Science is based on observation and empirical reasoning. You observe the world around you, you take notes about phenomenon and try to figure out ideas as why it might happen. Then you test your claims, record the results and to see if your ideas hold up: if the results turn out to be positive then your line of thinking probably was on the right track and if they turn out to be negative then you learn that said idea is probably incorrect but at least you know that said line was probably not the case and the data you did collect might be useful down the line. Then (in part to eliminate your own biases) you submit your results to evaluation and retesting to see if you did things correctly or not. If it turns out that you recorded a false positive you admit your mistake and continue to work at the evidence.
Religion is based around Faith. Faith is a conviction that one holds to be true in spite of all evidence (especially when said religion is the One True Faith). Anything in the world which contradicts said conviction is to be either ignored, covered up or dismissed as being a deception of some king.
These two methods of thinking are fundamentally incompatible. Eventually science will question an important tenants of religion as it has been doing for centuries. Science allowed human civilization to work out how to go from a situation where 90% of the population had to be peasant farmers and one in three children died in childbirth to one of unprecedented economic prosperity in a few centuries. Faith does not get you knowledge but it is a remarkably good way of staying wrong forever and never admitting it to anyone, even yourself.
>>391736
Science and faith are not in conflict—unless you want them to be. If someone places faith before truth, then they are stepping out of bounds. But if faith is what one has because something is true, and not the other way around, science becomes the One True Faith. This is another counter-intuitive feature of science: it is thoroughly empirical, built on observation and evidence, yet “empiricism” is not observation and evidence alone, but a view of things that is constructed from observed facts, and the whole enterprise of science requires at least the provisional belief that those constructions are true. On the one hand science requires faith, a faith that certain principles and models and bodies of knowledge are true. On the other hand, this faith is not blind, but based on evidence. It is justified faith.
Scientists build up faith in science’s concepts, principles, and conclusions through repeated practice or testing, and when this faith is challenged, they return again to examine the facts, to see if their faith is justified by them. This is what makes science an empirical enterprise, the fact that it ultimately grounds and justifies its faith by appeal to observable evidence.
The idea of an empirically-based faith is hard for many people to grasp, especially if they are used to thinking that “faith” is only a reason for believing something when you don’t have evidence. The term “faith” does have both connotations, meaning “belief” in some cases, but also “reason to believe” in others. Science has no use for that second kind of faith. But it is not true that a scientist “has no faith” in science: he has faith in it, but a faith that is grounded in empirical evidence and reasoning. By confusing the two notions of faith, common sense creates a false dichotomy between faith and empirical justification. Science unites them.
>>391736
Read Kuhn, then Lakatos, then Feyerabend.
>>391736
Religion is based around politics and identity.
>>391742
>On the one hand science requires faith, a faith that certain principles and models and bodies of knowledge are true.
I thought the scientific method was based on observation
>>391789
>based on observation
No, no it isn't. Read Popper, then Kuhn, then Lakatos, then Feyerabend.
>>391792
Well that's great because if you read those you'll understand why the scientific method is based on observation.
>>391823
Stop shitting up the board.
>>391823
Explain how the scientific method is not based on observation then. Popper himself says "If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected"
>>391829
How on earth can you say that the scientific method is based on observation when as Kuhn and Lakatos show the instruments contain theory?
>>391834
Your making the same mistake as Lakatos, Feyerband and Kuhn by taking Popper seriously.
An inductionist conclusion is necessarily provisional.
Deductionist conclusions and theories are ones that encompass and generalise from all the empirical data that will ever be available and are either right or wrong because it decides what the empirical data is. Only by coming up with a different theory of being, a different ontology, can the theory be superseded or even flat refuted.
Darwin's theory says that all natural creatures evolve out of each other. There is nothing provisional about this conclusion. It is the solution to the question asked, the riddle solved. It cannot be falsified.
>>391861
>evolution cannot be falsified
Now I know you're trolling. There are plenty of ways it can be falsified.
If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.
Charles Darwin made the case a little differently when he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
>>391736
>Science is based on observation and empirical reasoning.
nice meme.
now tell me why should I not apply Ptoleme's model day after day, and instead apply Newton view ?
>>391871
top banter
>>391871
>If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
do we even have organisms with identical DNA ?
>>391871
>If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
for how long ? five minutes or ten years?
>>391871
>If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
proving which cannot happen. top metaphysics.
>>391871
>If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
for how many generations ? one, a hundred ?
>>391871
>If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
because we can create equal environment over and over
>>391792
>Kuhn
Rationalist called Khun a relativist because the rationalist judged khun not enough rationalist.
>>391871
>I think the Enlightenment is a failure, that we should abandon evidence-based enquiry and universal education, let the Catholic Church control the books and go back to the Middle Ages.
>>391910
>that we should abandon evidence-based enquiry and universal education
funny thing is that these developed from the middle ages
>>391917
One paradigm replaces another-Evolution of ideas
>>391927
more like degeneration of ideas
get out of here, whig
>>391931
While evolution is commonly taken to mean a whiggish advance towards goodness, in a Kuhnian or Lakatoshian sense it is merely a competition between more fitness.
Physics exists as it does to win grants and produce Post-docs.
>>391890
>do we even have organisms with identical DNA?
Yes, all the time, clones and any non-mutant offspring from asexual reproduction.
>>391736
Why Trust a Theory? Reconsidering Scientific Methodology in Light of Modern Physics
7-9 December, 2015
Idea and Motivation
Fundamental physics today faces increasing difficulties to find conclusive empirical confirmation of its theories. Some empirically unconfirmed or inconclusively confirmed theories in the field have nevertheless attained a high degree of trust among their exponents and are de facto treated as well established theories. This situation raises a number of questions that are of substantial importance for the future development of fundamental physics. Can a high degree of trust in an empirically unconfirmed or inconclusively confirmed theory be scientifically justified? Does the extent to which empirically unconfirmed theories are trusted today constitute a substantial change of the character of scientific reasoning? Might some important theories of contemporary fundamental physics be empirically untestable in principle?
The workshop will be centred around an in-depth discussion of these and other related questions, with a particular focus on the methodological and philosophical aspects. As such, it will be an interdisciplinary event, involving physicists and philosophers of science. It will bring together main exponents of important theories in fundamental physics, physicists who have expressed criticism of the current strategies of theory assessment in fundamental physics and philosophers who have thought about those issues.
http://www.whytrustatheory2015.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/index.html
>>392063
>>391736
hahahahah physicist understand that they have no clue what they are doing, so they try to change definitions in order to keep asking for a monthly salary
Abstracts
Peter Achinstein: Scientific Speculation
Throughout the history of science controversies have emerged regarding the legitimacy of speculating in science. Three very strong views about the general practice of speculating have emerged: One, very conservative, says “never do it, or at least never publish it.” It is the official doctrine of Isaac Newton: “hypotheses have no place in experimental philosophy.” (Of course, he violated his official doctrine on several occasions). Another, more moderate position is the official doctrine of hypothetico-deductivists such as Whewell, Popper, and Hempel: speculate freely but verify before publishing. The third, the most liberal, is suggested by Feyerabend’s principle of proliferation: speculate like mad, and publish, even when you have no idea how to test your speculations.
In my talk I want to reject all three of these views. They are too simple-minded. Some speculations are good ones, some not so good. I will ask how a speculation is to be evaluated. In the process of doing so, I will consider two historically important speculations: James Clerk Maxwell’s kinetic theory speculations from 1860 to 1875, and a speculation that has been put forward by some string theorists, as well as by others, viz. that there is a “theory of everything” (whether or not it is string theory). The first, I will argue, deserves praise, the second does not.top
Elena Castellani: Scientific Methodology: A View from Early String Theory
>>392101
Looking at the developments of quantum field theory and string theory since their very beginnings, it does not seem that the methodology in fundamental physics has changed. The same strategies are applied in theory building and assessment. The methodology leading to the string idea and its successive developments is the same one we can find in many fundamental developments in theoretical physics. These have been crowned with successful empirical confirmation (sometimes, after a number of years): starting with the history of the positron to arrive at the Higgs particle.top
Radin Dardashti: Physics without Experiments?
Most of the fundamental theories in modern physics are relevant at energy scales or length scales where empirical access is currently hard to obtain. Accounts of theory assessment within the philosophy of science literature are, however, usually concerned with the relation between the theory and the empirical data they predict. So these “traditional” approaches seem not to allow for theory assessment in these cases. Recently, Richard Dawid has developed an account of non-empirical theory assessment, which uses evidence not entailed by the theory to assess the theory. In this talk I present a problem-oriented perspective on these issues, which allows to better assess the possibilities and limitations of non-empirical theory assessment.top
Richard Dawid: Non-empirical Confirmation
The talk will analyse reasons for the high degree of trust many physicists have developed in empirically unconfirmed theories. An extension of the concept of theory confirmation (to be called “non-empirical confirmation”) will be suggested that allows for confirmation by observations that are not predicted by the theory in question. The last part of the talk will address a number of worries that have been raised with respect to this approach.top
David Gross: What is a Theory?
