Difference between revisions of "Talk:Galileo"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Would like to discuss points at issue before any other edits are made.)
 
Line 4: Line 4:
 
* It's also true as far as other sources tell me that other books than Galileo's dealing with Copernican theories were added to the Index of Forbidden Books. Galileo's theories were denounced from the pulpit and to the Medici by the Dominicans, so I don't understand why that should have been taken out in his edit.  
 
* It's also true as far as other sources tell me that other books than Galileo's dealing with Copernican theories were added to the Index of Forbidden Books. Galileo's theories were denounced from the pulpit and to the Medici by the Dominicans, so I don't understand why that should have been taken out in his edit.  
 
* 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)
 +
 +
He thinks it's anti-Catholic, but it's also factual... I checked the sources and did my own research.  Is that how it works on Conservapedia?  Censor the unpleasant stuff?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 15:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 13:23, 3 May 2007

I think we need to discuss some points at issue.

  • I cannot understand why RSchlafly keeps editing out the statement about the order for Galileo's book to be burned - every source I have checked gives this as a fact. What evidence is there that this did not happen?
  • I also cannot understand why he disagrees that the common understanding of the period was that the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the universe - what is the evidence that this was not taught at the time?
  • It's also true as far as other sources tell me that other books than Galileo's dealing with Copernican theories were added to the Index of Forbidden Books. Galileo's theories were denounced from the pulpit and to the Medici by the Dominicans, so I don't understand why that should have been taken out in his edit.
  • 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.--Britinme 15:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

He thinks it's anti-Catholic, but it's also factual... I checked the sources and did my own research. Is that how it works on Conservapedia? Censor the unpleasant stuff?-BillBuck 15:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)