The Smallest Minority

The Inquistion, what a show
The Inquistion, here we go
We know you're wishing
That we'd go away
So, c'mon you Denialists who read the news
We got big news for all of yous
You better change your point of views today
'Cause the Inquistion's here and it's here to stay


/Mel Brooks

The quote and link was fine and all. What I don't understand is how everyone seems to be copying from everybody else and everybody misses that it was Giordano Bruno who was actually burned at the stake for his part in advancing Copernicus. That was about 20 years before Galileo.

Galileo recanted and remained in house arrest the remainder of his days, but Bruno accepted the stake.

Maybe because of what happened to Bruno nobody wants to consider that that our postmodern inquisitors would dare limit their punishment of us to house arrest? Could that be why he is overlooked?

Heh?

Oh, and Kevin: Galileo was a Catholic all his days; Bruno was an open atheist.

I gotta post about this oversight. I'm not sure what to call it yet? I'm open to suggestions. Maybe my "Jeopardy" format can be used.

...it was Giordano Bruno who was actually burned at the stake for his part in advancing Copernicus.

That is a popular myth, but it is untrue. Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Copernican Revolution, states: "Bruno was not executed for Copernicanism, but for a series of theological heresies centering on his view of the trinity."

The examples of Galileo and Bruno are not good analogies to the present situation. Unlike the Church of Environmentalism, the Catholic Church at that time was divided on the controversy of Copernicanism. When Galileo taught that the Copernican model was true, Cardinal Bellarmine quite reasonably objected, because Galileo had actually not proven his case and reasonable doubts remained as to the truth of the Copernican model. Church authority insisted that more proof be presented before any conclusion was drawn on the matter, which is precisely the position our side has taken on the matter of AGW/CC.

Why is Kuhn more credible than other sources on this? Note that I didn't say, nor do other sources disagree, that Bruno got BBQed for only one thing -- as perhaps could be inferred from my stating his open atheism. I've never heard it disputed that he was a Copernican.

And I agree we are asking the warmistas to prove their point. In the case of Galileo, he tried to get the others to look through his telescopes. Our frauds are trying to hide their data -- cause, as they say themselves -- "why give our data to those who wish to disprove it?" To which the answer is "Because without open review of the data so that it can be duplicated or found not capable of duplication, it isn't science Jackass."

I had heard something different about Galileo than what is being presented here, so I decided to go to Amazon to try to find a good book on the subject, and found this one. The first reviewer summarizes the book like this:

"Built around Galileo's six trips to Rome, the authors give a lucid explanation of Galileo's life and work. Galileo's is ever more successful as a scientist and ever more eager to vanquish those who disagreed with him.

While clearly a scientific genius, he claimed theories to be true without ever having physical proof. He insisted, falsely, that the tides were caused by the earth's rotation and then used the fact of the tides to argue for the Copernican thesis that the earth and not the heavens was in motion. When certain theologians objected that his theory seemed contrary to scripture, he entered, with no expertise, into a theological discussion on the proper mode of interpreting scripture. Unfortunately this intemperance in debate led finally to Galileo's "trial" and house arrest.

At the same time, the theologians are presented as a mixed lot, some opposing Galileo with an irrational zeal, others soberly weighing the evidence he proposed and so insisting that he treat his theory as a hypothesis and not as proven fact. The authors present the Church's position with some sympathy: it seemed imprudent to change the more obvious understanding of scripture without proof for the scientific theory that undermined it."

This matches what I've heard, though not everything. My understanding is that the church at that time was already generally accepting of the solar centric model. That Galileo was a jerk to anyone who dared question his theories is pretty clear. (The tides are the oceans sloshing around because the Earth is moving? Really? That one deserved to be questioned!) I definitely need to do more reading on this one.

Why is Kuhn more credible than other sources on this?

Why do you think he's less credible than other sources? Kuhn is a highly-respected scientific historian, whose book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a staple of history and philosophy of science courses.