>>392105
TBAtop
Georgi Dvali: Secret Quantum Lives of Black Holes and Dark Energy
TBAtop
George Ellis: Limits in testing the Multiverse
Our ability to test cosmological models is severely constrained by visual horizons on the one hand, and physical horizons (limits on testing physical theories) on the other. Various arguments have been given to get round these limitations. I will argue that these amount to philosophical choices, which may or may not correspond to physical reality, and hence resulting claims do not amount to established scientific results. This holds in particular to a variety of claims of physical existence of infinities of galaxies, universes, or beings like ourselves in a multiverse. We need a strong philosophical stance to distinguish which of these claims should indeed be regarded as proven science,and which not.top
Sabine Hossenfelder: Lost in Math
I will speak about the role of social and cognitive biases in hypotheses pre-selection, and reflect on the rationale behind the concepts of naturalness, simplicity and beauty.top
Gordon Kane: String/M-Theories about our World are Testable in the Traditional Physics Way
>>392108
Some physicists hope to use string/M-theory to try to construct a comprehensive underlying theory of our physical world – a final theory. A quantum theory of gravity must be formulated in 10 dimensions, so obviously testing it requires projecting it onto our 4D world (called “compactification”). Most string theorists study theories, not phenomena, and are not much interested in testing theories about our world. Compactified theories generically have many realistic features that provide tests, such as gravity, Yang-Mills forces like the Standard Model ones, chiral fermions, softly broken supersymmetry, Higgs physics, families, and hierarchical fermion masses. String phenomenologists have also formulated a number of explicit tests for compactified theories. I give examples of tests from compactified M-theory (involving Higgs physics, superpartners at LHC, electric dipole moments, and more). Theoretical technologies, and experimental technologies and facilities, have both improved steadily in recent years so tests have already occurred for some of the examples and are underway for more. All tests of theories in physics have always depended on assumptions and approximate calculations, and tests of string/M-theories do too. It is clear that compactified theories exist that can describe worlds like ours, and it is clear that even if a multiverse were real it does not prevent us from finding comprehensive compactified theories very much like one that might describe our world.top
Helge Kragh: Fundamental Theories and Epistemic Shifts: Can History of Science serve as a Guide?
>>392110
Epistemic standards and methodologies of science inevitably reflect the successes and failures of the past. In this sense, they are in part of a historical nature. Moreover, the commonly accepted methodological criteria have to some extent changed over time. Faced with the problem of theories that cannot be tested empirically, perhaps not even in principle, it may be useful to look back in time to situations of a somewhat similar kind. Roughly speaking, previous suggestions of non-empirical testing have not fared well through the long history of science. Ambitious and fundamental theories of this kind have generally been failures, some of them grander than others. So, is there any reason to believe that they will not remain so in the future? Can we infer from history that empirical testability is a sine qua non for what we know as science? Not quite, for it is far from obvious that older scientific theories can be meaningfully compared to modern string theory or multiverse physics. History of science is at best an ambiguous guide to present and future problems, yet it does provide reasons for scepticism with regard to current suggestions of drastic epistemic shifts which essentially amounts to a new “definition” of science. top
Dieter Lüst: Aspects of Quantum Gravity
TBA
top
Viatcheslav Mukhanov: Is the Quantum Origin of Galaxies falsifiable?
>>392111
TBAtop
Massimo Pigliucci: Post-empirical Physics, Falsificationism, and the Public Perception of Science
Trouble, as explicitly hinted at in the title of a recent book by Lee Smolin, has been brewing for a while within the fundamental physics community. Ideas such as string theory and the multiverse have been both vehemently defended as sound science and widely criticized for being “not even wrong,” in the title of another book, by Peter Woit. Recently, George Ellis and Joe Silk have written a prominent op-ed piece in Nature, inviting their colleagues to defend the very integrity of physics. To which cosmologist Sean Carroll has responded that physics doesn’t need "the falsifiability police,” referring to the famous (and often misunderstood or badly applied) concept introduced by Karl Popper to demarcate science from pseudoscience. The debate isn’t just “for the heart and soul” of physics, it has spilled onto social media, newspapers and public radio. What is at stake is the public credibility of physics in particular and of science more generally — especially in an era of widespread science denial (of evolution and anthropogenic climate change) and rampant pseudoscience (antivax movement). Since philosophers of science have been invoked by both sides, it is time to take a look at the “physics wars” from a detached philosophical perspective, in my case informed also by my former career as an evolutionary biologist, a field that has peculiar similarities with what is going on in fundamental physics, both in terms of strong internal disputes and of perception by a significant portion of the general public.top
Joseph Polchinski: String Theory to the Rescue
>>392112
The search for a theory of quantum gravity faces two great challenges: the incredibly small scale of the Planck length and time, and the possibility that the observed constants of nature are in part the result of random processes. A priori, one might have expected these obstacles to be insuperable. However, clues from observed physics, and the discovery of string theory, raise the hope that the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity is within reach.top
Fernando Quevedo: Achievements and Challenges for String Phenomenology/Cosmology
An overview is given on the efforts for string theorists to make contact with low-energy physics and cosmological observations. The main challenges for the future will be addressed.top
Carlo Rovelli: Has Theoretical Fundamental Physics become Sterile?
Fundamental physics has changed from a field capable of spectacular successful predictions (electromagnetic waves, black holes, antiparticles, just to name a few...) to a depressing sequence of failed predictions: low-energy supersymmetry being the most recent and burning. Why? I will consider the possibility that the last generation of theoretical physicists has modified the practice of scientific method. Unproductively.top
Björn Malte Schäfer: Dark Gravity, Dark Fluids, and Dark Statistics
Observational cosmology has the purpose of investigating gravity on large scales through the observation of the expansion dynamics of the Universe on one side and through cosmic structure formation on the other. In my talk I will go through the arguments why these observations are able to constrain models of gravity, what constraints there are independent from the assumptions of a certain model, how cosmology switches from being statistics to systematics dominated, and what precision and accuracy need to be archived by future surveys. Lastly, I’ll describe the process of statistical inference, errors, priors and fundamental limits in cosmology.top
>>392115
Joseph Silk: The Limits of Cosmology, Post-Planck
I will discuss how one might follow up on the Planck satellite which has given us a remarkable confirmation to high precision of what has become known as the “standard model of cosmology.” This model is purely phenomenological and establishes a robust framework around which a number of fundamental issues remain unresolved. In order to make further progress, what is our optimal choice of future strategy?top
Chris Smeenk: Gaining Access
Theories allow us to use accessible data to answer questions about other domains. In the initial stages of inquiry, a theory is often accepted based on its promise for extending our epistemic reach in this sense. Using theory to gain access to unobserverable phenomena poses an obvious risk of circularity: the theory specifies dependencies that hold between data and the target phenomena, and the data provide evidence when interpreted in light of the theory. How does the successful use of the theory to gain access support the theory itself? Demanding strong evidence at the outset, to even accept a theory as a starting point for inquiry, would be counter-productive. Detailed evidence for the theory can best be obtained by exploiting the theory in ongoing research. I will argue that physicists have often “trusted a theory” in this sense, despite relatively weak initial evidence. Borrowing the Cold War slogan, we should “trust” a theory in the sense of accepting it to gain access to new phenomena, provided that we can “verify” it by stringent tests in ongoing research. The crucial question regards whether the fundamental assumptions of the theory can be subjected to further tests. These tests are needed to justify taking a theory to capture the fundamental quantities and physical laws, rather than being merely compatible with a given body of data.
>>392116
I will argue that there are two distinctive obstacles to testing contemporary theories (such as inflationary cosmology): (1) lack of sufficient theoretical constraints (“anything goes”); (2) lack of independent observational and experimental access. The second point reflects our practical limitations. I take the first point, however, as grounds for doubting that the ideas under consideration qualify as a “theory” in the sense of earlier physical theories.top
Karim Thebault: What can we learn from Analogue Experiments?
In 1981 Unruh proposed that fluid mechanical experiments could be used to probe key aspects of the quantum phenomenology of black holes. In particular, he claimed that an analogue to Hawking radiation could be created within a fluid mechanical 'dumb hole'. Since then an entire sub-field of 'analogue gravity' has been created. In 2014 Steinhauer reported the experimental observation of Hawking radiation within a Bose-Einstein condensate dumb hole. What can we learn from such analogue experiments? In particular, can they provide confirmation of novel phenomena such as black hole Hawking radiation?top
Chris Wüthrich: Considering the Role of Information Theory in Fundamental Physics
>>392117
Information theory presupposes the notion of an epistemic agent, such as a scientist or an idealized human. Despite that, information theory is increasingly invoked by physicists concerned with fundamental physics, physics at very high energies, or generally with the physics of situations in which even idealized epistemic agents cannot exist. In this talk, I shall try to determine the extent to which the application of information theory in those contexts is legitimate. I will illustrate my considerations using the case of black hole thermodynamics and Bekenstein's celebrated argument for his formula for the entropy of black holes. This example is particularly pertinent to the current workshop because it is widely accepted as 'empirical data' in notoriously deprived quantum gravity, even though the laws of black hole thermodynamics have so far evaded direct empirical confirmation.
>These two methods of thinking are fundamentally incompatible
Pretty much. It still surprises me how much the whole "science and religion can work together" crowd ignore the issue of fallibility vs. infallibility. Not only are science, which is almost entirely based around the fallible nature of knowledge, and religion, which assumes everything if claims as infallible, completely irreconcilable, they are completely opposed to each other.
