disinfo Agent]

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
I found an interesting page (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0162b.shtml) discussing this quote, and Newton. 8)

[A Thousand Pardons]

That suggests to me that there is something wrong with the system today. For example, how would Newton be treated on this board if he came here to express his religious beliefs?
Good advice from Newton:

“That religion & Philosophy are to be preserved distinct. We are not to introduce divine revelations into Philosophy, nor philosophical opinions into religion.”

So, you answered your own question maybe? If Newton had shown up here, it wouldn't be to propound his reliigious ideas.

[Grey]

I found an interesting page (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0162b.shtml) discussing this quote, and Newton. 8)
I like this one. :D
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders."

[Sam5]

That suggests to me that there is something wrong with the system today. For example, how would Newton be treated on this board if he came here to express his religious beliefs?
Good advice from Newton:

“That religion & Philosophy are to be preserved distinct. We are not to introduce divine revelations into Philosophy, nor philosophical opinions into religion.”

So, you answered your own question maybe? If Newton had shown up here, it wouldn't be to propound his reliigious ideas.

Right. This is an astronomy board, right? He would probably come here (assuming he were alive today and up on all the latest science information) and tell all the misled teenagers that there are no creatures on Mars making monuments, no alien crash at Roswell, no moon-landing hoax, etc., etc.

[Frog march]

yea, and he'd probably have a board nickname like "roger rabbit"

[Normandy6644]

yea, and he'd probably have a board nickname like "roger rabbit"

No way, Newton's board name would rule! It would be like "Gravity Roolz, Leibniz Droolz" or "Hey An Apple!" or maybe "Fig." That would be awesome.

[Zachary]

...or not

[Normandy6644]

...or not

Sense of humor perhaps?

[Sam5]

Remember, all that stuff about the earth being in the center of the solar system was “peer reviewed” for thousands of years.


No, it was accepted by authority and endorsed by the Church.
Hi, the “church” leaders did not know where the earth was located until Copernicus, a minor church official, wrote his book that explained that the earth is not in the center of the solar system. Before that, most “church” officials believed the old Ptolemy science story that the earth was in the center. They got this from the Greek scientist, Ptolemy. Ptolemy wrote his influential book, the “Almagest”, between about 127 and 151 AD, long before “the church” existed. He was a Greek scientist and he had Greek scientist “peers” who approved of and supported his theory. This was “science”, not “the church” publishing this stuff.

Ptolemy wrote in the Almagest:

”In brief, all the observed order of the increases and decreases of day and night would be thrown into utter confusion if the earth were not in the middle.”

In your copy of the Almagest, turn to the section titled “5. That the Earth is in the Middle of the Heavens.” This is on page 9 of Volume 16 of “Great Books of the Western World,” published by the University of Chicago, translation taken from Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

One of the biggest problems in education today (in the US) is that students are not told the full history of science, so most of them do not know that it was the Greek scientist, Ptolemy, who wrote the book that most educated people believed until Copernicus came along and set everybody straight. And as with a lot of educated people today, some of the ones in the old days were very slow to give up old science theories, especially a science myth that was about 1400 years old.

Another problem today is that students, no matter what they lean in school, are tremendously influenced by the rumors of the internet and the science propaganda they see on commercial TV programs. For example, a couple of years ago I saw a BBC documentary aired on the PBS network in the US in which a British narrator said that “American tumbleweeds never put down roots and they are one of the few kinds of plants that get all their nutrition from the air.”

I couldn’t believe PBS was broadcasting this nonsense. Tumbleweeds grow in the ground like any other weeds. In the winter they dry up, curl up, break off at the base, and they are blown around by the wind. So, the alleged “educators” of both the BBC and PBS broadcast this untrue information about tumbleweeds, and I figure several millions of people around the world now believe that false story.

So, I suggest that you buy yourself some old books and study the history of science, and avoid the modern media rumors as much as possible.

[Disinfo Agent]

Yes, it was Ptolemy and other classical authors who came up with the geocentric model. However, we have no reason to believe that they would have rejected other proposals offhand as the Church did. In fact, it's well-known that Aristarchus of Samos (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Aristarchus.html) proposed a heliocentric model instead.
Although ancient scientists and philosophers were the ones who created the geocentric model, they were not the ones who instituted it as an unchallengeable dogma. The Church did that.

[Frog march]

you could argue the case that the church by being so obstinate forces scientists to be more rigorous in their research and their proofs and in this way, all be it tragicaly in some cases, has made science stronger. In the past anyway, although in the face of the funemental and evangerical no amount of scientific rigour seems to sway.

[Sam5]

Yes, it was Ptolemy and other classical authors who came up with the geocentric model.
......

In fact, it's well-known that Aristarchus of Samos (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Aristarchus.html) proposed a heliocentric model instead.


Yeah, apparently Ptolemy had more “peers” who agreed with him than Aristarchus did. I’ve warned about that. That’s science by “majority rule”. That’s not necessarily good, because, as in the Ptolemy case, the majority of peers could be wrong. A similar thing was going on in the time of the Wright brothers. A lot of scientists were saying that man could never fly because man was too heavy, much heavier than birds. It’s a good thing that the Wright brothers didn’t listen to the scientists.

But I don’t see any reason to try to embarrass Catholic kids today just because one old Pope believed the majority of scientists on the earth issue. After all, the majority of scientists supported Ptolemy for 1400 years. The old Pope was just trying to go along with mainstream science on that issue. So, he turned out to be wrong. But that’s no reason to continuously insult and embarrass Catholic kids today.

[Disinfo Agent]

But I don’t see any reason to try to embarrass Catholic kids today [...]
Who said anything about embarassing Catholic kids?! :-?

[...] one old Pope believed the majority of scientists on the earth issue. After all, the majority of scientists supported Ptolemy for 1400 years. The old Pope was just trying to go along with mainstream science on that issue.
"One" Pope is a big, big understatement.
And I disagree that the Church officials (and laymen) who fought the heliocentric model's proponents did so out of a naive reliance on scientific authorities. That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened.

Yeah, apparently Ptolemy had more “peers” who agreed with him than Aristarchus did. I’ve warned about that. That’s science by “majority rule”. That’s not necessarily good, because, as in the Ptolemy case, the majority of peers could be wrong.
Peer review is a relatively recent creation. I don't know exactly when it was instituted, but I'm pretty sure it did not exist in ancient Greece or Renaissance Europe. There were only isolated, individual experts who worked mostly alone, but occasionally exchanged impressions, then--that's not peer review.

[Frog march]

is peer review a recent thing, Im sure Plato didn't want to look like an idiot infront of all his philosopher mates........

[ngc3314]

Peer review is a relatively recent creation. I don't know exactly when it was instituted, but I'm pretty sure it did not exist in ancient Greece or Renaissance Europe. There were only isolated, individual experts who worked mostly alone, but occasionally exchanged impressions, then--that's not peer review.

But in a real sense, it is - a reality check to see whether someone else sees an error you missed, or sees a connection you didn't.

The reak teeth of peer review come when the wider scientific community is involved. The Wright, Goddard, etc. were largely loners, and limited their direct impact on later work by choosing to work more privately and secretively than is the norm in (non-commercially driven) research these days. (gross generalization alert!). Peer review before the fact only matters much if you want a limited or public resource (federal funding, spacecraft time, time at national observatories). If you have your own resources, or can work without financial support, go right ahead. (Exceptions: legal requirements for human subjects, even grad students, animals with complex nervous systems, potentially hazardous substances or organisms). For allocating NSF funding or HST time or Chandra time or NRAO observations, peer review seems to be the worst method we've come up with except for all the others... (Mind you, there is certainly scope for abuse, the most common of which is probably manuscript delay. I know of one case in which someone was banned from a national facility for years after trashing a proposal during review, then going to the facility and doing the project himself...)

Peer review also enters into publication in (duh) peer-reviewed journals. Being approved by a referee in a non-pathological instance does not mean you agree with the conclusions, but that review did not turn up any errors or omissions, that the experiment design was sensible, and so on. Referees have saved my bacon than once. One the flip side, I've reviewed papers by Chip Arp. Most I passed with a recommendation to publish after minor polishing, one I recommended for rejection because the same argument was used to reach two diametrically opposite conclusions for different objects which I felt left little meat in the conclusions. You do have to expect a certain level of human randomness - I have referee's reports for two closely related proposals (in which NGC 3314 was slightly involved) to different programs at the same time. One was rejected because the committee wasn't convinced our analysis technique was powerful enough, while the other rejected it because they tbought we had already pretty much locked up the problem. Sigh.

From what I've seen, the most effective research environments have continuous peer review - constant discussions in which ideas are subjected to mutual criticism and probing to uncover problems or ramifications. For this to work well, either the participants must have hides of leather, or the environment must make it clear that it's not personal (something which is usually intuited more completey than stated). Pinning the young postdoc down in a withering crossfire should cease to be good sport much faster than it actually seems to at certain institutions.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Hi, the “church” leaders did not know where the earth was located until Copernicus, a minor church official, wrote his book that explained that the earth is not in the center of the solar system. Before that, most “church” officials believed the old Ptolemy science story that the earth was in the center. They got this from the Greek scientist, Ptolemy.