I wonder at this need to believe that Bruno was executed for any reason other than an imprudent foray into theological matters. I'm not defending the Inquisition's behavior here -- his execution was an injustice -- but from what I have read the Bruno affair has nothing to do with an alleged war between Church authority and science. Given that Christianity is still the dominant religious tradition in this country, I would expect people to be relieved to know that there is little to no evidence for a war between the Church and science. And yet people like you insist that Bruno is some kind of scientific martyr. Unless you just have an anti-Church axe to grind, this makes no sense to me.

Note that I didn't say, nor do other sources disagree, that Bruno got BBQed for only one thing -- as perhaps could be inferred from my stating his open atheism. I've never heard it disputed that he was a Copernican.

Bruno was male and presumably had hair, so can we infer that he was also executed for being male and having hair? Bruno was a Copernican and an atheist, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he was executed for being a Copernican and an atheist. Consider that what really got Galileo into hot water with the Church wasn't his scientific proclamations, but his reinterpretation of scripture. The pattern suggests that the Church was far less concerned with scientific roguery than it was with laymen meddling in theological matters.

Note that, even if the Galileo and Bruno affairs were evidence of Church hostility toward anti-doctrinal scientific thinking, these hardly constitute evidence for an ongoing war. As Vox Day observes in his book, The Irrational Atheist, these are not serious issues; the sum of the evidence presented in favor of a war between Christianity and science really amounts to "mild smack-talk between unarmed border guards from two neighboring countries caught up in a dispute over agricultural subsidies."

More serious, I would argue, is the evidence for secular hostility toward scientists and science. The father of modern chemistry, Antoine Lavoisier, was executed by the Jacobins during the French Revolution. The fact that he was the greatest chemist of all time did nothing to mitigate his guilt in their eyes. Jean-Baptist Coffinhall, President of the Revolutionary Tribunal declared, "The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists; the course of justice cannot be suspended." Stalin targeted several scientists during his Great Purge, including respected experimental physicist Lev Shubnikov (executed) and Nobel-laureate physicist Lev Landau (imprisoned). As recently as the 1970s, the Khmer Rouge was slaughtering the intellectual class in Cambodia, targeting anyone who was educated or who even appeared to be educated.

The point is that we have no need of weak analogies or allegories to understand what's going on in terms of the current un-scientific behavior of AGW/CC proponents. There is much more direct evidence for historical and ongoing secular State hostility toward real science. As we have seen with the slaughter of the educated and scientific classes, when genuine science threatens State power, the State acts to protect itself. Far less violent, but no less destructive, is the "co-optation of science" by the State described by Richard Lindzen in his presentation "Deconstructing Global Warming":

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his farewell address to the nation in 1961, gave a warning "that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." He went on

"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity...The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded."

We have nothing to gain here by retrofitting the current situation onto an anti-religious fable. There is abundant proof that things are as they have always been: a power-hungry government entity protecting its own interests at great cost to the rest of us.

Thanks for the additional information Sarah and Ed. You've introduced deeper elements of which I was not aware. I was recalling what I remembered from many years ago, and that could have indeed been from an anti-theist source. So I hope you're glad I brought it up.

It troubled me that only Galileo got brought up as the only parallel. And now, from what Ed filled in, it looks as if even Galileo doesn't fit. Of course, that's only if these aren't more half-truths that were published. I could be merely more flourish by these sources. (I hope you agree that it's a terrible consequence of this postmodern world that we need to be wary of everyone's motives. Who paid for that study?)

I think we are in agreement that the row we're having with the AGW is that the current proponents are holding back evidence, which is not scientific as I pointed out above.

And the Sinister media, instead of making an issue of it -- as they would if skeptics had done what the proponents are doing -- are aiding and abetting the cover-up.

Thanks again. If you've more to add, let me hear it.

Pascal: Glad to be of service. :-)