From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 07:15:19 BST
Hi Ian,
> Sorry Sam, but that's not a "quibble".
>
> My point precisely is that "evidence" is loaded in some logical
> positivist empirical test sense and no astronomer / scientist, however
> genius / inspired was going to have that kind of "evidence".
> It's the classic religious - "go on, prove me wrong" challenge -
> utterly meaningless, based on a scientific misunderstanding about
> "proof" - focussing only on scientific method. And as I pointed out
> elsewhere characterising it as "Farewell to Reason" is really
> "Farewell to old logical positivist reason, and on to new higher
> quality reason."
Have you read the Feyarabend article? I think you'd find it interesting. So
far as I understand it, the dispute was exactly about evidence etc.
Galileo's assertion didn't fit the available facts (because he was assuming
perfect circles for the orbits etc) whereas the Ptolemaic system, despite
being complex and ugly, still did. Feyarabend discusses the guiding
assumptions (like Biblical inerrancy etc) and makes what I think is the very
strong point that the Vatican was prepared to back down if there had been
evidence supporting Galileo's point of view - and evidence in just the way
that you would accept, evidence that wasn't all that long in coming forward
(ie change some assumptions about the nature of the orbits and hey presto,
the calculations fit). So it's not the classic religious 'prove me wrong'.
Yes, it's still empirical, but that was the nature of the dispute, wasn't
it?
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 07:31:14 BST