No doubt Ptolemy (link (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html)) was Greek, even though he probably lived all of his life in what we know as Egypt, as a citizen of Rome. :)
Ptolemy wrote his influential book, the “Almagest”, between about 127 and 151 AD, long before “the church” existed. He was a Greek scientist and he had Greek scientist “peers” who approved of and supported his theory. This was “science”, not “the church” publishing this stuff.
There are disputes about his science, as that link shows, but I'm curious. Four times there you refer to the church but you put it in quotes. I'd take it you are not really referring to the church, but to a mindset, it seems--especially since you say "the church" didn't exist in 151AD. But the mindset existed long before that, so I'm wondering what it is that you mean by "the church."

One interesting paragraph from that link is
The first to make accusations against Ptolemy was Tycho Brahe. He discovered that there was a systematic error of one degree in the longitudes of the stars in the star catalogue, and he claimed that, despite Ptolemy saying that it represented his own observations, it was merely a conversion of a catalogue due to Hipparchus corrected for precession to Ptolemy's date. There is of course definite problems comparing two star catalogues, one of which we have a copy of while the other is lost.
Wasn't there some news recently about Hipparchus's old catalog? :)

[Sam5]

No doubt Ptolemy (link (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html)) was Greek, even though he probably lived all of his life in what we know as Egypt, as a citizen of Rome. :)

Between the time of Ptolemy and Galileo, various European countries gradually grew and became independent nations. Of course Italy had a head start with its Roman Empire. Some countries developed small universities which was a change from the earlier days of just the wealthy families having educational tutors for their children.

For one reason or another. Ptolemy’s idea that the earth was in the center of the universe became the most common belief in Italy until Copernicus and Galileo. I’m not sure what was going on in Russia and the middle-eastern countries in those days, or in China, Arabia, etc. It’s my understanding that the Greeks dominated Egypt for some time and helped maintain the Library at Alexandria.

It would be interesting to learn how the Ptolemy system was able to be promoted for such a long time among the universities of early Europe. Also, I’d like to know if copies were made of his books. I just can’t imagine a bunch of scribes sitting down and copying this whole book for each university, but I suppose they did it.

The “church” I was referring to was the Roman Catholic Church, specifically in Italy at the time of Galileo. Martin Luther died in 1546, and Galileo was born in 1564, so the Protestants were already taking over parts of Europe outside Italy. Plus, the Russian Orthodox church split off from the Romans around 1,000 AD, and the Greeks split off too. So when someone says “the church”, kids are likely to think “all the Christians”, whereas the “church” in reference to Galileo was actually one Pope and the professors in the universities in Italy at that time. Galileo’s dispute with the “church” was not really a religious issue. It was an authoritarian issue, like some people today refusing to allow their kids to be taught certain things “the state” wants to teach them. Back then, the Pope and the “church” were “the state” in Italy. So, the Pope and the universities at that time were teaching the big official peer-reviewed “science” myth of the day, which was the traditional Ptolemy myth. :D

[Disinfo Agent]

Between the time of Ptolemy and Galileo, various European countries gradually grew and became independent nations. Of course Italy had a head start with its Roman Empire.
And yet Italy only become a nation state fairly late (in the 19th century). Unless you count the Roman period, of course, but that was long before Galileo. Just nitpicking, here... :)

For one reason or another. Ptolemy’s idea that the earth was in the center of the universe became the most common belief in Italy until Copernicus and Galileo.
That "reason or another" was that, at the time, Ptolemy's model was regarded as the best supported by the available data, and the simplest one. Quite sensible, wouldn't you say?

I’m not sure what was going on in Russia and the middle-eastern countries in those days, or in China, Arabia, etc.
As I understand, Ptolemy's geocentric model spread to the Middle East in the Hellenistic period, and from there to India. Later, it spread to the whole of Europe. The Arabs, of course, learned it from the works of the Greeks.

It’s my understanding that the Greeks dominated Egypt for some time and helped maintain the Library at Alexandria.
In fact, they founded the library and the city itself.

It would be interesting to learn how the Ptolemy system was able to be promoted for such a long time among the universities of early Europe. Also, I’d like to know if copies were made of his books. I just can’t imagine a bunch of scribes sitting down and copying this whole book for each university, but I suppose they did it.
Maybe not for each university (although there weren't many of them at the time), but yes, the works of the classical Greco-Roman authors were extensively copied throughout Europe and the Middle East.

The “church” I was referring to was the Roman Catholic Church, specifically in Italy at the time of Galileo. Martin Luther died in 1546, and Galileo was born in 1564, so the Protestants were already taking over parts of Europe outside Italy. Plus, the Russian Orthodox church split off from the Romans around 1,000 AD, and the Greeks split off too. So when someone says “the church”, kids are likely to think “all the Christians”, whereas the “church” in reference to Galileo was actually one Pope and the professors in the universities in Italy at that time.
Well, the protestants rejected the heliocentric model, too. Here (http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/astronomy/heliocentric-theory.html)'s what Martin Luther had to say about it: "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.''

Furthermore:

While Lutheranism was thus condemning the theory of the earth's movement, other branches of the Protestant Church did not remain behind. Calvin took the lead, in his Commentary on Genesis, by condemning all who asserted that the earth is not at the centre of the universe. He clinched the matter by the usual reference to the first verse of the ninety-third Psalm, and asked, ``Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?'' Turretin, Calvin's famous successor, even after Kepler and Newton had virtually completed the theory of Copernicus and Galileo, put forth his compendium of theology, in which he proved, from a multitude of scriptural texts, that the heavens, sun, and moon move about the earth, which stands still in the centre. In England we see similar theological efforts, even after they had become evidently futile. Hutchinson's Moses's Principia, Dr. Samuel Pike's Sacred Philosophy, the writings of Horne, Bishop Horsley, and President Forbes contain most earnest attacks upon the ideas of Newton, such attacks being based upon Scripture. Dr. John Owen, so famous in the annals of Puritanism, declared the Copernican system a ``delusive and arbitrary hypothesis, contrary to Scripture''; and even John Wesley declared the new ideas to ``tend toward infidelity.''

And Protestant peoples were not a whit behind Catholic in following out such teachings. The people of Elbing made themselves merry over a farce in which Copernicus was the main object of ridicule. The people of Nuremberg, a Protestant stronghold, caused a medal to be struck with inscriptions ridiculing the philosopher and his theory.
What was that about it having been "just one Pope" who opposed the heliocentric model, again?

So, the Pope and the universities at that time were teaching the big official peer-reviewed “science” myth of the day, which was the traditional Ptolemy myth. :D
There was no peer review to speak of back then.

[AstroSmurf]

Actually, both the lutherans and calvinists were much quicker to condemn Kopernik's ideas than the catholics. The reason being that the protestants were much more focused on using the bible as the sole source of wisdom (fundies, donchaknow), while the catholic view was more open to interpretation by the popes and the curia.

Most of the Greek writings came to the European world via Arabic translations, many of whom were later translated into Latin after the reconquista had taken over the universities in Andalusia. I'm not sure how they ended up in Arab hands though - there's quite a distance in time between 151 and ~700 AD.

[Disinfo Agent]

I'm not sure how they ended up in Arab hands though - there's quite a distance in time between 151 and ~700 AD.
The Arabs conquered many lands that had been provinces of the Roman Empire. A few copies of the works of the ancient authors had survived. Some educated Arabs took interest in them, and had them translated to their own language.

[Fram]

A similar thing was going on in the time of the Wright brothers. A lot of scientists were saying that man could never fly because man was too heavy, much heavier than birds. It’s a good thing that the Wright brothers didn’t listen to the scientists.
Do you really believe many scientists still had that opinion? AFAIK, the consensus was that given enough power, you could fly (although there probably were some scientists who didn't believe it yet). The problem was the technology, not the science (to put it bluntly). There were people trying to fly motorized aircrafts everywhere, there were prizes for the first flight, etc. It's like with the X-prize recently: we knew it could be done, it just had to be done in practice.
I think you're heavily oversimplifying things here to give support to your bias against mainstream science, peer review, and such.

To prove you are wrong: why would the Smithsonian publish a speech by Wilbur Wright in 1902, if they believed flying to be impossible? To mock him?

Wilbur Wright in a speech published in Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 1902
(http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/wright/flight_forebears.html)
Herr Otto Lilienthal seems to have been the first man who really comprehended that balancing was the first instead of the last of the great problems in connection with human flight. He began where others left off, and thus saved the many thousands of dollars that it had theretofore been customary to spend in building and fitting expensive engines to machines which were uncontrollable when tried. He built a pair of wings of a size suitable to sustain his own weight, and made use of gravity as his motor. This motor not only cost him nothing to begin with, but it required no expensive fuel while in operation, and never had to be sent to the shop for repairs. It had one serious drawback, however, in that it always insisted on fixing the conditions under which it would work. These were, that the man should first betake himself and machine to the top of a hill and fly with a downward as well as a forward motion. Unless these conditions were complied with, gravity served no better than a balky horse—it would not work at all. . . .


