to rebuke science and embrace the Lord. SO they do. Don't ask, just have faith. Simple if you don't plan on running a complex system like a nation. Horrible if you are running a nation as complex as America.

Science was created by Lucifer...just like sex and joy. All bad, don't ask just do it in shame and never say anything.

Conservatives are fucked up people. The very word doesn't even apply to them They conserve nothing in private and try to waste as much as they can. Leave nothing behind but misery. Burn everything else. Their way for decades.

And Giordano Bruno got a lot worse, he was burned at the stake for the same thing.

Curiously, Galileo Galilei's younger brother was named Michelangelo Galilei. He was a lute player/composer. Their father, Vincenzo Galilei was a famous music theorist.

Copernicus didn't have problems with the church. Neither did Brahe. Galileo ran afoul of them because he was writing in Italian rather than Latin and the church didn't like lay people learning math, because it helped them point cannons at papal walls and towers.

(Of course, between Copernicus and Galileo the Church ran into some slight inconveniences in Germany, which may explain the differing reaction, too...)

...who trash-talked his rivals and occasionally claimed credit for other men's findings.

When he used a bit of bilingual wordplay that could be taken as calling the pope a simpleton, giving the Inquisition an excuse to prosecute, people who might have made a case in his defense were more inclined to let him twist in the wind.

Real history is rarely simple.

Truer words were never spoken.

Why was the Inquisition interested in prosecuting one of the most distinguished academics of his time in the first place?

..."you" should avoid using it as an excuse to supply a "truthiness" answer that "feels right".

People have spent a lot of time studying this over the years. It's worth looking at what they've written.

Not an accusation, BTW, just taking the opportunity to stress looking up real answers.

Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2015, 07:45 PM - Edit history (3)

...regardless of who Galileo might have ticked off with mannerisms, the reason the Inquisition had an excuse to go after him was because his writings did not conform established church doctrine.

As you well know he was convicted of heresy. The reason why he was investigated by the Inquisition in 1633 was made very clear, "“We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.”

And by the way this was the second time that he got in trouble with the church. In 1616, he had been forbidden from holding or defending his beliefs on the subject, but he continued to do so.

You can go on forever about the political "back story" about how Galileo contributed to bringing the wrath of the church down on himself, but there can be no doubt as to what the principle issue was. That my friend is a matter of historical fact.

And by the way, you know what we would call those with whom Galileo had nasty fights with about whether or not the Earth was the center of the universe, those who were too indoctrinated or stupid to admit their errors - today we call them conservatives. And if Galileo was impatient and rude with those who argued with him yet refused to look through a telescope to see with their own eyes what he had seen - well I don't blame him a bit.

By the way, if you want to read about the entire sleazy affair, you can do so here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Don't ever expect conservatives to admit they were wrong:
On February 15, 1990, in a speech delivered at La Sapienza University in Rome,[71] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI said:

The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.

... was because he published his De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) just before his death in 1543. There is ample evidence Nicolaus Copernicus held off publishing the book despite the urging of his colleagues because he wanted to avoid criticism which he knew would come from many quarters. It is difficult to persecute a dead man.

Copernicus was right to be concerned; the book was banned by the Vatican soon thereafter. While it is true that most of his writings in including his final masterpiece were in Latin, which he considered the language of academia, the church didn't want even the most educated people who were conversant in Latin to be led astray by his disturbing theory.

he would certainly have met the same fate as Giordano Bruno:

Giordano Bruno was was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and astrologer. He was celebrated for his cosmological theories, which went even further than the then-novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism). He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center".

Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation). Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern.[4] The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

quo and interfered with the ability of conservatives to continue to exercise their power in a manner that profits themselves and others of their ilk.

When Charles Darwin challenged the bible’s version of creation and the notion of man being God’s greatest creation, he threaten the power of conservatives over the general population and they fought back. Even today, when Darwin’s theories are considered proven by most reputable scientists, conservatives still try to ban or subvert the teaching of evolution in our schools. Of course the discovery of global warming also threatens the status quo and the ability of businesses to continue to put profits ahead of the health of the planet and its people. That’s why conservatives continue to deny, deny, deny."

I don't care if they are considered an "expert" in their own field of science. Such expertise only makes them an idiot-savant.

...the fear that grips idiots when they don't understand something.

Therefore there is no climate change, human caused or otherwise.

It is that simple.

Barack Obama said here, take free healthcare....Con says no, I cant accept it from Black man, even though I need it.

It is that simple.

Just ask the folks whose premiums are going up 50-75% over the course of a year.

It was a massive sellout to Big Insurance and Big Pharma. which wrote all of the most important parts. They are its primary beneficiaries, just as they were intended to be from the start.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of better than nothing.

And in the good vs evil, black and white landscape of the authoritarian mind, that makes them unreliable and untrustworthy.

Today's "conservatives" have no basic understanding of the Scientific Method.

as better and more complete/accurate explanations displace those with less predictive and explanatory power. It's contingent, and a Manichean two-pole mindset simply cannot live with ambiguity or contradiction. It makes dere widdle heads expwode.

must be discarded or revised.

Not a conservative position. Anyone who isn't braindead knows that there is a full-scale pay cycle in Science these days. It, like our media, is 100% bought and sold.

That's not to say some science isn't trustworthy, but there is NO science of a political nature worth trusting. NONE.

Edit: Because mistrusting science makes a person use the wrong word!

You sound like someone who is looking for an excuse to not believe something which science has indicated is true, which makes you.... well... a conservative. Am I right?

Most of them are poorly educated, are driven by making a buck, don't care about policy or science so long as their stance is against something that is likely to draw in viewers, etc...

If you trust a guy whose only out to make a buck no matter the reality of the world, you will end up anti-science every time.

to interfere with or challenge "beliefs" no matter how many times the idjit beliefs are conclusively proven to be false. It boils down to a rejection of reality, which is a fairly serious sort of mental disorder.

"I'd rather know than believe." - Carl Sagan

&quot M)ost people would die sooner than think – in fact they do so." - Bertrand Russell

magic thinking, as does evolution denial and the genetic supremacy of whites.