CarolSeer2016

Sometime late in the 19th century science became divorced from reality, specifically in regard to the physics of the submicroscopic universe. Man's ability to reason and argue causally was disowned by man himself.

Although Galileo knew Aristotle was in error in much of his physics, he admitted that had Aristotle know, 2,000 years ago, what was known in Galileo's time, Aristotle would have agreed with him.

The Renaissance man of science (the philosophers) were beginning to distinguish between what they called "natural magic" and "supernatural magic"---thus learning relationships between "natural" causes and their effects. Aristotle, although he understood that change was effected by some kind of "cause" imperfectly grasped temporal causal relationships in change. Even motion to the ancient Greeks was not fully understood. Galileo's contributions to the concepts of motion cannot be overestimated.

These early experimenters enhanced the notion of causality, which most in quantum physics, and may I say, climatology, appear to have lost.

I think it imperative to read the works of the original masters of science, reason, and experiment; such as Frances Bacon, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Galileo, at any rate.

Following are some gems of wisdom from Galileo used in refuting those who resorted to the use authority and fallacious reasoning in determining cause-and-effect relationships.

(Coming Right Up)

CarolSeer2016

1.) "...I seem to discern the firm belief that in philosophizing one must support oneself upon the opinion of some celebrated author, as if our minds ought to remain completely sterile and barren unless wedded to the reasoning of some other person."

2.) "[Sarsi] seems not to know that fables and fictions are in a way essential to poetry, which could not exist without them, while any sort of falsehood is so abhorrent to nature that it is as absent there as darkness is to light."

3.) "But I must not neglect to show, for his benefit and in their defense, how implausible is his deduction that their science was poor from their having had few followers."

4.) "The crowd of fools who know nothing, Sarsi, is infinite. Those who know very little of philosophy are num- erous. Few indeed are they who really know some part of it, and only One knows all."

5.) "Hence I consider it not very sound to judge a man's philosophical opinions by the number of his followers."

(Here, in 3, 4 and 5, Galileo is saying that truth value of propositions is not determined by quantity of "sources.")

6. "...though he disguises this and fits it in piecemeal among such a variety of wordy ornaments and arabesques that those who merely glance at his statements may take them to be something different from what they really are."

7.) "...I shall set forth some trifling questions which arose in me as Sarsi proceeded. Your Excellency may, if you like, show them to him some time so that he may be replying establish his position more solidly." (By position, Galileo is referring to a false position.)

8.) "...unless it was that he realized his case would be stronger if he advanced it by cleverly juggling equivocations in front of the simple-minded than by reasoning it soundly for the more intelligent."

((More to Come)

CarolSeer2016

9.) "...but I do say that just as doubts exist concerning this, so doubts exist concerning the origins suggested by other authors; and if they claim to have established their ideas beyond doubt, they are under an obligation to show that this (and any other theory) is vain and foolish."

(Here Galileo is discussing the formation of comets and its elucidation by means of his telescope, but it also works for global warming theorists, who would need to disprove the hypothesis I find most credible, that of cycling warming and cooling as a cause, before establishing "beyond a doubt".)

10.) "I merely offer this as an example of Nature's bounty and variety of methods for producing her effects. I could offer many, and doubtless there are still others that we cannot imagine."

CarolSeer2016

These remarks of Galileo were translated by Stillman Drake in his book "Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo", published 1957, in Galileo's essay-letter "The Assayer".

Drake characterizes Galileo with these words:

"The purely scientific material in his books was enlivened for the reader by the devastating sarcasm with which he was accustomed to puncture his POMPOUS opponents." (Sound familiar?"

"And [his readers] were delighted by his barbed attacks against pedantry."

"...[he] had a good knowledge of mathematics, DISTRUST AND EVEN CONTEMPT OF RELIANCE UPON AUTHORITY, and a pugnacious temper."
I say: Thank God!

But more dangerous, more sinister, is what Drake state about science (remember, this is 1957):

"But within the last decade events have created a new alarm concerning the unchecked progress of scientific knowledge. This time it is not the church but the state which feels morally obliged to impose external limitations upon the freedom of scientific inquiry and the communication of knowledge and opinion. This time the universities are impelled by public opinion and governmental policies to reconsider the scope of academic freedom..."

Without Professor Drake's awareness of it, he was actually describing 21st century Academia.

NEED I SAY MORE?

skott Loc: Bama

Carol? Aren't you a conservative that is against science? Don't you actually believe that God made woman from the rib of a man?
If not, then I apologize, I must have misread your earlier writings.

CarolSeer2016

Either, skott,

one could call your comment a perfect example of how Liberals manage to confuse concepts, and therefore reality,

or you're just pulling my leg.

skott Loc: Bama

No, I thought you were against science and pro Bible. I am pro both. I don't see a real big difference, other than the perspective.

CarolSeer2016

Well, then maybe it's just your reading ability that's at fault. Or maybe you haven't read all my comments on this site. You should try it, you might learn something.

If you like I can try to get you a list of my threads. I could work on that tonight.

beammeupscotty Loc: 31°07'50.8"N 87°27'00.8"W

If my reading comprehension is up to par, my understanding of what Galileo said is that a consensus is not conducive to a fact. There are many examples throughout history where the consensus was wrong.

beammeupscotty Loc: 31°07'50.8"N 87°27'00.8"W

All he has to do is click on your username, go to your profile and it lists all your posts and everything that you've ever written on here.

CarolSeer2016

That's something good to know. I never knew it, myself. (I have a poor memory, actually!)

CarolSeer2016

I absolutely believe that any man (or woman, if able to think logically) who wants to go into some aspect of science or research should be required to take two courses:

1. Logic and Scientific Method

2. History and Evolution of Scientific Thought.

Maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in if those courses had been taught. Even Liberals might have been capable of learning!

beammeupscotty Loc: 31°07'50.8"N 87°27'00.8"W

I do it all the time just to find out the mindset of folks on here.

To improve memory and also prevent migraine headaches try a drug called butterbur. It is an organic compound that you can find in health food stores

CarolSeer2016

Actually, FYI, my memory isn't that poor, just compared to my reasoning ability, it's on a lower level. I'm rather glad, because in order for me to learn or think, I must absolutely understand how a particular equation or fact was derived. I don't rely on memory alone.

Not sure if that makes sense to you or not.

CarolSeer2016

Absolutely. So when media-politicians-academics say 97% of scientists believe the globe is warming and it is caused by man, Galileo is saying that is not proof.