Wilbur wrote for information to the Smithsonian in 1899 and (http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/wright/essay.html)

A Smithsonian official responded to Wilbur’s letter by sending several pamphlets and a list of books. In a note, he mentioned that a book by Smithsonian Secretary Samuel P. Langley, Experiments in Aerodynamics, was available for one dollar. Wilbur promptly sent a note of thanks and a dollar for the Langley work.

So not only did Wilbur Wright seek and get scientific information from the Smithsonian, but that other pioneer of motorised aircraft, Langley, even worked there... Where is the disbelief?

[papageno]

Remember, all that stuff about the earth being in the center of the solar system was “peer reviewed” for thousands of years.

No, it was accepted by authority and endorsed by the Church.
Hi, the “church” leaders did not know where the earth was located until Copernicus, a minor church official, wrote his book that explained that the earth is not in the center of the solar system. Before that, most “church” officials believed the old Ptolemy science story that the earth was in the center. They got this from the Greek scientist, Ptolemy.
Hellenistic scientist (see A Thousand Pardons's post). Claudius Ptolemaeus Pelusiniensis lived in Egypt and was a roman citizen.


Ptolemy wrote his influential book, the “Almagest”, between about 127 and 151 AD, long before “the church” existed. He was a Greek scientist and he had Greek scientist “peers” who approved of and supported his theory. This was “science”, not “the church” publishing this stuff.
I never said the Church published it.
But the Church adopted a "system of the world" based on aristotlean physics and ptolomeaic astronomy.
Any challenge to this system (as Galilei did) was a challenge to the authority of the Church, whether the Church officials believed in that system or not.



Ptolemy wrote in the Almagest: [snip!]
Irrelevant.
The aristotlean-ptomlomaic system fitted nicely with the Christian view of the world.
Hence it was adopted by the Church as official policy.



One of the biggest problems in education today (in the US) is that students are not told the full history of science, so most of them do not know that it was the Greek scientist, Ptolemy, ...
And you must be a product of that education, since you keep referring to Ptomlomey as "greek".



...who wrote the book that most educated people believed until Copernicus came along and set everybody straight.
Don't you wonder why it is called "Almagest" (http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exhibit/exhibit/d-mathematics/Greek_math2.html)?
"Al magistos": the arab "al" (like in algebra, algorithm, Aldebaran...) as an article, and the greek "magistos", "greatest".
The original (greek) title being "The great synthesis of Astronomy" (arab scholars must have thought that it was the greatest...).
And he was not the only hellenistic scientist writing a synthesis: remember Euclides and his Elements?


And as with a lot of educated people today, some of the ones in the old days were very slow to give up old science theories, especially a science myth that was about 1400 years old.
Yet proper scientists, since Galilei, never considered some texts as sacred.


Another problem today is that students, no matter what they lean in school, are tremendously influenced by the rumors of the internet and the science propaganda they see on commercial TV programs.

[snip!]

So, I suggest that you buy yourself some old books and study the history of science, and avoid the modern media rumors as much as possible.
Except that scientists do not use "modern media rumors" to learn science.


Yeah, apparently Ptolemy had more “peers” who agreed with him than Aristarchus did. I’ve warned about that. That’s science by “majority rule”. That’s not necessarily good, because, as in the Ptolemy case, the majority of peers could be wrong.
But modern peers of Ptolomey, astronomers (Copernicus included), have tested his model and found it lacking.
The perr-review has worked: a bit slow maybe, but it worked.



Peer review is a relatively recent creation. I don't know exactly when it was instituted, but I'm pretty sure it did not exist in ancient Greece or Renaissance Europe. There were only isolated, individual experts who worked mostly alone, but occasionally exchanged impressions, then--that's not peer review.
The modern way of peer-review started more or less with Galilei (there was already a scientific community at that time).
It was him who put into words that experiments decided which theory is correct (and not appealing to an authority).
And since experimental results should not depend on who performs them, it is a first step to the idea of repeatability of experimental tests.
Everybody reading Galilei's writings could have tried to repeat his experiments: peer-review.
As ngc3314 said:But in a real sense, it is - a reality check to see whether someone else sees an error you missed, or sees a connection you didn't.


Of course Italy had a head start with its Roman Empire.
The Sacred Roman Empire spanned Europe.
But later both Italy and Germany were divided in smaller states.
Italy has been really united only since World War I.
(To Disinfo Agent: nominal unity was achieved by about 1870; as somebody said: "We made Italy, now we have to make the Italians". This was achieved by putting soldiers from all over the country in one trench.)

... the works of the classical Greco-Roman authors were extensively copied throughout Europe and the Middle East.
Greek texts were partially preserved through Roman authors during the Middle Ages.
Western Europe knew greek texts basically only through Roman authors.
With the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, greek texts that had been preserved by oriental scholars came back to Europe (and were a factor in starting the Renaissance).

[Disinfo Agent]

Hellenistic scientist (see A Thousand Pardons's post). Claudius Ptolemaeus Pelusiniensis lived in Egypt and was a roman citizen.

[...]

And you must be a product of that education, since you keep referring to Ptomlomey as "greek".
It could be argued that he was "ethnically" a Greek. For instance, he wrote his works in Greek, as did most mathematicians during Roman times.

Peer review is a relatively recent creation. I don't know exactly when it was instituted, but I'm pretty sure it did not exist in ancient Greece or Renaissance Europe. There were only isolated, individual experts who worked mostly alone, but occasionally exchanged impressions, then--that's not peer review.
The modern way of peer-review started more or less with Galilei (there was already a scientific community at that time).
It was him who put into words that experiments decided which theory is correct (and not appealing to an authority).
And since experimental results should not depend on who performs them, it is a first step to the idea of repeatability of experimental tests.
Everybody reading Galilei's writings could have tried to repeat his experiments: peer-review.
I thought peer-review meant that you only got to publish your finds after they'd been reviewed by a committee of referees. :P

Edited to correct quote.

[papageno]

Hellenistic scientist (see A Thousand Pardons's post). Claudius Ptolemaeus Pelusiniensis lived in Egypt and was a roman citizen.

[...]

And you must be a product of that education, since you keep referring to Ptomlomey as "greek".
It could be argued that he was "ethnically" a Greek. For instance, he wrote his works in Greek, as did most mathematicians during Roman times.
Yes.
I cannot remember a real Latin scientist (not engineer).


I thought peer-review meant that you only get to publish your finds after they've been reviewed by a committee of referees. :P
Well, in Galilei's time works were reviewed after publication.
The whole "Il Saggiatore" is a criticism to another book.

[Fram]

Hellenistic scientist (see A Thousand Pardons's post). Claudius Ptolemaeus Pelusiniensis lived in Egypt and was a roman citizen.

[...]

And you must be a product of that education, since you keep referring to Ptomlomey as "greek".
It could be argued that he was "ethnically" a Greek. For instance, he wrote his works in Greek, as did most mathematicians during Roman times.
Yes.
I cannot remember a real Latin scientist (not engineer).

Well, most early renaissance scientist wrote in Latin, but I presume you mean in the Roman Empire? There were some, but mainly historians of all kinds, people like Plinius (I consider history a science).

[Sam5]

I thought peer-review meant that you only got to publish your finds after they'd been reviewed by a committee of referees. :P

Excuse me, :D but you got your qoute attributions mixed up. It was papageno, not me, who said this: “The modern way of peer-review started more or less with Galilei (there was already a scientific community at that time). It was him who put into words that experiments decided which theory is correct (and not appealing to an authority). And since experimental results should not depend on who performs them, it is a first step to the idea of repeatability of experimental tests. Everybody reading Galilei's writings could have tried to repeat his experiments: peer-review.”

[Disinfo Agent]

Oops, sorry! I'm going to edit it. :oops:

[Sam5]

Oops, sorry! I'm going to edit it. :oops:

Ok, no problem. :)

[Argos]

Hellenistic scientist (see A Thousand Pardons's post). Claudius Ptolemaeus Pelusiniensis lived in Egypt and was a roman citizen.

[...]

And you must be a product of that education, since you keep referring to Ptomlomey as "greek".
It could be argued that he was "ethnically" a Greek. For instance, he wrote his works in Greek, as did most mathematicians during Roman times.
Yes.
I cannot remember a real Latin scientist (not engineer).


Well, most early renaissance scientist wrote in Latin, but I presume you mean in the Roman Empire? There were some, but mainly historians of all kinds, people like Plinius (I consider history a science).

In hisHistoria Naturalis (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/1*.html), Plinius, the Elder, (http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pliny/pliny_e3.html#history) discusses a wide variety of subjects, ranging from astronomy to physiology. It´s a good example of the encyclopedic tradition.

[Sam5]

Ptolemy wrote in the Almagest: [snip!]
Irrelevant.
The aristotlean-ptomlomaic system fitted nicely with the Christian view of the world.