In order to try to stick them together, you'd have to ignore the very heart of science and religion, which a lot of people do in really dishonest ways
What you describe as science is the Scientific Method. This is a very specific way of thinking which developed in the West out of Catholic thought beginning in the 13th century and reached its completed form in the 17th century. This Scientific Method is absolutely not incompatible with Catholicism, out of which it came in the first place, in fact they are the same thing.
Catholicism sees God as the single force behind the Universe and benevolent creator of all things, and as having given Man reason so he could understand his work. Therefore the universe must be rational and fully comprehensible by rational means, and it must operate by natural laws created by God and identifiable for Man. Discovering these laws is not only our right, but our duty, and the best way to honour God's creation. However it would be not only presumptuous but also idolatry to begin worshiping a man-made scientific system as dogma, and thus such systems must continuously be doubted and questioned and never presented as indisputable fact but as theory. If we discover a system doesn't match observations of Creation, it must be improved upon so we may come closer to God's will.
Notice how this describes the Scientific Method? The Scientific Method is nothing but the application of Catholicism to natural philosophy. However just as Christianity is based on faith, the Scientific Method too is a matter of faith. It is only one of countless ways humans have apprehended knowledge, and there is nothing that proves to us that this method is true or better than any other. All we know is that it has been extremely effective at producing technology. The only reason the Scientific Method rings true to the scientific mind, is because the scientific mind is Catholic in the way it thinks.
>>392199
Conflict thesis BTFO.
>>392199
/thread
>>392199
>out of which it came in the first place, in fact they are the same thing.
Not the same thing, other than that natural philosophy is GOAT
Not the same thing
>>392269
How are they not the same thing?
>>392277
The religious view assumes that due to the reality of my spirituality/religion than everything else in existence intrinsically relates to 'god', If the secular view is true then Catholicism doesn't relate to everything hence "they are not the same".
without absolute proof for either then both are plausible
>>392299
Huh? Whether you put God or some fundamental equation at the origin of the Universe is completely immaterial. The second option is nothing but an atheisation of the first, and it doesn't affect scientific work in the least.
>>392321
Because one idea presupposes an immaterial influence
The motto of the Royal Society is "Take no-one's word for it" - that is the point of science.
The point of religions is "take my word for it"
Science is about progressively developing an ever more refined understandings of particular phenomena. Revolutions transform our understandings over time and then lead to additional progression and refinement within a new paradigm.
What a paradigm does, however, is define where progress should be made and what kind of questions simply are not scientific...and hence should be left to (irrelevant ) metaphysics.
So, finding the Higgs bosun is definitely science. However, if I were to ask how a coffee cup can exist as a coffee cup if nobody is conscious of the coffee cup, well, that is not science.
>>392364
Was that after Galileo was tried for heresy?
>>392387
Long before. 11th century, with the beginning of scholasticism.
Galileo was tried for being a huge arrogant cunt, refusing to stop teaching his model as absolute indisputable fact rather than a theory, and personally insulting the Pope. The Church was perfectly fine with the Copernican model, it only asked that Galileo teach his theory as theory, especially considering his demonstration was scientifically unsatisfying.
One of these positions is in line with the scientific method, the other is not.
>>392387
Before. And the issue between Galileo and the church had nothing to do with science but a split issue of teaching etiquette, politics, and a misapplication of scripture.
>>392199
Thank you anon, fantastic post.
>>392403
Revisionist appologist garbage. The catholic church banned heliocentrist literature until 1758.
>>392403
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered
... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
—The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism
One of these positions is in line with the scientific method, the other is not.
>>392423
Indeed.
>>391878
Because Newton and Einstien's work are demonstrably the case and it can be used to make repeatable verifiable predictions. Duh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U
The biggest conflict between faith and science going on nowadays lies in the fields of human biodiversity, all scientific testing show there are "racial" differences, but modern Orthodoxy must believe that "everyone is equal". Funny how communists like OP never mention it. Instead they beat the dead horse of Christianity, in order to still portray themselves as the advanced.
>>392443
>all scientific testing show there are "racial" differences, but modern Orthodoxy must believe that "everyone is equal"
/pol/ please
>>392423
So that's what I just explained?
>>392453
Quod erat demonstrandum.
>>392463
Apology accepted
>>392467
Orthodoxy doesn't imply everybody is equal in the context you are referring to
>>392422
The plan of the church to begin banning books was utter shit, no doubt, but the but what he said was not at all revisionist. The issue with the church was that they were backing scripture with the best science at the time and so added an unnecessary political end for some of the sciences to be openly supported as truth, whoever they had no problem with the ideas themselves but rather that they were espoused as truth rather than hypothesis. Hence, the banned heliocentric books were only those that taught that model as reality and not those that taught it as a hypothesis. Still an unnecessary burden but one that is hardly ever clarified properly.
The issue with Galileo was that despite the church leaders saying that if we can prove his model as true they will change their interpretation and him failing to resolve the biggest arguments against Heliocentrism known at the time he continued to espouse it as truth rather than hypothesis. The church praised his scientific work but for political ends suppressed his support of a model of the solar system hence being told to espouse it as truth rather than theory here >>392423 and when he was commissioned by the church to do a debate book on the topic it was horribly biased and insulted the pope's intelligence when adding in the pope's personal arguments he asked to be included in the commission.
He lost his friends in the church and broke his word from before with >>392423 and so was tried for going against church authority/heresy.
>>392467
Orthodoxy doesn't imply everybody is equal in the context you are referring to
>>392456
(You)>Galileo was tried for being a huge arrogant cunt
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.
(You)>So that's what I just explained?
Indeed.
>>392199
The amount shilling and blatant bullshit in this is amazing. You had to know you were making this shit up! Isn't lying a sin in your religion or can you just buy an indulgence and it's ok?
The scientific method was not a fucking Catholic invention. Not by any stretch. There are 2 names that could be considered inventors of it. One is Bacon who was a Protestant the other is Newton who had some really heretical view of Christianity (he thought Jesus was not God). The credit to the Catholics would go to Descartes. If you want to go deeper we might be able to go back to Greece, you can find crude scientific thinking in crap like Hippocratus
Of course there was a conflict of reason vs faith. That's why the Catholics had to bann both Bacon and Descartes books.
To summarize the conflict very briefly:
Religious thinkers were always struggling with the question "What can not be known by reason but only by divine revalalation?" And since divine revalation is affirmed by faith it's literally a reason vs faith thing. That's been a huge part of history.
Most Christians and Islamic took a mix saying that the world around us could be understood by reason but things like morality, how the universe was made, what happens when we die can only be known by faith.
Luther and Protestants in general took one extreme end. However the Catholics too had to have their faith above reason in some areas. Without that the Pope is not a legitimate ruler and the basis for Christian monarchies is gone. You also wouldn't be able to bann books. Eventually history went periods where reason was supremely above faith. This was necessary to bring about things like secular governments. As previous governments had to relay on some sort of divine right.
In general there is a less of conflict now than in the past.
>Faith is a conviction that one holds to be true in spite of all evidence
not one piece of scientific evidence in all of human history has ever existed that would be incompatible with my christian beliefs
>>392482
see
>>392476
The full situation is not at all black and white, but there you go. To call Galileo a "huge arrogant cunt" is a bit much but something like it need be warranted for what he did, especially when he couldn't refute the best science at the time against his model, and of course the church was in the wrong in its own respect too. However this issue is not one of the scientific method but rather scientific freedom. If you want to make this about the method itself then of course we'd be turning a bad eye on Galileo for insisting upon ideas despite evidence to the contrary.
>>391736
Nigga looks like Hodor.
>>392496
Can you image a form of evidence which would be incompatible?
>>392476
I'm so glad the Catholic Church doesn't have that kind of meddling power anymore.
From Wiki:
>On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."
>Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions
>inb4 he had no proofz!
Yes he did. The only reason he had the idea in the first place was because of very convincing evidence he acquired from his telescope
Fun fact: Catholics weren't allowed to read Hume's or Kant's works until after 1966
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
>>392502
>The full situation is not at all black and white, but there you go.
Huge arrogant cunt
> despite evidence to the contrary
His observations of the satellites of Jupiter caused a revolution in astronomy: a planet with smaller planets orbiting it did not conform to the principles of Aristotelian cosmology, which held that all heavenly bodies should circle the Earth
From September 1610, Galileo observed that Venus exhibited a full set of phases similar to that of the Moon.
After Galileo's telescopic observations of the crescent, gibbous and full phases of Venus, therefore, this Ptolemaic model became untenable. Thus in the early 17th century as a result of his discovery the great majority of astronomers converted to one of the various geo-heliocentric planetary models
What evidence did the church have that the geocentric model was correct?
>>392537
>What evidence did the church have that the geocentric model was correct?
The theologians known as the Qualifiers that were asked to investigate the case concluded that heliocentrism is "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"
>>391736
You seem to think that science and religion have similar areas of competence
>>392502
Additionally the "Science versus Christianity" framing device is nonsense.
Galilleo's opponents were trained Astronomers. That is the entire reason why they found his views objectionable.
Gallileo himself was a Christian, and that was a central portion of the Gallileo affair: Gallileo had opinions on the bible, and how it should be interpreted. He specifically, and explicitly rejected the notion that his ideas could or should be evaluated separately from Christianity.
