You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
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.
This is anything but clear. He may have written of other reasons for supporting to Copernican view, but it was his actual observations in 1609 that caused him to regard this as fact.
Galileo's evidence for Copernicanism could not distinguish between it and the Tychonic viewpoint the Church was advocating at the time of his trouble with them. If those terms don't mean anything to you, it means you need to read a bit more before having an opinion on them...
I'm familiar. Not being able to disprove a rival theory is hardly the same as not being motivated by scientific evidence in favor of yours. Galileo wasn't convinced by some religious epiphany. He was convinced by looking through a telescope.
I'm not familiar with Galileo's metaphysical/philosophical worldview, so I'm curious to know more about how it motivate his heliocentric position. Could you please provide more information?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