No, it was not “Irrelevant.” Classical Greek science was taught for hundreds of years in European universities back in those days, even though quite a lot of it turned out to be wrong. In the year 1600 AD, William Gilbert wrote a book about magnetism and the loadstone, and in it he griped about many errors of the ancient Greek “philosophers” that were still being taught in universities in Europe in his own time. Gilbert was so mad about this problem, he wrote in the introduction to his own book:

“But why should I, in so vast an ocean of books whereby the minds of the studious are bemuddled and vexed – of books of the more stupid sort whereby the common herd and fellows without a spark of talent are made intoxicated, crazy, puffed up; and are led to write numerous books and to profess themselves philosophers, physicians, mathematicians, and astrologers, the while ignoring and contemning men of learning – why, I say, should I add aught further to this confused world of writings, or why should I submit this noble and (as comprising many things before unheard of) this new and inadmissible philosophy to the judgment of men who have taken oath to follow the opinions of others, to the most senseless corrupters of the arts, to lettered clowns, grammatists sophists, spouters, and the wrong-headed rabble, to be denounced, torn to tatters and heaped with contumely. To you alone, true philosophers, ingenuous minds, who not only in books but in things themselves look for knowledge, have I dedicated these foundations of magnetic science – a new style of philosophizing.”

“On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies and on the Great Magnet the Earth”, by William Gilbert, 1600, from the “Britannica Great Book Series”, Vol. 28, 1982 edition.

[Fram]

Ptolemy wrote in the Almagest: [snip!]
Irrelevant.
The aristotlean-ptomlomaic system fitted nicely with the Christian view of the world.

No, it was not “Irrelevant.” Classical Greek science was taught for hundreds of years in European universities back in those days, even though quite a lot of it turned out to be wrong. In the year 1600 AD, William Gilbert wrote a book about magnetism and the loadstone, and in it he griped about many errors of the ancient Greek “philosophers” that were still being taught in universities in Europe in his own time. Gilbert was so mad about this problem, he wrote in the introduction to his own book:

“But why should I, in so vast an ocean of books whereby the minds of the studious are bemuddled and vexed – of books of the more stupid sort whereby the common herd and fellows without a spark of talent are made intoxicated, crazy, puffed up; and are led to write numerous books and to profess themselves philosophers, physicians, mathematicians, and astrologers, the while ignoring and contemning men of learning – why, I say, should I add aught further to this confused world of writings, or why should I submit this noble and (as comprising many things before unheard of) this new and inadmissible philosophy to the judgment of men who have taken oath to follow the opinions of others, to the most senseless corrupters of the arts, to lettered clowns, grammatists sophists, spouters, and the wrong-headed rabble, to be denounced, torn to tatters and heaped with contumely. To you alone, true philosophers, ingenuous minds, who not only in books but in things themselves look for knowledge, have I dedicated these foundations of magnetic science – a new style of philosophizing.”

“On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies and on the Great Magnet the Earth”, by William Gilbert, 1600, from the “Britannica Great Book Series”, Vol. 28, 1982 edition.

Noone said the Greeks weren't often wrong. The question was about the endorsement of the church, and the fact that the church had taken the geocentric worldview as a dogma, because it coincided with the bible. And it was because that stance of the church that Galileo had big problems, not because he went against some ancient Greek / Hellenist / Egyptian / whatever.

[Sam5]

Noone said the Greeks weren't often wrong. The question was about the endorsement of the church, and the fact that the church had taken the geocentric worldview as a dogma, because it coincided with the bible. And it was because that stance of the church that Galileo had big problems, not because he went against some ancient Greek / Hellenist / Egyptian / whatever.

Most people back in the old days thought the earth was in the center, such as Ptolomey, many other Greeks, Egyptians, the ancient Sumerians, many Indian tribes in the Western Hemisphere, many Asian people, etc., etc., because that’s the way it looked to them. They didn’t have any really good telescopes in those days and no spectroscopes. Big deal. Try to get over it.

Galileo had his problems because he called the Pope “Simplicio” in his book that was published in the Italian language so that all the educated people in Italy could read it. Real science books in those days were written in Latin. Gossip books in Italy were written in the Italian language.

Link (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:qZ4HF3JZz0MJ:www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/037575766X/+galileo+dialogues+italian+language&hl=en&lr=lang_ en&ie=UTF-8)

[Fram]

Noone said the Greeks weren't often wrong. The question was about the endorsement of the church, and the fact that the church had taken the geocentric worldview as a dogma, because it coincided with the bible. And it was because that stance of the church that Galileo had big problems, not because he went against some ancient Greek / Hellenist / Egyptian / whatever.

Most people back in the old days thought the earth was in the center, such as Ptolomey, many other Greeks, Egyptians, the ancient Sumerians, many Indian tribes in the Western Hemisphere, many Asian people, etc., etc., because that’s the way it looked to them. They didn’t have any really good telescopes in those days and no spectroscopes. Big deal. Try to get over it.



Ummm, I'm over it. I'm not blaming the Greeks for making mistakes, and I don't see where you get that. But perhaps it's easier for you this way than acknowledging your own mistakes?

And I wouldn't call the Divina Commedia a gossip book, but that's also irrelevant.

EDIT: and what is that link about? So Galileo's work is available in English? Oohhh, what a shock. I'll put it on my 'to read' list, right behind the Princeton Series of Einsteins papers. Happy now?

[Fram]

Noone said the Greeks weren't often wrong. The question was about the endorsement of the church, and the fact that the church had taken the geocentric worldview as a dogma, because it coincided with the bible. And it was because that stance of the church that Galileo had big problems, not because he went against some ancient Greek / Hellenist / Egyptian / whatever.

Galileo had his problems because he called the Pope “Simplicio” in his book that was published in the Italian language so that all the educated people in Italy could read it. Real science books in those days were written in Latin. Gossip books in Italy were written in the Italian language.



Any links that support that view? Because I seem to find other things (http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/galileo.html), which suggest that the persecution really was about Astronomy and not (or not solely) about namecalling.

[Sam5]

EDIT: and what is that link about?

It showed that the original was published in Italian, meaning it was not a science book but a “gossip” book. Galileo wanted the Pope and the “church” to notice it, and they did.

Here’s some other stuff about who else believed the earth was at the center:

MAYANS (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:yYqruoQDCpQJ:www.lalc.k12.ca.us/target/bridges/mayans_ancient1.html+mayans+earth+center+of+univer se&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8)

www.sdmart.org/dragonrobes/universe.html+chinese+earth+center+of+universe&hl= en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8] (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:8w_x5VX8VL0J:

www.vacets.org/sfe/cosmology.html+egyptians+earth+center+of+universe& hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8] (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:za33sTd_iRsJ: (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:6AHCO7Pn6VwJ:[url) The Puranas and the Brahmapaksa

“Whatever ancient monument we view, whether it is in Europe, Africa, South America, or Asia we can be certain that every ancient culture had a view that put the earth at rest at the center of the universe.” (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:V50s6SqdB24J:web.haystack.mit.edu/pcr/documents/historicalviewofman.htm+druids+earth+center+of+uni verse&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8)

[A Thousand Pardons]

Any links that support that view? Because I seem to find other things (http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/galileo.html),
From that link:
In 1992, Pope John Paul II (reluctantly) formally apologized for the persucution of Galileo. They finally admitted that they, the Catholic Church and all the Popes since the beginning of the Church, were wrong, and that Galileo was right. For fifteen hundred years they had argued that every word in the bible was true-- that it was the perfect word of God, true in it's history and in all of its sciences.

That sounds like nonsense, to me.

[Fram]

Any links that support that view? Because I seem to find other things (http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/galileo.html),
From that link:
In 1992, Pope John Paul II (reluctantly) formally apologized for the persucution of Galileo. They finally admitted that they, the Catholic Church and all the Popes since the beginning of the Church, were wrong, and that Galileo was right. For fifteen hundred years they had argued that every word in the bible was true-- that it was the perfect word of God, true in it's history and in all of its sciences.

That sounds like nonsense, to me.

Not nonsense, just biased. What is your view on it then?

[Fram]

EDIT: and what is that link about?

It showed that the original was published in Italian, meaning it was not a science book but a “gossip” book. Galileo wanted the Pope and the “church” to notice it, and they did.

Here’s some other stuff about who else believed the earth was at the center:

MAYANS (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:yYqruoQDCpQJ:www.lalc.k12.ca.us/target/bridges/mayans_ancient1.html+mayans+earth+center+of+univer se&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8)

www.sdmart.org/dragonrobes/universe.html+chinese+earth+center+of+universe&hl= en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8] (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:8w_x5VX8VL0J:

www.vacets.org/sfe/cosmology.html+egyptians+earth+center+of+universe& hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8] (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:za33sTd_iRsJ: (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:6AHCO7Pn6VwJ:[url) The Puranas and the Brahmapaksa

“Whatever ancient monument we view, whether it is in Europe, Africa, South America, or Asia we can be certain that every ancient culture had a view that put the earth at rest at the center of the universe.” (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:V50s6SqdB24J:web.haystack.mit.edu/pcr/documents/historicalviewofman.htm+druids+earth+center+of+uni verse&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8)

So? Your way of saying that Galileo published a gossip book because it was in Italian is laughable, and I haven't got a clue what is the relevance that many (or even all) other cultures and/or religions believed in the geocentric model as well. Has anyone here claimed anything else?
What you seem to be saying is: 'I'm wrong, but everyone else is as well, so that's allright'. Almost every culture and civilization had slaves in the past, so slavery is allright?
If you do have a relevant point, please make it a bit clearer...