>>392535
Yeah, I love it when catholics list christian philosophers as achievements yet if it was for the church we never could have read Kant, Decartes, Pascal and so on.
>>392545
Anyone suggesting Galileo wasnt a massive cunt is a massive cunt.
Galileo controversy studies have moved a bit on from this thread. I think Peter Slezak published a review article?
>>392526
He had evidence of his claim, I never said otherwise, but he could never refute the biggest arguments against heliocentrism - namely the stellar parallax.
Also from the wiki:
>Bellarmine found no problem with heliocentrism so long as it was treated as a purely hypothetical calculating device and not as a physically real phenomenon, but he did not regard it as permissible to advocate the latter unless it could be conclusively proved through current scientific standards.
>In the years after Copernicus, heliocentrism was a relatively uncontroversial, though the lack of an observed Stellar Parallax prevented anyone from accepting it as physically true.
Re-read what I said, because you seem to not grasp it.
>>392537
As I said earlier in this post, the biggest argument for the case was the lack of a Stellar Parallax. I don't know Tycho Brahe's arguments for Geocentrism or what the scientific consensus was at the time though.
The church supported his findings, but he could not argue that his findings must support his model and his ideas were (like any scientific finding when it comes out) still under heavy scrutiny. He ended up being wrong about a good many things too.
>>392491
There is nothing in your post that contradicts mine.
>Religious thinkers were always struggling with the question "What can not be known by reason but only by divine revalalation?"
This is not a conflict. It's merely a question of the line between theology and natural philosophy. That question was resolved in Catholicism in the 11th century. Universities had a theology department and a natural philosophy department, and natural philosophers were free to theorise anything at all about the physical world provided they didn't meddle into theology.
>There are 2 names that could be considered inventors of it. One is Bacon who was a Protestant the other is Newton
The names that come to mind that could be considered as having the most significantly contributed to the Scientific Method are:
- Peter Abelard (the preeminence of reason and the scholastic method)
- Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon (the importance of experimentation)
- the 1277 Condemnations which broke the dogmatic reverence for Aristotle
- John Buridan and Nicolas Oresme (first new mathematical models to describe physics)
- Francis Bacon (formulation of inductive reasoning)
- Rene Descartes (formulation of the scientific method)
The fact that just about all of those are Catholics is largely irrelevant. The Scientific Method wasn't "invented" by one or two people. It's nothing more and nothing less than Catholic thought translated into the study of the physical world, and progressively formulated with increasing precision. You didn't have to be a practicing Catholic to think like a Catholic, only a Westerner.
>>392526
We actually knew about heliocentrilism with the Greeks in 390 BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Greek_and_Hellenistic_world
Thanks Christianity....
>>392573
>You didn't have to be a practicing Catholic to think like a Catholic, only a Westerner.
Going to guess ahead of time that this will get into a very semantic argument so it might be good to define your terms early.
>>392476
>The plan of the church to begin banning books was utter shit, no doubt
I wonder if you would have been able to argue precisely that to the catholic church of the previous centuries.
If I had to guess, you would have probably been A) unsuccesfull and B) condmened as a heretic.
>>392573
>It's nothing more and nothing less than Catholic thought translated into the study of the physical world
Catholic revisionism is so cute.
>>392594
Even if I fought it kicking and screaming I wouldn't be branded a heretic as this has little to nothing to do with heresy, mate.
It would be the equivalent of me arguing against laws now with a single argument. You take a guess how that works now and you'll see how it worked then too. Probably with a better chance of arrest then than now though.
>>392570
You said
>The issue with Galileo was that despite the church leaders saying that if we can prove his model as true they will change their interpretation
Which is a blatant lie.
As I've already shown here >>392526 the official verdict was reached because heliocentrism formally heretical. NOT because it couldn't be proven (it obviously could have)
>>392564
>Galilleo's opponents were trained Astronomers. That is the entire reason why they found his views objectionable.
Bzzt, wrong. They were theologians who found heliocentrism "formally heretical"
>>392606
>Even if I fought it kicking and screaming I wouldn't be branded a heretic as this has little to nothing to do with heresy
Now, not then.
>>392606
Wat. Even reading those books was considered heresy. Of course trying to get them unbanned would be considered heresy.
>>392615
>Even reading those books was considered heresy.
You have no idea what that word means. Go back to 40k.
>>392615
That's not the reason why he would have been classified as a heretic.
The worst part is that Galileo wasn't imprisoned for publishing works or arguing for heliocentrism. He was tried for that and got let off with a "don't spread or think heliocentrism anymore.
Then later on, in a different trial, they imprisoned him for simply still having his own private OPINION that heliocentrism was correct.
>Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions [in the previous trial].
>>392573
This is just more blatant shilling.
There were a ton of Muslim scholastic that did things like focus on inductive reasoning, focus on experimentation, and tried to break dogmatic reverence to Aristotle. Before the Catholics. Of course you would wouldn't mention them because you wouldn't get brownie points.
But to stress even further what you are saying are things we can trace back to the Greeks or Romans in some sense. If you wanted to give credit to any single indivual it would be Bacon or Newton who were not Catholics.
>natural philosophers were free to theorise anything at all about the physical world provided they didn't meddle into theology.
Thanks for proving my point. The Catholics resolved the faith vs reason thing by declaring faith was the higher value. Hence the justification for banning Kant and Descartes. In other words they pussied out and refused to do real philosophy. Thank you Catholics for holding back not only science but philosophy. This is why it was ultimately the atheists, Deists, and Protestants that had to do real heavy lifting in philosophy and grab the Catholics kicking and screaming to progress. Because the areas that 'meddled with theology' are the ones that must be investigated the most.
>>392609
Heresy was the falsification of the science of the day, Galileo was instituting a Baconian revolution in what science was (Kuhn).
>>392627
>There were a ton of Muslim scholastic that did things like focus on inductive reasoning, focus on experimentation, and tried to break dogmatic reverence to Aristotle. Before the Catholics. Of course you would wouldn't mention them because you wouldn't get brownie points.
The Indians also did their share of stuff, as did the Chinese (though that largely stayed in China).
>>392608
>You said...
I SAID
>He lost his friends in the church and broke his word from before with [postlink] and so was tried for going against church authority/heresy.
This is me saying precisely what he was called in for. When I said "the issue with Galileo" I was stating what he did wrong in the scenario, hence me previously stating "The issue with the church was...", which you conveniently ignore. The church didn't charge themselves with heresy.
Now you're still struggling to grasp what I said because youre still repeating what I already said happened but twisting it to fit your agenda.
>>392615
Heresy is incorrect doctrinal teaching. The existence of the Index is not doctrine and going against it is not heresy because of it.
>>392626
>still having his own private OPINION
The second trial was literally in response to his published book on the topic.
>>392613
The definition for heresy has not changed. Don't be stupid.
>>392630
>eresy was the falsification of the science of the day
Bzzt, wrong again. The theologians said it was formal heresy because "it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"
>>392644
>youre still repeating what I already said happened but twisting it to fit your agenda.
m8, the only one here with an agenda is you. We all know the truth about Galileo, you can go look it up for yourself. Shilling for Catholicism, sing you're a Catholic, is too blatant to convince any of us
>>392644
>The second trial was literally in response to his published book on the topic.
Yes, the book raised initial suspicion. But do you know what he was held on trial for?
"for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world"
>>392644
>The definition for heresy has not changed. Don't be stupid.
Who said it has? You don't need to change the definition of something to see it in different things over time. That's basically catholic history on doctrine 101.
>>392644
Wolfsheim why don't you just take the easy way out and say that the pre-vatacin 2 church was the "great age of darkness" and now the church fully embraces the "divine reason given to us by the Grand Architect of the Universe"?
This is a fun read.
http://listverse.com/2011/06/08/top-10-shameful-moments-in-catholic-history/
Interesting historical perspective... It wasn't until the rise of protestantism that it became common for Christians to NOT persecute heresy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance
Every atheist living in a Christian country, you're alive today because religious tolerance became the mainstream and the Catholic church fell out of power.
As the good 'ol Doctor of the Church, Tommy Aquinas, would say: "not only to be separated from the Church, but also to be eliminated from the world by death"
>>392685
Note: Tommy quote was talking about what we should do with heretics :-)
What a swell guy. I wonder his ideas were unopposed for so long. . .
>>392652
There's been a long history of Protestant propaganda in the west, which involves the stories of Galileo and Bruno and other parts of history so I'm quite certain we don't "all know".
I'm here upholding history as it is and saying the shit people did on both sides. For some reason you're trying to dismiss me by making claims I already accounted for when speaking to this originally.
>>392667
>>392675
The teaching itself literally never changed, the disposition to it did. The view went from "You're breaking communion with the church!? That's terrible, people go to hell for shit like this!" to "The church is the sum of its parts so those that still retain some part of the church teaching still hold a certain communion, albeit imperfect, and we can't guarantee their salvation."
One is obviously more reactionary and fierce than the other but their disposition to the same teaching: People do go to hell for shit like this, but we can't guarantee where they will go. The church is considered the way to salvation and so all its elements work towards that end. If you break communion with the church did does not mean all its elements, so you still gain from the elements you involve.
Their the same teaching, just in very different dispositions. The only issue after that is people teaching it correctly.
And don't be so disingenuous.
>>392671
>Wolfsheim why don't you just take the easy way out
I made Christian discussion on /pol/ for the better part of a year. Do you think I care about the easy way out, mate?
