1/ There’s something VERY suspicious about the social media platforms & their new treatment of Trans issues. I now believe it’s being fashioned cynically as the preferred weapon with which to hunt those who will never give a single inch of scientific ground to political pressure.
-
-
Notably for your invocation of him, Galileo actually lacked the evidence to distinguish between a Copernican and Tychonic worldview (the latter being the one the Church had adopted by the time of his trouble with them). Yet he championed the former exclusively.
-
It is clear that he did this not because the evidence was strong for it, but because it fit in with his metaphysical/philosophical worldview to have the Sun at the center of the universe. Fair enough, except the Church considered philosophical challenges to be religious ones.
-
Religious challenges at that time of religious strife and European wars were seen as political challenges. In other words: The Church saw Galileo as appealing to science when he was really making a political argument, and not fessing up to it. And they weren't really wrong.
-
That you're appealing to the authority of science to justify a blatantly political sentiment and calling it Galileo is... appropriate, I guess? But not probably in the way you mean it to be?
-
Galileo was explicit and historically notable in making the case that the bible does not trump science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Benedetto_Castelli … and many other places. This whole twitter storm is either deliberate or ignorant historical malpractice on your part.
-
You've gotta read more than a single document on Wikipedia for your historical understanding, sorry. There are a million good books on the Galileo Affair out there — track one down.
-
I have. You just didn't make your case. Weinstein is looking for a person to represent a commitment to the supremacy of scientific evidence over non-scientific concerns. Galileo was complicated, so are we all, but I can hardly think of a better person to use for this purpose.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Regardless of the truth of this statement, the principle of not letting science bend to political activists still stands. Also, what's the chance that Eric knew of this dual Galileo thing and was devilishly misleading people?
-
1) I still don't really see how "science says I should oppose Twitter's abuse policy" makes any sense (naming conventions and rules vary by culture and are not scientific). 2) Zero
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Eric doesn’t actually know anything.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