Oh, by the way, do you consider Macchiavelli's 'Il Principe', from 1532 and written in Italian, a gossip book?

[Disinfo Agent]

Let's look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia itself has to say about it (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm):

It was not until four years later that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it". But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel interpretations of the Bible, which was not lessened by the endeavours of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for Copernicanism in the inspired volume. Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable reputation as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy, as when he sought to find an argument for Copernicanism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law. Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brewster acknowledges (Martyrs of Science), there is no doubt that this party lent Galileo all its support.

In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, "which appears to contradict Scripture". It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena -- an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes -- but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:

I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time prohibited, as well as the "Epitome" of Kepler, but in each instance only donec corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact. We learn further that with permission these works might be read in their entirety, by "the learned and skilful in the science" (Remus to Kepler). Galileo seems, says von Gebler, to have treated the decree of the Inquisition pretty coolly, speaking with satisfaction of the trifling changes prescribed in the work of Copernicus. He left Rome, however, with the evident intention of violating the promise extracted from him, and, while he pursued unmolested his searches in other branches of science, he lost no opportunity of manifesting his contempt for the astronomical system which he had promised to embrace. Nevertheless, when in 1624 he again visited Rome, he met with what is rightly described as "a noble and generous reception". The pope now reigning, Urban VIII, had, as Cardinal Barberini, been his friend and had opposed his condemnation in 1616. He conferred on his visitor a pension, to which as a foreigner in Rome Galileo had no claim, and which, says Brewster, must be regarded as an endowment of Science itself. But to Galileo's disappointment Urban would not annul the former judgment of the Inquisition.

After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory. Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.

[Frog march]

Just thought I'd mention something on the original subject of this thread.

Newto invented calculus.
mathematics is a science.

therfore

Newton WAS a scientist.

now you can get back to talking about catholics..... :wink:

[papageno]

Hellenistic scientist (see A Thousand Pardons's post). Claudius Ptolemaeus Pelusiniensis lived in Egypt and was a roman citizen.

[...]

And you must be a product of that education, since you keep referring to Ptomlomey as "greek".
It could be argued that he was "ethnically" a Greek. For instance, he wrote his works in Greek, as did most mathematicians during Roman times.
Yes.
I cannot remember a real Latin scientist (not engineer).

Well, most early renaissance scientist wrote in Latin, but I presume you mean in the Roman Empire? There were some, but mainly historians of all kinds, people like Plinius (I consider history a science).
I mean, there were no Archimedes', Aristotles or Ptolomeys in the "latin" regions of the Roman Empire.
Plinius was not a real scientist, because he basically collected stories: there was no original research.

[papageno]

Galileo had his problems because he called the Pope “Simplicio” in his book that was published in the Italian language so that all the educated people in Italy could read it. Real science books in those days were written in Latin. Gossip books in Italy were written in the Italian language.


That does not change the validity of the content of Galilei's book.
By the way, Simplicio was the name of a real natural philosopher.
Galilei did not identify Simplicio with the Pope, and the problem was not the name, but the fact that the discussions usually ended with Simplicio being proven wrong.

And don't forget that Galilei wrote the Sidereus Nuncius in Latin.

Galieli had trouble because he explicitly said that theology and philosophy have no business saying what is true for observable phenomena (opposing any appeal to authority).

[papageno]

Noone said the Greeks weren't often wrong. The question was about the endorsement of the church, and the fact that the church had taken the geocentric worldview as a dogma, because it coincided with the bible. And it was because that stance of the church that Galileo had big problems, not because he went against some ancient Greek / Hellenist / Egyptian / whatever.

Most people back in the old days thought the earth was in the center, such as Ptolomey, many other Greeks, Egyptians, the ancient Sumerians, many Indian tribes in the Western Hemisphere, many Asian people, etc., etc., because that’s the way it looked to them. They didn’t have any really good telescopes in those days and no spectroscopes. Big deal. Try to get over it.



Ummm, I'm over it. I'm not blaming the Greeks for making mistakes, and I don't see where you get that. But perhaps it's easier for you this way than acknowledging your own mistakes?

And I wouldn't call the Divina Commedia a gossip book, but that's also irrelevant.

Don't forget that Dante defended the "vulgar" in his De vulgari eloquentia (written in latin because addressed to scholars).

[Disinfo Agent]

In his Historia Naturalis (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/1*.html), Plinius, the Elder, (http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pliny/pliny_e3.html#history) discusses a wide variety of subjects, ranging from astronomy to physiology. It´s a good example of the encyclopedic tradition.
Several contemporary historians have called it the "Unnatural History". Pliny was one of the authors who began the long tradition of populating uncharted lands with strange monsters. :)
Which brings us back to the OP: was he a real scientist?

[Frog march]

as I said above.

Newto invented calculus.
mathematics is a science.

therfore

Newton WAS a scientist. 8-[

[Argos]

In his Historia Naturalis (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/1*.html), Plinius, the Elder, (http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pliny/pliny_e3.html#history) discusses a wide variety of subjects, ranging from astronomy to physiology. It´s a good example of the encyclopedic tradition.
Several contemporary historians have called it the "Unnatural History". Pliny was one of the authors who began the long tradition of populating uncharted lands with strange monsters. :)
Which brings us back to the OP: was he a real scientist?

No way, of course. :) The value of his work lies in the attempt to explain the universe in a rational manner, just as the ionics did earlier. I think it´s legitimate to call this "proto-science". In the context of classic philosophy, history can be taken as research. Plinius was not only a historian trying to understand the past. The encyclopedia of Plinius can be seen as a summary of pending questions, a guide for a constant questioning. Newton has also made a list of pending questions ("qaestiones quaedam philosophicae"), just as he breaks with the aristotelian tradition and dives into the cartesian geometry.

As a matter of fact, scientists of modern times have also populated uncharted paths with strange entities, like the flogistum, the ether, cosmological constants, etc...

[Fram]

Hellenistic scientist (see A Thousand Pardons's post). Claudius Ptolemaeus Pelusiniensis lived in Egypt and was a roman citizen.

[...]

And you must be a product of that education, since you keep referring to Ptomlomey as "greek".
It could be argued that he was "ethnically" a Greek. For instance, he wrote his works in Greek, as did most mathematicians during Roman times.
Yes.
I cannot remember a real Latin scientist (not engineer).

Well, most early renaissance scientist wrote in Latin, but I presume you mean in the Roman Empire? There were some, but mainly historians of all kinds, people like Plinius (I consider history a science).
I mean, there were no Archimedes', Aristotles or Ptolomeys in the "latin" regions of the Roman Empire.
Plinius was not a real scientist, because he basically collected stories: there was no original research.

You're right, but he did some research. Sadly, it meant his demise as well... A victim of empiricism in the Roman Empire? Rather a victim of an observation that was too close for comfort 8)

[papageno]

Hellenistic scientist (see A Thousand Pardons's post). Claudius Ptolemaeus Pelusiniensis lived in Egypt and was a roman citizen.

[...]

And you must be a product of that education, since you keep referring to Ptomlomey as "greek".
It could be argued that he was "ethnically" a Greek. For instance, he wrote his works in Greek, as did most mathematicians during Roman times.
Yes.
I cannot remember a real Latin scientist (not engineer).

Well, most early renaissance scientist wrote in Latin, but I presume you mean in the Roman Empire? There were some, but mainly historians of all kinds, people like Plinius (I consider history a science).
I mean, there were no Archimedes', Aristotles or Ptolomeys in the "latin" regions of the Roman Empire.
Plinius was not a real scientist, because he basically collected stories: there was no original research.

You're right, but he did some research. Sadly, it meant his demise as well... A victim of empiricism in the Roman Empire? Rather a victim of an observation that was too close for comfort 8)

:lol: I was about to mention that he died during the Vesuvius eruption that buried Pompeii.
I still have this mental image of him running to see the eruption and dying from a heart attack, but I always considered this more like an anecdote.



EDIT to fix.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Not nonsense, just biased.
What's the difference?

[Fram]

Not nonsense, just biased.
What's the difference?

Biased is parts of the truth, or putting emphasis where your interests lay. Nonsense is untruth.

If someone says that Galileo got persecuted because the Church valued the Bible above observations and science, that's true but only part of the truth. It was also a struggle for power and a way to nip some criticisms in the bud and so on. So that would be biased, but true.

If someone would say that Galileo got persecuted because he had said that the pope was a puppet on a string and that it were actually the Fullers who ran the Vatican, that would be nonsense.