>>392664
HOL-Y fuck.
Yes, I fully detail the situation here >>392476
>>392685
Nothing to do specifically Protestants, just the sectarian wars ended with a call to religious freedom, and so heresy stopped being a crime.
Ooh, another fun topic: FORCE CONVERSIONS!
Let's go through the list.
1. In 392 Emperor Theodosius I decreed that Christianity was the only legal religion of the Roman Empire, and forbidding pagan practices by law.
2. During the Saxon Wars, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, forcibly Roman Catholicized the Saxons from their native Germanic paganism by way of warfare and law upon conquest. Examples include the Massacre of Verden in 782, during which Charlemagne reportedly had 4,500 captive Saxons massacred upon rebelling against conversion, and the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, a law imposed on conquered Saxons in 785 which prescribes death to those that refuse to convert to Christianity
Pope Innocent III pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed in receiving the sacrament, one nevertheless "does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith"
3. After the end of the Islamic control of Spain, Muslims and Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497. After the Reconquista, so called "New Christians" were those inhabitants during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era who were baptized under coercion and in the face of execution, becoming forced converts from Islam.
4. Then the Spanish Inquisition targeted primarily forced converts from Judaism who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it. The Spanish Inquisition generated much wealth and income for the church and individual inquisitors by confiscating the property of the persecutees or selling them into slavery. The end of the Al-Andalus and the expulsion of the Sephardic Jews from the Iberian Peninsula went hand in hand with the increase of Spanish-Portugal influence in the world, as exemplified in the Christian conquest of the Americas and their aboriginal Indian population.
>>392722
Forgot one!
5. Religious persecution took place by the Portuguese in Goa, India from 16th to the 17th century. The natives of Goa, most of them Hindus were subjected to severe torture and oppression by the zealous Portuguese rulers and missionaries and forcibly converted to Christianity.
In 1567, the campaign of destroying temples in Bardez met with success. At the end of it 300 Hindu temples were destroyed.All the persons above 15 years of age were compelled to listen to Christian preaching, failing which they were punished. "The fathers of the Church forbade the Hindus under terrible penalties the use of their own sacred books, and prevented them from all exercise of their religion. They destroyed their temples, and so harassed and interfered with the people that they abandoned the city in large numbers, refusing to remain any longer in a place where they had no liberty, and were liable to imprisonment, torture and death if they worshiped after their own fashion the gods of their fathers." wrote Filippo Sassetti, who was in India from 1578 to 1588. Methods such as repressive laws, demolition of temples and mosques, destruction of holy books, fines and the forcible conversion of orphans were used.
>>392711
>The teaching itself literally never changed, the disposition to it did
Yeah, you sound like a jew. "It's not wrong if the elevator keeps going up and down on its own!"
I swear, I would love to send you to the council of Trent and let you say "The church is the sum of its parts so those that still retain some part of the church teaching still hold a certain communion, albeit imperfect, and we can't guarantee their salvation." to see what would happen to you.
If there's someone disingenuous it's you, (if) you actually believe this stuff.
The catholic church is like those people who reinterpret bets in order to win them.
>>392711
>I'm here upholding history as it is and saying the shit people did on both sides.
gyrating your hips, sticking your tongue out and asking strangers 'was it good for you too' does not mean you have lost your virginity.
>>392711
>I'm here upholding history as it is
>Guys I swear I'm impartial, nevermind the conflict of interest with me being a catholic
>>392627
So are you just going to ignore the scientific achievements of all the people he mentioned that don't fit into your narrative ?
Maybe you could go read some historians of science like Edward Grant. There is a really good compilation called " Science in the Middle Ages" edited by David C.Lindberg. You should check it out, then you will have the knowledge to actually be able to judge whether or not all those Scholastics mentioned are irrelevant to the history of science or not. Lindberg even talks about the Arabs, so you will have no reason to complain about "shilling".
>>392627
>If you wanted to give credit to any single indivual
I just explained why it's absolute nonsense to do that.
>it would be Bacon or Newton who were not Catholics.
No, in that case it would still be Descartes, if not Abelard.
>banning books
This started in the 17th century, at which point the Scientific Method was already fully developed, and the Catholic Church was no longer relevant to scientific debate or in any position to control it.
>Muslims, Protestants, Deists, Atheists, literally anyone but Catholics
Complete anti-Catholic revisionism.
The Scientific Method developed in a specific time and place, and that is late medieval Western Europe. This isn't a coincidence, it's because the Scientific Method is literally the direct conclusion when applying Catholic thought to science, as explained here: >>392199. Most of the work done on it can be described as reformulating Catholic philosophy into a coherent scientific dogma and extracting a method of reasoning and research.
For an example of Protestant thought about this, you can read Luther's quote in the OP.
>>392685
Nice Protestant fairy tales.
The only ones who ever persecuted science or burned people for witchcraft are Protestants.
>>392711
>There's been a long history of Protestant propaganda in the west, which involves the stories of Galileo and Bruno and other parts of history so I'm quite certain we don't "all know".
You know I actually believed when you told me this. But I've actually found most of the propaganda is true. It's not uncommon for me to be researching some random thing in history and one of the details is the Catholic church persecuting someone with good ideas. Like literally every time I find your church mentioned it's always something bad. I don't go lucking for embarrassing stories, they fall into my lap. It's not not an exaggeration to say the church history's has been anti-Enlightenment and anti-Freedom in it's past. The fact that you were still banning books in the 1900s also reveals a terrible character.
I didn't grow up in an anti-Catholic household, I don't know the rumors. But I can see why Protestants dislike the church so much.
>>392722
And what does that have to do with science?
>>392775
>The only ones who ever persecuted science or burned people for witchcraft are Protestants.
Holy shit, isn't this supposed to be the history board? How can you be so historically illiterate?
Catholic witch hunts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Middle_Ages
>>392535
That list...
...I have no words
>>392786
>Current scholarly estimates of the number of people executed for witchcraft vary between about 40,000 and 100,000.
Damn, the Church was a busy bee!
>>392786
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Middle_Ages
>Pope Gregory VII, in 1080, wrote to King Harald III of Denmark forbidding witches to be put to death upon presumption of their having caused storms or failure of crops or pestilence. Neither were these the only examples of an effort to prevent unjust suspicion to which such poor creatures might be exposed.[note 1] On many different occasions, ecclesiastics who spoke with authority did their best to disabuse the people of their superstitious belief in witchcraft. This, for instance, is the general purport of the book, Contra insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis ("Against the foolish belief of the common sort concerning hail and thunder"), written by Agobard (d. 841), Archbishop of Lyons.[20] A comparable situation in Russia is suggested in a sermon by Serapion of Vladimir (written in 1274/5), where the popular superstition of witches causing crop failures is denounced.[21]
Literally from your link.
>>392801
Yeah, the real fun began later. Keep reading!
>The work of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century was instrumental in developing the new theology which would give rise to the witch hunts, but because sorcery was judged by secular courts it was not until maleficium was identified with heresy that theological trials for witchcraft could commence.
>>392744
>Yeah, you sound like a jew.
Please. I just broke down the logic for you. You're just being emotional now.
St. Bellarmine, a man alive during Galileo's time, taught on the subject:
>“I respond, when it is said, ‘Outside the Church no one is saved’, it ought to be understood concerning those who neither in fact, nor by desire are in the Church, as the theologians commonly speak on baptism. Though, however, the catechumens are not by act [baptism] in the Church, they are at least in the Church by desire, therefore they can be saved.”
So it was never "you're in my club or you're fucked" but in line with what I'm telling you.
Now calm your shit, I'm heading to bed.
>>392750
I try to be impartial, but nevertheless I never find it good to judge someone based on their background. I wouldn't guess the anon is an atheist as he's going against the church or if he is an atheist he'd be biased innately. Anyone can speak on the topic of history, man.
And I am upholding history as it is. I still find it funny that the insistence that I'm not has largely ran on repeating back to me stuff I've already said comprehensively at the beginning here >>392476
>>392778
>I don't go lucking for embarrassing stories, they fall into my lap.
Went taught the story of Galileo in middle school my public schools science teacher gave us a cartoon of the event and had the priests turning a blind eye to Galileo's findings in the telescope and insisting they didn't see anything. Something that was actually the opposite of the case. The new Cosmos Episode 1 had the Protestant propaganda version of Bruno's story. This shit doesn't need to be search for, the propaganda machine fucking won mate. Actual history is hard to discern.
That said with any human institution we will get terrible shit and the church being a 2000 or so year old one you will get a lot of shit. And I'm totally with you on the book ban, man.
But I need to head to bed and we can discuss this stuff later, man. See you!
>>392786
>the Council of Paderborn, which, in 785, explicitly outlawed condemning people as witches and condemned to death anyone who burnt a witch.
>"Let nobody presume to kill a foreign serving maid or female servant as a witch, for it is not possible, nor ought to be believed by Christian minds."
>the teachings of the Canon Episcopi of circa 900 AD (alleged to date from 314 AD), which, following the thoughts of Augustine of Hippo, stated that witchcraft did not exist and that to teach that it was a reality was, itself, false and heterodox teaching.
>The Council of Frankfurt in 794, called by Charlemagne, was also very explicit in condemning "the persecution of alleged witches and wizards", calling the belief in witchcraft "superstitious", and ordering the death penalty for those who presumed to burn witches.
