From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BillBuck (Talk | contribs) at 16:47, 3 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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)
Saying that the book was burned implies that the only copy was lost. It was not. Copies were readily available to other scholars.RSchlafly 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
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.--Britinme 18:41, 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.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.--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. 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.--Britinme 18:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
The idea that Galileo invented the scientific method is just nonsense. 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.--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...) Dpbsmith 15:45, 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)

You bet it is. Check out the history of the McCarthy article. --PF Fox 15:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, that's exactly how it works. The thing to always remember is that the sysops have the block and ban controls and will happily revert any edits they don't agree with and, if you protest, block you. Far from being a well run community site, it's a totalitarian ego project and I'd suggest you do something more productive with your time. --Rob Roy 15:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

BillBuck just reverted all my edits, without explanation. If something is incorrect, then post your evidence here. It is not acceptable to just insert a bunch of anti-Catholic myths without evidence.

PF Fox is a McCarthy hater, who wanted the McCarthy article to include a bunch of attacks on McCarthy. If you check the history there, you'll find that I personally made sure that the article include a summary of PF Fox's criticisms of McCarthy. RSchlafly 15:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry I reverted without explanation, RSchlafly, but since you removed much of the previous editor's work, or modified it heavily, without comment, I figured it was proper for me to do the same. I treated your unexplained changes as mere vandalism, so of course I reverted them after finding them to be erroneous, and I assumed no further discussion was necessary.-BillBuck 18:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)