[A Thousand Pardons]

If someone says that Galileo got persecuted because the Church valued the Bible above observations and science, that's true but only part of the truth.
It was also a struggle for power and a way to nip some criticisms in the bud and so on. So that would be biased, but true.
The first part is true, but the second is biased?

My point was that the link you used is obviously biased. I think it even admits as much.

[Fram]

If someone says that Galileo got persecuted because the Church valued the Bible above observations and science, that's true but only part of the truth.
It was also a struggle for power and a way to nip some criticisms in the bud and so on. So that would be biased, but true.
The first part is true, but the second is biased?

My point was that the link you used is obviously biased. I think it even admits as much.

I know it was biased, I wouldn't spend too much time searching a good one (although I probably better had). That doesn't make it nonsense. The problem is that the most links you find about the Galileo trial are either clearly pro-Catholic or clearly anti-Catholic. But even the pro-catholic ones (even the Creationist ones!) don't go as far as to say that Galileo was persecuted because he had ridiculed the Pope. And that was the reason I posted that link, to counter that nonsense (it didn't come from you).

[A Thousand Pardons]

But even the pro-catholic ones (even the Creationist ones!) don't go as far as to say that Galileo was persecuted because he had ridiculed the Pope. And that was the reason I posted that link, to counter that nonsense (it didn't come from you).
Koestler, in The Sleepwalkers, seems to say as much. If he had tempered his arguments, he might have been left alone. Worse, he made some scientific howlers that gave impetus to his critics. He mostly ignored poor Kepler--out of pique, jealousy, who knows?

I'll dig it out.

[Human]

Hope I´m not offending any sacred cow here. At times we hear the expression "Newton, the greatest scientist the world has known". Rigorously though, was Newton a real scientist or a "transitional" character? He exhibited definitely non-scientific attitudes during his lifetime:

1. He used to get huffy on being questioned or criticized.


I know about many scientific skeptics ignoring religious and spiritual people, i.e. James Randi :lol:


4. He was a believer.


Many scientists was religious. Wasn't Albert Einstein too?

In the astronomy movie "Contact", they mention that 95 % of all people believe in a Supreme Being. So obviously, many of those is scientists too.

I think Newton was one of the best scientists over the history. He discovered much important. What would we do without Newton?

[Fram]

In the astronomy movie "Contact", they mention that 95 % of all people believe in a Supreme Being. So obviously, many of those is scientists too.


I'm one of those 95%. I firmly believe in myself.

[Frog march]

Well that's better than Buddhism, where you believe in a fat man who looks like he's been at the whiskey.

[worzel]

I think Newton was one of the best scientists over the history. He discovered much important. What would we do without Newton?
I think that's incredibly hard to answer. No doubt he was a colossal genius, but sometimes ideas are "in the air" and the one who gets there first gets all the credit. I think there were others searching for the gravitaional relationship at the time (Robert Hooke even claimed to have suggested the inverse square law first). And the calculus was independantly discovered by Leibniz.

[Sam5]

Many scientists was religious. Wasn't Albert Einstein too?


“The surface is not a Euclidean continuum with respect to the rods, and we cannot define Cartesian co-ordinates in the surface. Gauss indicated the principles according to which we can treat the geometrical relationships in the surface, and thus pointed out the way to the method of Riemann of treating multi-dimensional, non-Euclidean continuum. Thus it is that mathematicians long ago solved the formal problems to which we are led by the general postulate of relativity.” Einstein, 1916

www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/B/Be/Bernhard_Riemann.htm+Bernhard+Riemann+Lutheran+pas tor+Einstein&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8]Riemann (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:D9OkkOCvB2oJ:[url) bio[/url]

“Big Bang Cosmology:
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit.” Source of quote (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uWSp2YA4WooJ:map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html+big+bang+Einstein&hl=en&lr=lang_en &ie=UTF-8)

LEMAITRE, this is the first modern big bang theory, 1927, English translation, 1931 (http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1931MNRAS..91..483L)

Lemaitre bio (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html)

[captain swoop]

Many scientists was religious. Wasn't Albert Einstein too?


“The surface is not a Euclidean continuum with respect to the rods, and we cannot define Cartesian co-ordinates in the surface. Gauss indicated the principles according to which we can treat the geometrical relationships in the surface, and thus pointed out the way to the method of Riemann of treating multi-dimensional, non-Euclidean continuum. Thus it is that mathematicians long ago solved the formal problems to which we are led by the general postulate of relativity.” Einstein, 1916

www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/B/Be/Bernhard_Riemann.htm+Bernhard+Riemann+Lutheran+pas tor+Einstein&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8]Riemann (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:D9OkkOCvB2oJ:[url) bio[/url]

“Big Bang Cosmology:
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit.” Source of quote (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uWSp2YA4WooJ:map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html+big+bang+Einstein&hl=en&lr=lang_en &ie=UTF-8)

LEMAITRE, this is the first modern big bang theory, 1927, English translation, 1931 (http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1931MNRAS..91..483L)

Lemaitre bio (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html)


How does any of that answer the question?

[Argos]

I think Newton was one of the best scientists over the history. He discovered much important.

Well, an anonymous hunter-collector ancestor of ours discovered fire, an important thing. Was he a scientist?


What would we do without Newton?


Revering Leibnitz, perhaps? :)

My point is: the will to discover and knowing things doesn´t make someone a scientist. In this sense, everybody is a scientist. A method distinguishes a scientist. In this sense, Newton wasn´t a scientist.

[Frog march]

messed up edit :oops:

[Frog march]

My point is: the will to discover and knowing things doesn´t make someone a scientist. In this sense, everybody is a scientist. A method distinguishes a scientist. In this sense, Newton wasn´t a scientist


doesn't his experiments with prisms and his resulting theories about white light being made up of many different colours (frequencies) of light make Newton as scientist?

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-c/prism-DSCN4982.jpg

[Argos]

Yes, it does. That´s why I call Newton a transitional character. He´s the bridge between Aristotelian philosophy and the scientific method. Useless as this nit-picking may seem, it is important to the history of science.

[Disinfo Agent]

Would you say that other thinkers in Newton's time had a more scientific attitude than him?

[captain swoop]

With ref to discovering fire.

It was one of the Three great Ugs.

they were Ug who invented the hot thing, Ug who invented the round thing and Ug who invented the pointy thing.

[Argos]

Would you say that other thinkers in Newton's time had a more scientific attitude than him?

It´s hard to say, as the spirit of those times did not favor a scientific attitude. I think that the generation(s) that came after Newton had more of a scientific attitude, like (the atheists) Laplace, Lagrange, Priestley. I think that the scientific method reached a culmination in the 19th century with all that determinism. As I see my Phd friends (I live in a university town) going to church on sunday I feel like something has been lost. Blame it on Heisenberg. :)

[Frog march]

Surely science has found uncertainty? :D


the world hasn't lost anything that is worth keeping through Heisenberg's discovery, has it?

[R.A.F.]

My point is: the will to discover and knowing things doesn´t make someone a scientist. In this sense, everybody is a scientist. A method distinguishes a scientist. In this sense, Newton wasn´t a scientist.

It seems important to you (for some reason) to say that Newton was not a real scientist...I can't imagine why...

No matter, the question "was Newton a real scientist" is easily answered by asking yourself this question...

Were Newton's observations/discoveries proved to be correct? In other words, was his science "good"? Of course the answer to that is a resounding YES, so the answer to the question is also yes.

If you must insist on "splitting hairs" to validate the "Newton was not a real scientist" opinion, well be our guest...it won't change the fact that Newton was one of the greatest "real" scientists who ever lived.

[Sam5]

My point is: the will to discover and knowing things doesn´t make someone a scientist. In this sense, everybody is a scientist. A method distinguishes a scientist. In this sense, Newton wasn´t a scientist.

It seems important to you (for some reason) to say that Newton was not a real scientist...I can't imagine why...


If I may be so bold as to suggest a guess, I think he thinks Newton wasn’t a real “scientist” because he had religious beliefs. He seems to think that a “real scientist” must be an atheist.

[Disinfo Agent]

That is only one of the four arguments (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20226&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=0&) Argos posted.

[Sam5]

That is only one of the four arguments (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20226&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=0&) Argos posted.


"1. He used to get huffy on being questioned or criticized.
2. He resorted to ad hominem (sic) and authority arguments against his detractors.
3. He was adept of secrecy (he hid his work on optics for years)."

If a scientist gets “huffy”, insults those who insult him, and keeps his initial experiments a secret, then all of a sudden he is not a “scientist”?

[Disinfo Agent]

That is only one of the four arguments (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20226&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=0&) Argos posted.
"1. He used to get huffy on being questioned or criticized.
2. He resorted to ad hominem (sic) and authority arguments against his detractors.
3. He was adept of secrecy (he hid his work on optics for years)."