>Burchard was writing against the superstitious belief in magical potions, for instance, that may produce impotence or abortion. These were also condemned by several Church Fathers.[19] But he altogether rejected the possibility of many of the alleged powers with which witches were popularly credited.
>Pope Gregory VII, in 1080, wrote to King Harald III of Denmark forbidding witches to be put to death upon presumption of their having caused storms or failure of crops or pestilence.
>In 1258, Pope Alexander IV declared a canon that alleged witchcraft was not to be investigated by the Church.
The only thing about Catholics wanting to persecute witchcraft in there is about two German inquisitors, Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, who wrote a book called "Hammer against the Witches".
>The book was soon banned by the Church in 1490, and Kramer and Sprenger censured
Witchcraft as an accusation only existed among Protestants, and they're the ones who massively burned witches.
Next time try actually reading what you link to first you hopeless idiot.
>>392801
>The manuals of the Roman Catholic Inquisition remained highly skeptical of witch accusations, although there was sometimes an overlap between accusations of heresy and of witchcraft, particularly when, in the 13th century, the newly formed Inquisition was commissioned to deal with the Cathars of Southern France, whose teachings were charged with containing an admixture of witchcraft and magic. Although it has been proposed that the witch-hunt developed in Europe from the early 14th century, after the Cathars and the Templar Knights were suppressed, this hypothesis has been rejected independently by two historians (Cohn 1975; Kieckhefer 1976).
In 1258, Pope Alexander IV declared a canon that alleged witchcraft was not to be investigated by the Church.[23] Although Pope John XXII had later authorized the Inquisition to prosecute sorcerers in 1320,[24] inquisitorial courts rarely dealt with witchcraft save incidentally when investigating heterodoxy.
>This conforms to the teachings of the Canon Episcopi of circa 900 AD (alleged to date from 314 AD), which, following the thoughts of Augustine of Hippo, stated that witchcraft did not exist and that to teach that it was a reality was, itself, false and heterodox teaching. The Council of Frankfurt in 794, called by Charlemagne, was also very explicit in condemning "the persecution of alleged witches and wizards", calling the belief in witchcraft "superstitious", and ordering the death penalty for those who presumed to burn witches.[15] Other examples include an Irish synod in 800,[16] and a sermon by Agobard of Lyons (810).[17]
ect ect ect
Witch Hunts seem to barely be a thing until after the reformation, almost exclusively in Protestant countries. And the Catholic Church itself is not mentioned once in the section where they actually talk about witch hunts.
>>392821
I know you're trolling because it says right on that page that the Catholics killed 40,000 to 100,000 witches. You're ignoring so much that I can't see this as anything but deliberate bate.
>>392796
>Protestants burn 100,000 people and are condemned by the Catholic Church
>muh ebul Catholics
You're a caricature.
>>392831
>Protestants burn 100,000 people
Citation needed
>>392830
They were Protestants you absolute retard.
Those witch trials happened in Lutheran Germany and Scandinavia, Calvinist Switzerland and Netherlands, Protestant Britain, and Puritanical New England.
>>392820
>I just broke down the logic for you
No, you just repeated what I said. Exactly like an orthodox jew who doesn't see a problem with the elevator will repeat what anyone would accuse him of doing without understanding what the problem is.
>So it was never "you're in my club or you're fucked" but in line with what I'm telling you.
What I'm saying is that it was never nothing in particular because there is no stable interpretation. Depending on historical circumstances, the majority of the church decides on something. Citing one person's opinion on the matter means nothing at all. Plenty of popes gave statements that sounded much more like "you're fucked" than tip-toeing around.
>Now calm your shit
Look mom, I'm projecting!
>>392843
*always, not never
>>392834
How about you try reading the wikipedia article you posted.
>>392806
Yes and that whole period lasted 6 years before the church stopped the inquisitors who were doing the witch hunts.
Catholics dipped their toes in it a few times and each time decided that it wasn't for them.
Protestants were the ones who went nuts with it.
>>392851
García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000
>>392820
>but nevertheless I never find it good to judge someone based on their background
If you don't take account of their background you'll misjudge often.
>atheist stuff
Except an atheist has no particular reason to accept protestant rather than catholic propaganda.
>>392830
No it says
>Current scholarly estimates of the number of people executed for witchcraft vary between about 40,000 and 100,000.[47]
That page is about witch-hunts in general. Not Catholic witch hunts.
Now in the break down chart below they mention some countries traditionally Catholic that had a number of executions. If you can track down the time when these executions happened and show that it was the church, and not protestant communities doing it, then you could make a case. But the wiki article alone simply does not do it.
>>392875
Here is one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_witch_trials
It's unbelievable how many lies most people believe about the Catholic Church.
I myself grew up believing the Catholic Church had persecuted science, burned Copernicus and countless other scientists for "witchcraft". The most absurd is that all these lies are spread by Protestants, while Protestants were the ones who actually did this type of shit. And Protestants actually manage to keep a straight face while claiming that Protestantism breaking the evil oppression of the Catholic Church led to the "age of reason" and the scientific revolution, while in fact if Protestantism had succeeded we would essentially be like Saudi Arabia or ISIS now.
>>392861
Processed=/= executed.
In the Medieval Period at least the Inquisition killed around two people a year. And as we have shown, the Church condemned Witch Hunts in that period.
We are also talking about witch trials in particular, not trials based on regular heresy. That is a different issue.
>>392892
>Processed=/= executed.
Hey, Catholics ain't so bad, at least they didn't kill everyone!
>>392806
This is image-meme worthy.
>literally clapping my hands while reading
>laughing my ass off
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
^
An example of Thompson theology.
>>392820
>public school in America
It's all cartoon stuff.
>and the church being a 2000 or so year old one you will get a lot of shit
This is true. A lot of the fedora comments are hilarious but ultimately bad arguments. It's like trying to discredit Greek philosophy because they came up with the concept of the humors. Although I think Catholics are far disproportionately saboteurs. Also Catholism is highly centralized which you get a larger burden for all your mistakes (and accomplishments).
Anyway good night. Also what is the Catholic perspective on dreams? I know you have some mystic Saints tied to the concept. Like Francis of Assisi.
>>392908
>This is image-meme worthy.
>>392889
>The Inquisitor-General appeared to share his view that confession and accusation on their own were not enough. For some time the central office of the Inquisition had been sceptical about claims of magic and witchcraft, and had only sanctioned the earlier burnings with considerable reluctance, and only because of the reported mood of panic from Logroño. In August 1614 it ruled that all of the trials pending at Logroño should be dismissed. At the same time it issued new and more rigorous rules of evidence, that brought witch-burning in Spain to an end, long before the Protestant North.
The Catholics dipped their toes in it. While the Protestants went nuts with it.
We also have to realize that
>The modern day notion of a unified and horrible "Inquisition" is an assemblage of the "body of legends and myths which, between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries, established the perceived character of inquisitorial tribunals and influenced all ensuing efforts to recover their historical reality".[45] "The [assembled] myth was originally devised to serve variously the political purposes of a number of early modern political regimes, as well as Protestant Reformers, proponents of religious and civil toleration, philosophical enemies of the civil power of organized religions, and progressive modernists..."[46] It was the relatively limited persecution of Protestants, mostly by the inquisitions in Spain and Italy, that provoked the first image of "The Inquisition" as the most violent and suppressive vehicle of the Church against Protestantism. Later, philosophical critics of religious persecution and the Catholic Church only furthered this image during the Enlightenment.[45]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revision_of_the_Inquisition
There is still allot of bad history on this subject. I wouldn't doubt that Catholics did persecute "witches" at times. But it seems incredibly obvious that Protestants are the ones who really committed to it.
>>392911
>dah church wuz a good boy dat dindu nuthin wrong
You're hysterical, going as far as defending the inquisition. There is no hope for you.
>>392908
I've never liked most Monty Python stuff, it mainly seems dated and over-rated, however the Holy Grail and the Life of Brian never get old.
>>392908
>Thompson theology
This made me chuckle.
It would be nice if someone could pull up a passage in the Summa where Aquinas talks about witches and persecuting them, instead of trusting a random wiki source from someone who isn't even an Aquinas scholar.
>>392911
>I wouldn't doubt that Catholics did persecute "witches" at times. But it seems incredibly obvious that Protestants are the ones who really committed to it.
The Catholics got up to plenty of it.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4005
>>392917
Sorry that I care about facts instead of political narratives. I never said that it was 100% justified. Just that much of what is being put forward in this thread about it is nonsense, which is true.
>>392923
In his Summa contra Gentiles, Thomas Aquinas not only confirmed Augustine's semiotic theory, according to which spells, amulets or magical rituals indicated a secret pact with demons, but gave the impression that sorcerers, through the support of the devil, could physically commit their crimes.
>>392928
>https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4005
> no citations, no sources
Ok then.
>>392936
Bring up the passage. And show where Aquinas says that we should burn them.
It could be the case. But I'm not going to believe it without evidence. Even tell me where to look in the SCG. I have the first book around here somewhere.
>>392911
>>392889
>The Catholics dipped their toes in it. While the Protestants went nuts with it.
It's more than that.
