589
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: − + − + − + + + + +
no edit summary
* I also think the point about Galileo's work, however inaccurate in some respects by modern standards, being the first commonly-accepted example of the use of the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, observation and falsifiability is quite central, and can't understand why this should have been removed in RSchlafly's edit. Please can we discuss these before any further edits are made.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 15:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
* I also think the point about Galileo's work, however inaccurate in some respects by modern standards, being the first commonly-accepted example of the use of the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, observation and falsifiability is quite central, and can't understand why this should have been removed in RSchlafly's edit. Please can we discuss these before any further edits are made.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 15:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: Saying that the book was burned implies that the only copy was lost. It was not. Copies were readily available to other scholars.
: Saying that the book was burned implies that the only copy was lost. It was not. Copies were readily available to other scholars.[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: The Bible was just one of many reasons for thinking that the Earth was at the center. Any statement that it was the only reason, or even the main reason, is just wrong.
::Copies of the book were burned, according to several reputable sources. It's obvious that some survived, but the point was that some were burned at the instructions of the Church. Unless you can come up with some reasonable evidence that they weren't, this point should go back in.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: It is okay to say what was being banned or denounced, as long as it says what was really being banned or denounced.
: The Bible was just one of many reasons for thinking that the Earth was at the center. Any statement that it was the only reason, or even the main reason, is just wrong.[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Would you like to come up with some evidence for that statement? It is a widely held view, and if you are going to dispute it you ought to be able to cite some evidence in support of your position.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: It is okay to say what was being banned or denounced, as long as it says what was really being banned or denounced. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think I made it clear that what was being denounced was the treating of Copernicus' theories as if they were real rather than hypothetical.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: The idea that Galileo invented the scientific method is just nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: The idea that Galileo invented the scientific method is just nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::As far as I know, Bacon's version of the scientific method, although certainly revolutionary for his period, was not based on mathematics and measurement in the same way as Galileo's. However, we can compromise on the wording and say Galileo 'is often regarded' is the inventor of the scientific method. I don't think Bacon was concerned with falsifiability, which is fairly central to Galileo - after all, he started by questioning Aristotle, using experiment and observation to do so.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Surely the scientific method is traditionally credited to Roger Bacon, some centuries earlier? (I.e. I'm agreeing...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Surely the scientific method is traditionally credited to Roger Bacon, some centuries earlier? (I.e. I'm agreeing...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)