If a scientist gets “huffy”, insults those who insult him, and keeps his initial experiments a secret, then all of a sudden he is not a “scientist”?
Or not as good a scientist as he could be otherwise. At least, that's what I think Argos was saying (at least initially). :)

[Sam5]

That is only one of the four arguments (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20226&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=0&) Argos posted.
"1. He used to get huffy on being questioned or criticized.
2. He resorted to ad hominem (sic) and authority arguments against his detractors.
3. He was adept of secrecy (he hid his work on optics for years)."

If a scientist gets “huffy”, insults those who insult him, and keeps his initial experiments a secret, then all of a sudden he is not a “scientist”?
Or not as good a scientist as he could be otherwise. At least, that's what I think Argos was saying (at least initially). :)

I don’t think it is up to Argos to define who is or isn’t a “scientist”. I recall seeing some old newsreels of Edison in the 1930s and he was huffy, rude, arrogant, secretive, and he tended to steal ideas from other scientists. We could call him an “inventor” and not a “scientist”, but I think of him as a scientist who was an inventor. When I turn on my light bulbs and phonographs (CDs now), I don’t care if he was “huffy”, insulting, secretive, or a believer or non-believer. None of those things have anything to do with his scientific discoveries and inventions. :D

[papageno]

I don’t think it is up to Argos to define who is or isn’t a “scientist”. I recall seeing some old newsreels of Edison in the 1930s and he was huffy, rude, arrogant, secretive, and he tended to steal ideas from other scientists. We could call him an “inventor” and not a “scientist”, but I think of him as a scientist who was an inventor. When I turn on my light bulbs and phonographs (CDs now), I don’t care if he was “huffy”, insulting, secretive, or a believer or non-believer. None of those things have anything to do with his scientific discoveries and inventions. :D
If I remember correctly, Edison opted for direct current.
What we use today is alternate current (proposed by Tesla?).

(Well, most appliances transform the a.c. from the mian into d.c..)

[Argos]

It seems important to you (for some reason) to say that Newton was not a real scientist...I can't imagine why...


I know I´m bad at english, but I´m focusing, as I tried to say earlier, in the historiographic (is there such word in English?) aspects. I trying to deconstruct (fancy word) his romantic aura of a typical scientist. I´m discussing the conveniency (or lack of) of classifying (I´m a classification maniac) him as a scientist. Just a chit-chat. An exercize. Nothing important. :)

[Sam5]

I don’t think it is up to Argos to define who is or isn’t a “scientist”. I recall seeing some old newsreels of Edison in the 1930s and he was huffy, rude, arrogant, secretive, and he tended to steal ideas from other scientists. We could call him an “inventor” and not a “scientist”, but I think of him as a scientist who was an inventor. When I turn on my light bulbs and phonographs (CDs now), I don’t care if he was “huffy”, insulting, secretive, or a believer or non-believer. None of those things have anything to do with his scientific discoveries and inventions. :D
If I remember correctly, Edison opted for direct current.
What we use today is alternate current (proposed by Tesla?).

(Well, most appliances transform the a.c. from the mian into d.c..)


I think you are right. I think there is something about AC that allows it to be transmitted further without loss of energy/power in the electric power lines (but I’m not exactly sure why AC turned out to be better).

By the way, I was taught as a school kid in the 1950s that Edison invented sound recording. But years later I read a late-19th Century book by Tendall and he said that brief sound recordings were made as early as the 1850s and ‘60s. They were basically sine waves etched on smoked glass. What Edison actually invented was a more permanent and less delicate way to record the sound and a way to play it back.

[papageno]

I think you are right. I think there is something about AC that allows it to be transmitted further without loss of energy/power in the electric power lines (but I’m not exactly sure why AC turned out to be better).

That's relatively easy to understand.
The issue is power loss over long distances.
High-voltage, low-current lines have lower losses than low-voltage, high-current lines (for the same amount of power).
AC allows going from low-voltage to high-voltage and viceversa.
So, the power station can produce low-voltage and transform it into high-voltage. This goes along the line and is transformed back into low-voltage (which is safer) at a local station and then distributed.
This is not possible with DC.

[Sam5]

It seems important to you (for some reason) to say that Newton was not a real scientist...I can't imagine why...


I know I´m bad at english, but I´m focusing, as I tried to say earlier, in the historiographic (is there such word in English?) aspects. I trying to deconstruct (fancy word) his romantic aura of a typical scientist. I´m discussing the conveniency (or lack of) of classifying (I´m a classification maniac) him as a scientist. Just a chit-chat. An exercize. Nothing important. :)

Well, as long as it’s not important, then I guess we can all relax. It’s not like this is a “test question” on a university exam, so we don’t have to get all frustrated over it. :D

I think we can classify different “kinds” of “scientists”. Like Edison and the Wright Brothers were “inventors”. So were they also “scientists”? I would say “yes”, they were “inventor-scientists”, but others might disagree.

I’ve been studying Doppler lately. He was basically a high school teacher, who worked on an “idea”, and then he published his idea a year or so after he became a technical institute professor. So was he a “scientist”? I don’t know. I guess so. I find it interesting that he, above all other “scientists”, has his name mentioned the most by the American media today. More than Newton, Edison, and Einstein. Because today we have “Doppler radar,” and, thus, the American media mentions Doppler’s name several times every day.

[Argos]

That is only one of the four arguments (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20226&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=0&) Argos posted.
"1. He used to get huffy on being questioned or criticized.
2. He resorted to ad hominem (sic) and authority arguments against his detractors.
3. He was adept of secrecy (he hid his work on optics for years)."

If a scientist gets “huffy”, insults those who insult him, and keeps his initial experiments a secret, then all of a sudden he is not a “scientist”?
Or not as good a scientist as he could be otherwise. At least, that's what I think Argos was saying (at least initially). :)

Ok, I keep saying that. :) Can you imagine a scientist so paranoid about his work today? Again, another pillar, if not of the of the modern scientific method, but at least of the scientific ethics, is the principle of publicity: you report your finding as soon as you have one. With the scientific research depending on the money of third parties, as corporate and governmental instances, a scientist can´t get away with the results, or keep them hidden. The lone hermetic scientist is no more.

[Grey]

I vaguely recall hearing that AC power is also somewhat safer than DC power for biological reasons. That claim was that an alternating current tends to cause muscles to spasm, so if you accidentally connect a high voltage source using yourself as the circuit, you'd often be thrown free quickly, whereas direct current tends to lock one's muscles, so holding you in place and allowing current to continue flowing.

I don't even recall the source and it was a long time ago. Can anyone confirm or deny it?

[Argos]

Are you trying to sabotage "my" thread? :)

[Frog march]

Ok, I keep saying that. Can you imagine a scientist so paranoid about his work today? Again, another pillar, if not of the of the modern scientific method, but at least of the scientific ethics, is the principle of publicity: you report your finding as soon as you have one. With the scientific research depending on the money of third parties, as corporate and governmental instances, a scientist can´t get away with the results, or keep them hid. The lone hermetic scientist is no more.
_________________

An individual scientist maynot be able to be so secretive but a lot of research now days is bigbuisness and millions are spent on researching drugs, electronics etc.... and scientists work in teams.

Information may indeed be shared within a team but a lot of money spent on research could go down the plug if information were to be leaked from within that team to the outside world, to a competitor.
Althought there is a scientific comunity this by no means means that all research information is shared, espesialy if that research for the millitary.

[Disinfo Agent]

Again, another pillar, if not of the of the modern scientific method, but at least of the scientific ethics, is the principle of publicity: you report your finding as soon as you have one. With the scientific research depending on the money of third parties, as corporate and governmental instances, a scientist can´t get away with the results, or keep them hid. The lone hermetic scientist is no more.
I challenge that one. Publication is a principle of science today (in the public sector!), but that was not always so. Remeber the competition between Cardano and Tartaglia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolo_Fontana_Tartaglia).

Tartaglia is perhaps best known today for his conflicts with Gerolamo Cardano. Cardano nagged Tartaglia into revealing his solution to the cubic equations, by promising not to publish them. Several years later, Cardano happened to see unpublished work by Scipione dal Ferro who independently came up with the same solution as Tartaglia. As the unpublished work was dated before Tartaglia's, Cardano decided his promise could be broken, and included Tartaglia's solution in his next publication. In spite of the fact that Cardano credited his discovery, Tartaglia was extremely upset. He responded by publicly insulting Cardano personally as well as professionally.
The general outline of Tartaglia's dispute with Cardano is clear. There is no doubt that Tartaglia attempted to keep his solutions secret. (We may question the extent of Cardano's culpability. He may have believed either that he had an independent source for the results, or that he had significantly improved and changed Tartaglia's methods.) To understand the point of Tartaglia's secrecy, we must recognize that in 16th century Italy, even theoretic knowledge without technical application had special professional significance for those privy to it. In 1535, Tartaglia had enhanced his reputation in a mathematical duel in which the contestants, without divulging method, solved cubic equations presented by their opponents. This sort of challenge only makes sense in an intellectual tradition that emphasizes secret knowledge passed on to select students. Although the custom was changing, Tartaglia was responding to a tradition in which a master's reputation depended on the amount of secret information he could pass on.

interesting post (http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/perspective/pers4_1jun84_2.html)

[Disinfo Agent]

Are you trying to sabotage "my" thread? :)
I'm sure you meant "hijack". :wink:

(I should know this, since I'm a hijacking champion myself. :D)

[Grey]

Are you sabotaging "my" thread? :)
Oops, sorry! Okay, I'll try to add something useful. I'd agree that inventors like Edison or the Wrights are a borderline case. Unlike Sam5, I'd tend to not consider them scientists, but, like Sam5, I wouldn't quibble too much with those who would disagree with that.