If there really is a satanic cult somewhere killing children and engaging in cannibalism, then that must be stopped and it's perfectly rational to intervene. Therefore there were some rare cases where, if deemed credible, such claims were investigated by the Inquisition. But the Church was always extremely skeptical of it, and always completely rejected superstitious notions of the existence of actual witchcraft. Only a handful of people were actually condemned, and only because they had confessed to actual crimes.
Protestants on the other hand not only indulged in mass hysteria, but fanned the flames and instigated witch trials as tools of political control on an absolutely massive scale, exterminating intellectual opponents or random scapegoats by the tens of thousands.
>>392917
>the Inquisition was evil, I saw it in Mel Brook's History of the World!
Seriously stop posting on this board pls.
>>392947
In Summa Contra Gentiles he writes:
>Also disposed of is the view which Porphyry reports, in his Letter to Anebontes, where he says: “Some people are of the opinion that there is a kind of spirits whose function is to hear the requests of the magicians, spirits who are false by nature, having every form, taking on the appearance of gods and demons and the souls of the dead. And this is the kind that produces all these apparitions, whether good or bad. Moreover, as regards the things that are truly good, no help is given by them; or, better, they do not even know them. Instead, they advise evil things, and blame and frequently binder zealous followers of virtue; and they are full of boldness and pride; they take pleasure in frothy exhalations and are overcome by false praises.” Indeed, these words of Porphyry quite plainly express the evil character of the demons whose help the magic arts employ.
>Meaningful words such as the magicians use are called invocations, supplications, adjurations, or even commands, implying that one person is speaking to another.
>Again, in the practices of this art they use certain symbols and specially shaped figures.... So, the magicians do not use figures as dispositions. The conclusion remains, then, that they may use them only as signs, for there is no third possibility. Now, we do not use signs except in regard to other intelligent beings. Therefore, the arts of magic get their efficacy from another intelligent being to whom the speech of the magician is addressed.
In Summa Theologica he declared that that obstinate heretics deserved "not only to be separated from the Church, but also to be eliminated from the world by death"
Half-assed job
>>392958
>t. le edgy catholic defener
>>392980
Hahaha, very nice. I like the labelling.
I'm looking through Summa Contra Gentiles right now, https://web.archive.org/web/20150504011241/http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm
The man is batshit insane
>>392989
Well he would be today, but he wouldn't have been back then. Insanity has a lot to do with what is expected of someone in a given society.
One of the common mistake people do when thinking of the past is the "romans were modern people with togas" type of error. No, no they weren't.
Thinking of natural explanations for phenomena is so completely widespread today that people think everyone always thought in those terms. No, they didn't. Invoking the presence of demons, spirits and so on for common phenomena was quite frequent.
>>392989
>It is evident from this that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to the good for man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin.
Top kek, I guess you can't have sex with your wife if she goes through menopause.
>>392980
That whole quote just says that spells can't do shit about anything. Are you actually retarded or do you just post random stuff you never read?
>>393004
That in fact used to be the common position within the church.
>>393012
>sex with wife is a sin
Yeah, that is pretty bad. Also believing in demons, spells, and magicians.
>>393003
This guy is supposed to be The Doctor of the Church. Not a superstitious peasant that believed whatever he heard.
>>392911
>The Catholics dipped their toes in it. While the Protestants went nuts with it.
Bullshit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_witch_trial
>>393022
But here's the thing, it wasn't superstition as in "a belief that only stupid and ignorant people had", demons were like gravity today, an accepted force of reality.
I'm not excusing him, it's hilarious to see how his reasoning in the five proofs is as strong as when he talks about demons, magically sterile semen and so on.
>one in three children died in childbirth
I'd like to see the scientific proof of this. I've seen it quoted so many times but no one has ever provided an actual historical quote which backs this up.
>>393033
>demons were like gravity today, an accepted force of reality.
Don't Catholics still accept demons like they do gravity?
http://www.inquisitr.com/1586218/catholic-exorcist-warns-against-yoga-youre-opening-yourself-to-possession/
>>393041
What is it with you people and your ignorance?
You don't even know how Aquinas wrote his books.
First he presented an hypothesis, then he presented common objections to the hypothesis (with which he disagreed) and then he set the record straight.
Look up the passage.
>>393050
I don't see anything wrong with that quote. He's not affirming the existence of demons, he's quoting Porphyry who says "some people believe demons exist", and then analyses what those demons would be, based on the practices of magicians.
From this he apparently deduces that there's all kinds of shit such demons couldn't possibly do. I haven't read it but so far it sounds more like a reductio ad absurdum of superstitious beliefs.
>>393048
They differ on whether or not possession is supernatural
>>391736
Science and faith are not antithetical and can be great compliments of each other. If you read many religious works it can be seen that ancient people had knowledge of science and it did not conflict with their faith, In face they valued it so much that they included both together. The problem of science vs. faith comes in when radical idiotic zealots think the two oppose each other and label science as 'heresy'. As a Christfag myself I have no issue with science and religion and study both (Bhuddism etc. as well) to see what truth I can gain, the compliment each other quite well.
The scientific method after all is pretty much a model of nothing more than critical thinking, which is the best and surest way to find out something about anything.
(Taken from http://apricotpie.com/paula-j/scientific-truths-revealed-in-the-bible, religion shilling below but the scriptures are right.)
Some science in the Bible:
> 1. Earth is a sphere and "hangeth upon nothing" (space). Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7
(Past historical teaching would have you believe that all past humans thought the world was flat. Which is clearly not the case.)
>2. Description and explanation of the hydrologic cycle. Job 36:27, 28, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Amos 5.8
>3. Universal Death/Thermodynamics/Heat Death Theory, etc. . Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 102:26
> 4. Description of ocean currents. Psalm 8:8
>5. Blood's importance to life. Leviticus 17:11
(Ancient people knew it's importance, idiots would have you believe they blood-let to solve everything.)
> 6. Description of stars in space. Very far from earth, a lot. Job 22:12, Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22
>7. Wind currents. Ecclesiastes 1:6
> 8. Earth rotation on an axis. Job 38:12, 14
>>393062
That's not what that excerpt shows at all.
More passages from Summa Theologica: Guide to Magic and Demons
>Some have asserted that witchcraft is nothing in the world but an imagining of men who ascribed to spells those natural effects the causes of which are hidden. But this is contrary to the authority of holy men who state that the demons have power over men's bodies and imaginations, when God allows them: wherefore by their means wizards can work certain signs. Now this opinion grows from the root of unbelief or incredulity, because they do not believe that demons exist save only in the imagination of the common people, who ascribe to the demon the terrors which a man conjures from his thoughts, and because, owing to a vivid imagination, certain shapes such as he has in his thoughts become apparent to the senses, and then he believes that he sees the demons. But such assertions are rejected by the true faith whereby we believe that angels fell from heaven, and that the demons exist, and that by reason of their subtle nature they are able to do many things which we cannot; and those who induce them to do such things are called wizards.
>Wherefore others have maintained that witchcraft can set up an impediment to carnal copulation, but that no such impediment is perpetual: hence it does not void the marriage contract, and they say that the laws asserting this have been revoked. But this is contrary to actual facts and to the new legislation which agrees with the old.
>We must therefore draw a distinction: for the inability to copulate caused by witchcraft is either perpetual and then it voids marriage, or it is not perpetual and then it does not void marriage.
>>393090
More:
>It is to be noted, however, that although these works of demons which appear marvelous to us are not real miracles, they are sometimes nevertheless something real. Thus the magicians of Pharaoh by the demons' power produced real serpents and frogs. And "when fire came down from heaven and at one blow consumed Job's servants and sheep; when the storm struck down his house and with it his children---these were the work of Satan, not phantoms"; as Augustine says
and
>Some spells are so perpetual that they can have no human remedy, although God might afford a remedy by coercing the demon, or the demon by desisting. For, as wizards themselves admit, it does not always follow that what was done by one kind of witchcraft can be destroyed by another kind, and even though it were possible to use witchcraft as a remedy, it would nevertheless be reckoned to be perpetual, since nowise ought one to invoke the demon's help by witchcraft. Again, if the devil has been given power over a person on account of sin, it does not follow that his power ceases with the sin, because the punishment sometimes continues after the fault has been removed. And again, the exorcisms of the Church do not always avail to repress the demons in all their molestations of the body, if God will it so, but they always avail against those assaults of the demons against which they are chiefly instituted.
>>393103
Hold the fuck up
I thought the church said Exodus was just a meme story
>>393115
I shouldn't think they thought that in Aquinas' era.
It's because Exodus has been BTFO by modern archaeology in the last few decades that it is being quietly shuffled off into the list of "stuff that is metaphorical" in the bible.
>>393115
...hey..psssst....wanna know a secret?...the church lies....
>>393103
Apparently he also thought fortune-tellers and astrologers predicting droughts were the same as physicians predicting health and death.
>Divination denotes a foretelling of the future. The future may be foreknown in two ways: first in its causes, secondly in itself. Now the causes of the future are threefold: for some produce their effects, of necessity and always; and such like future effects can be foreknown and foretold with certainty, from considering their causes, even as astrologers foretell a coming eclipse. Other causes produce their effects, not of necessity and always, but for the most part, yet they rarely fail: and from such like causes their future effects can be foreknown, not indeed with certainty, but by a kind of conjecture, even as astrologers by considering the stars can foreknow and foretell things concerning rains and droughts, and physicians, concerning health and death.
