Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on November 12, 2005 02:55 AM
The point if, of course, that no scientific theory of any kind ever claims to express the "Truth" in the ontological sense of "aletheia" or "'emet".
Galileo certainly did make such claims about scientific theory in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. When Galileo claimed that, through science, man could know the structure of nature as deeply as God Himself, even if not so broadly, do you suppose that Galileo was speaking of anything but Truth with a capital "T"?
A scientific theory is considered as true by default as long as it explains that which is observed. Period.
One can do this, and it is commonly done, but it leads to screwy thinking. It is better to consider that, until it is ruled out, a theory is a possible explanation of the observed data. Even after it is ruled out, however, a theory (like Newtonian mechanics) may still be useful for engineering.
The Papacy (which is not the "Church" with a capical "C" but only a heretical split-off of the true Church) is simply not qualified to express judgements about what scientist do or do not observe. Not at the times of Galileo, not today.
Ignoring the anti-Catholic elements of your diatribe, I agree that the Church is not so qualified. In fact, that was a main point in my previous post. I am surprised that you missed it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
The proper role of the Church (which the Papacy aims at impersonating) is to proclaim revealed eternal Truths and their correct interpretation, and not worry whether at any one given moment in time these Truths happen to agree or not with the prevailing social fads or even scientific observations.
Again, anti-Catholic bits notwithstanding, we agree.
Your attempts at justifying the treatment of Galileo is sickening to any Christian or scientifically-inclined person.
You hyperbole falls flat on me, for I am both Christian and scientifically inclined.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^) Moreover, I did not attempt to justify the treatment of Galileo. In fact, I pointed out that the Church erred in her treatment of him, though Galileo was wrong and the Church was right on at least one fundamental point.
Peace be with you. I am certainly not angry with you, though you disagree with me. I hope that you are not angry with me, even if I disagree with you.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Attempts.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 12, 2005 02:55 AMGalileo certainly did make such claims about scientific theory in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. When Galileo claimed that, through science, man could know the structure of nature as deeply as God Himself, even if not so broadly, do you suppose that Galileo was speaking of anything but Truth with a capital "T"?
A scientific theory is considered as true by default as long as it explains that which is observed. Period.
One can do this, and it is commonly done, but it leads to screwy thinking. It is better to consider that, until it is ruled out, a theory is a possible explanation of the observed data. Even after it is ruled out, however, a theory (like Newtonian mechanics) may still be useful for engineering.
The Papacy (which is not the "Church" with a capical "C" but only a heretical split-off of the true Church) is simply not qualified to express judgements about what scientist do or do not observe. Not at the times of Galileo, not today.
Ignoring the anti-Catholic elements of your diatribe, I agree that the Church is not so qualified. In fact, that was a main point in my previous post. I am surprised that you missed it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
The proper role of the Church (which the Papacy aims at impersonating) is to proclaim revealed eternal Truths and their correct interpretation, and not worry whether at any one given moment in time these Truths happen to agree or not with the prevailing social fads or even scientific observations.
Again, anti-Catholic bits notwithstanding, we agree.
Your attempts at justifying the treatment of Galileo is sickening to any Christian or scientifically-inclined person.
You hyperbole falls flat on me, for I am both Christian and scientifically inclined.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^) Moreover, I did not attempt to justify the treatment of Galileo. In fact, I pointed out that the Church erred in her treatment of him, though Galileo was wrong and the Church was right on at least one fundamental point.
Peace be with you. I am certainly not angry with you, though you disagree with me. I hope that you are not angry with me, even if I disagree with you.
#