As for Newton, I think he probably qualifies. At the time he lived, science was still just becoming distinct from philosophy in general. But at least a good portion of his work was done using a model of experiment, drawing generalizations from the results, experimenting further to test those hypotheses, and eventually forming a consistent theory of some phenomenon. That certainly sounds like science to me.

[Argos]

Are you trying to sabotage "my" thread? :)
I'm sure you meant "hijack". :wink:

(I should know this, since I'm a hijacking champion myself. :D)

No, in fact I hadn´t realized that he was responding to a previous post about Edison. I thought that Grey was really trying to throw shoes at the gear. :)

[Argos]

I challenge that one. Publication is a principle of science today (in the public sector!), but that was not always so. Remeber the competition between Cardano and Tartaglia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolo_Fontana_Tartaglia).


Ok. It´s interesting how all this tradition of secrecy taps directly into the hermetism of the alchemists. In modern times secrecy, in the public´s mind, relates to the image of the "mad scientist".

[Disinfo Agent]

In modern times secrecy, in the public´s mind, relates to the image of the "mad scientist".
But that's unrealistic. A lot of military and private research is still kept secret today, at least for a while.

[Sam5]

I challenge that one. Publication is a principle of science today (in the public sector!), but that was not always so. Remeber the competition between Cardano and Tartaglia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolo_Fontana_Tartaglia).


Ok. It´s interesting how all this tradition of secrecy taps directly into the hermetism of the alchemists. In modern times secrecy, in the public´s mind, relates to the image of the "mad scientist".


I think “the hermetism of the alchemists” is something of a myth. The alchemists were basically early chemists. Experimenting with chemicals goes back to ancient Egypt and China, and I think it basically it served several original purposes, such as how to preserve food and make it taste better (such as with the mineral “salt” and by means of slow smoking), a search for “medicine” that helped people combat certain diseases (even the Bible, in its ancient historical context, refers to this), and by the late middle-ages some alchemists tried to make stronger metals, they tried to find a way to manufacture gold and make steel stronger, and they just played around to see what would happen when certain chemicals were mixed together. There were also some experiments with intoxicating herbs of various kinds. The “secrecy” of some of the alchemists was most likely due to some people thinking they were “witches”. But I think early chemistry (“alchemy”) was mostly wide open and well known as early medicine and chemistry.

I think the image of the “mad scientist” was purely a product of 19th Century fiction novels and 20th Century Hollywood movies.

[Argos]

I think “the hermetism of the alchemists” is something of a myth. The alchemists were basically early chemists. Experimenting with chemicals goes back to ancient Egypt and China, and I think it basically it served several original purposes, such as how to preserve food and make it taste better (such as with the mineral “salt” and by means of slow smoking), a search for “medicine” that helped people combat certain diseases (even the Bible, in its ancient historical context, refers to this), and by the late middle-ages some alchemists tried to make stronger metals, they tried to find a way to manufacture gold and make steel stronger, and they just played around to see what would happen when certain chemicals were mixed together. There were also some experiments with intoxicating herbs of various kinds. The “secrecy” of some of the alchemists was most likely due to some people thinking they were “witches”. But I think early chemistry (“alchemy”) was mostly wide open and well known as early medicine and chemistry.

The alchemists you describe seem too rational to me. Would you deny the magical elements involved in their trade? They had lots reasons to be hermetic as I have several reasons to believe they were lost in a haze of tortuous thinking.


I think the image of the “mad scientist” was purely a product of 19th Century fiction novels and 20th Century Hollywood movies.

Still, it´s the image that´s got sticked.

[Sam5]

The alchemists you describe seem too rational to me. Would you deny the magical elements involved in their trade? They had lots reasons to be hermetic as I have several reasons to believe they were lost in a haze of tortuous thinking.


I think most of the advanced civilizations of the past had their chemists. The Egyptians, the Mayans, the Romans, the Greeks, etc. For example, iron doesn’t come out of the ground ready to beat into swords. Someone had to learn how to make iron out of iron ore.

Somebody in China discovered that if they mixed charcoal, potassium nitrate, and sulfur together in the right amount, and confined it in a strong paper container, then ignited it with a flame, it would explode. I think that one person might think of this as “magic”, another as “the works of God”, an another as “the strange ways of nature”.

I’ve often wondered what would possess someone to mix these three particular chemicals together and then set fire to the mix. Surely this was the result of experiment and not an accident.

[Argos]

Somebody in China discovered that if they mixed charcoal, potassium nitrate, and sulfur together in the right amount, and confined it in a strong paper container, then ignited it with a flame, it would explode. I think that one person might think of this as “magic”, another as “the works of God”, an another as “the strange ways of nature”.

I think the main goal of the alchemists was to produce miraculous substances, in the hope that certain combinations of substances would liberate cosmic forces. Most of them were not interested in discovery, in the scientific sense. Most of them wanted to possess a secret that would give them power. In general, they didn´t know exactly what they were doing.


I’ve often wondered what would possess someone to mix these three particular chemicals together and then set fire to the mix. Surely this was the result of experiment and not an accident.

Yes, but their venture into the empiricism was restricted to the method of try and error, based on vague assumptions. Their experiments were not designed to confirm anything. Eventually they learned something.

Edited to add

[Sam5]

Somebody in China discovered that if they mixed charcoal, potassium nitrate, and sulfur together in the right amount, and confined it in a strong paper container, then ignited it with a flame, it would explode. I think that one person might think of this as “magic”, another as “the works of God”, an another as “the strange ways of nature”.

I think the main goal of the alchemists was to produce miraculous substances, in the hope that certain combinations of substances would liberate cosmic forces. Most of them were not interested in discovery, in the scientific sense. Most of them wanted to possess a secret that would give them power. In general, they didn´t know exactly what they were doing.



Here’s a definition for alchemy I got off dictionary dot com:

“Main Entry: al·che·my
Pronunciation: 'al-k&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -mies
: the medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy whose aims were the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for diseases, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life —al·che·mist /-m&st/ noun —al·che·mis·tic /"al-k&-'mis-tik/ or al·che·mis·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective”


So what are “scientists” and “chemists” trying to do today? The same thing. Instead of making “gold” they are trying to come up with a new universal “energy” source, since a new source of energy would be worth a lot of gold today.

[Nicolas]

"Was Newton a real scientist?"

No, he was faked in an underground bunker at Area 51.

(I'm sorry, I haven't read this thread :))

[Fram]

Somebody in China discovered that if they mixed charcoal, potassium nitrate, and sulfur together in the right amount, and confined it in a strong paper container, then ignited it with a flame, it would explode. I think that one person might think of this as “magic”, another as “the works of God”, an another as “the strange ways of nature”.

I think the main goal of the alchemists was to produce miraculous substances, in the hope that certain combinations of substances would liberate cosmic forces. Most of them were not interested in discovery, in the scientific sense. Most of them wanted to possess a secret that would give them power. In general, they didn´t know exactly what they were doing.



Here’s a definition for alchemy I got off dictionary dot com:

“Main Entry: al·che·my
Pronunciation: 'al-k&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -mies
: the medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy whose aims were the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for diseases, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life —al·che·mist /-m&st/ noun —al·che·mis·tic /"al-k&-'mis-tik/ or al·che·mis·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective”


So what are “scientists” and “chemists” trying to do today? The same thing. Instead of making “gold” they are trying to come up with a new universal “energy” source, since a new source of energy would be worth a lot of gold today.

Do you deliberately insult all scientists and chemists? If you mean 'some' or 'a few' scientists and chemists, say so, because that makes a huge difference.
Most scientists and chemists are not looking for a universal energy source (why the quotes around energy? Don't you believe that energy exists?). Many sciences don't even have anything to do with energy sources, chemics, or physics. But most people would applaud it if such an energy source was found (well, we have a few already), but that doesn't mean they are actively looking for it. And contrary to the alchemist of the middle ages, chemists nowadays are working in a controlled, scientific way, based in knowledge, not in philosophical speculation. You will still find crackpots among them (as in every part of life), but that was not what you were saying at all.

[A Thousand Pardons]

I challenge that one. Publication is a principle of science today (in the public sector!), but that was not always so. Remeber the competition between Cardano and Tartaglia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolo_Fontana_Tartaglia).


Ok. It´s interesting how all this tradition of secrecy taps directly into the hermetism of the alchemists. In modern times secrecy, in the public´s mind, relates to the image of the "mad scientist".
yahbut their controversy was over math--everybody knows math is not a science :)