Science, and specifically what OP describes as science, would not exist if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. It's as simple as that.
>>393150
Since the scientific method is entirely secular, I could easily imagine an alternate reality where the Catholic Church doesn't exist and humanity invents the scientific method anyway. It's not like Tommy's demonology helped
>>393069
The bible says that you can get non striped cattle to give birth to striped offspring by having them fuck while looking at sticks, defines whales as fish, bats as birds and similar.
All the "Science in the bible" you listed is either deliberate misinterpretations of quotes out of context or the blatantly obvious. Blood is important to human life, Huda thunk it? Currents exist, that's incredible! It's not as if sailors would make use of them to make their journeys easier.
>>392980
You should put some of the crazier things he wrote in that image instead of the objections. (I posted them ITT)
>>393150
Classical science did not exist because of the catholic church. Its as simple as that
>>393150
Regardless of some great big long subjective discussion about the contribution, or lack of, the Catholic church to science and the scientific method this is a bullshit claim.
If you really think that humans wouldn't have come up with the concept of making falsifiable hypotheses and testing them by observation and experimentation at some point then you are very silly.
>>392448
Religion does not contest differences in races, Skin color is an obvious one, however the "everyone is equal" stance is so that no one treats anyone else as inferior because of said differences. Or would you have people incorrectly believing that they had superiority over someone else because of their skin color? There were once former slave owners nd many a racist in the U.S. who thought slavery was a god given right as they were the 'superior species' when compared to blacks, and abused science and religion to keep up such claims.God gave them the right and science proved that slaves were nothing but beasts of burden/ had psychological and physiological deficiencies which made them unfit for self governance and required that another rule over them.
>>393150
Nah
>>393154
The scientific method was created by Catholics in a Catholic world, and most importantly it consists in applying Catholic philosophy to science, as this post explains quite well: >>392199
Ideas don't just appear out of nowhere in a vacuum, especially not such a elaborate and defined world view as that of modern science.
I don't mean to be a fedora but what exactly is the difference between faith and delusion?
>>393166
OP is clearly not talking about classical science at all, what he describes is the scientific method.
Oh and btw the only reason we even know about classical science is because Catholic monks copied ancient books and then the Catholic Church created cathedral schools and universities were those books were taught.
>>393167
Then why has no civilisation ever come up with it before the West? Why didn't the Egyptians, or Mesopotamians, or Greeks, or Mayans? Why didn't the Indians, or Chinese, or Byzantines, or Muslims? Were they all stupid?
Or maybe history isn't a straight line where every path leads to everything being as it is in the present day no matter what.
>>393177
>The scientific method was created by Catholics
lol no
>>393201
>Then why has no civilisation ever come up with it before the West? Why didn't the Egyptians, or Mesopotamians, or Greeks, or Mayans? Why didn't the Indians, or Chinese, or Byzantines, or Muslims? Were they all stupid?
The Greeeks and Muslims made considerable contributions to the scientific method.
https://explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method
>>393156
I didn't say it was perfect now did I? In any case, you must also look at the times passages like these ere written in, but to deny truth because parts fro whence they come are incomprehensible or weird to many of us is the height of stupidity.
>All the "Science in the bible" you listed is either deliberate misinterpretations of quotes out of context or the blatantly obvious. Blood is important to human life, Huda thunk it? Currents exist, that's incredible! It's not as if sailors would make use of them to make their journeys easier.
Bullshit. Many of these things it has been taught that the ancients knew nothing about, which is a blatant lie. While also might seem obvious to you or me now, that does not make it any less true. As for misinterpretation, why don't you get the original Hebrew and tell us all what the 'correct' one is. Or is there any other explanation for the words 'circle of the earth' or 'hangeth upon nothing'. If you can't understand any of that then what the hell are you doing posting on a board abut histo and humanities for? It's idiots like you to which I was previously referring. You'd have Truth be abandoned because it comes from something you do not try to understand.
Fidelism is though of as wrong in Catholicism and faith means trust in God, not belief without evidence.
Daily reminder for faggot OP.
>>393245
So where is the evidence for all of Jesus's miracles that Catholics believe in?
>>393252
Euchsristic miracles, Fatima Sun, etc. This shows that Catholic God most probably exists. By the virtue of this, we can deduce that Catholic faith is true.
>>393298
Here, this guy does miracles that far outdoes Catholic ones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asy1zSHZ4tA
And look, indisputable proof. This means that guy's God most probably exists. By virtue of this, we can deduce that his faith is true and the Catholic one is not.
>inb4 h-he's a fraud
>b-but all our miracles are t-true
>>393347
Do you even Sathya Sai Ba Ba?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNbR82IMgX0
>>393347
Explain Fatima Sun or eucharistic miracles then. Using some obvious fake who talks about miracles and saying that it shows that much more mysterious miracles are therefore the same is pure dumnassery and strawman. I can well show you the Time Cube, sy it's ridiculous because it is and then say that from this we can deduce time doesn't it. As I said, a strawman.
>>393448
>Fatima Sun
If you encourage a bunch of people to stare at the sun they are going to start seeing weird shit.
>eucharistic miracles
I'm not sure any of those have been transubstantiated.
>>393448
Fatima is meme tier. Lots of sceptics have written about it.
Catholicism does not have a monopoly on the supernatural.
>>393448
Fatima sun has a few issues I'd like to mention:
Everyone reported seeing different things.
Everyone was told to look up at the sun, meaning they would expect something out of the ordinary.
Most who were there would have been religious in nature, so naturally susceptible to religious mass delusion (Though mass delusion is certainly not limited to the religious).
The sun "Dancing" and "Changing colors" seems to me like it can in large part already be explained by afterimages left on the Retina as is the case with any bright light source though admittedly I may be misinterpreting what is said.
>>393448
>Using some obvious fake
How exactly is his miracles "obviously fake" but yours aren't? The "mysteriousness" and shaky evidence of your miracles make your case actually a lot weaker than his.
>>393146
Considering the quality of medieval medicine he was mostly right on that front. Even today much of our medical practice is not iron set- physcians can often only approximate what the effects of their treatment will be. There are just too many ceterus paribus conditions that have to hold for any hypothesis to work. These are not effects that cane be found in their causes, nor necessarily come about. The time eclipses come are set in stone save something massive in the universe changing. Neither have the absolute necessity of analytic statements or logical syllogisms done correctly, but his way of demarcating things here is pretty much on point given that he is talking about "necessity of nature" rather than "absolute necessity".
Talking about Aquinas in regards to Science is misguided anyways( why are we even doing this ?). The Scholastics who were being credited with helping set the ground for modern Science were working 50-75 years after he died. It was guys like Oresme and Buridan in the 14th century who are praised by historians of science for their innovations, not Aquinas. Their forerunners were not Thomists, but Franciscans who were critical of importing in too much Aristotle like Grossesteste.
Aquinas was just a really good philosopher/theologian from the earlier century.He has never been considered a great scientist, even by his defenders. Even some of his ideas were condemned in 1277- which is noted as the catalyst to bring about the great innovation in the 14th century. So why has this conversation about Catholic Scholastics and how they helped set the foundations of modern science devolved into a talk about Aquinas and whether or not he believed in demons and witches? It's seems totally irrelevant.
>what is natural theology?
>>393178
Public acceptance.
science relies on induction and is nothing more than a bunch of conventions.
>>392403
of interest, here https://thonyc.wordpress.com/the-transition-to-heliocentricity-the-rough-guides/
i find it funny that people still bring up the Galileo stuff
It was a terrible, shitty time for science, because the Pope could send you to jail because you made him look stupid.
Scientific progress was directly related to whether or not you had an antagonistic relationship with the Pope.
>>397265
that was true for any king or powerful person, though
>>397357
The age of Enlightenment put an end to that, many modern disciplines (psychology, sociology, political economy, anthropology ) owe much to the Enlightenment, and had to struggle against censorship and even persecution.
>>397473
not really, it's just that the common people control who gets censored and who doesnt.
>>397707
The goal of the Enlightenment's proponents was to apply the methods learned from the scientific revolution to the problems of society. Further, its advocates committed themselves to "reason" and "liberty." Knowledge, its followers believed, could only come from the careful study of actual conditions and the application of an individual's reason, not from religious inspiration or traditional beliefs. Liberty meant freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom from unreasonable government (torture, censorship, and so on).
American revolutionaries put some of their ideas into practice in the Declaration of Independence and the new Constitution of the United States.
>>397730
>The goal of the Enlightenment's proponents was to apply the methods learned from the scientific revolution to the problems of society.
they wanted to apply the methods they devised to society, they didnt "learn" these methods from anywhere since the "Scientific Revolution" was just their own ideology projected backwards in history.
>Further, its advocates committed themselves to "reason" and "liberty."
they commited themselves to the view that their own beliefs could be supported by reason, something that almost every thinker thought.
>Liberty meant freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom from unreasonable government (torture, censorship, and so on).
true, but i dont get how that is relevant, no one is denying liberty (without some qualifications, or course)
>American revolutionaries put some of their ideas into practice in the Declaration of Independence and the new Constitution of the United States.
And their ideas have been distorted under the guise of "hidden meanings" that tend to go contrary to the same liberty advocated by the Enlightenment
>>393467
Sokółka.
