Hmm, well, the Latin Church did not accept the tenets of Copernicus/heliocentrism until 1822 (Galileo disproved geocentrism in 1610 with The Starry Messenger). They didn't bother to say, "Yeeeeah, we were wrong about Galileo" until something like 1992!
It's about 300 years or a little more for them to catch up to reality.
So, when will they accept something that their books say is wrong? When they absolutely have to.
Not this old canard again. You have had this explained to you over and over again without even a vaguely relevant counter argument in response.
Now, one could ask oneself how Copernicus proposed his theory, had it explained to the freaking Pope and yet encountered no problems. Ignorance is bliss.
To the depths of bad history hell with you.
Unfortunately for you, it's not a canard - Galileo's forced abjuration of 1633 happened, and too bad you don't know or acknowledge that. But dismissing people to hell is pretty much all people like you are good at. Have at it from the dustbin that modern times have relegated you to.
You're completely missing the point.
Of course Galileo's abjuration happened. The error you and many others make is imposing a modern era dichotomy on a 17th century debate.
The simplistic church v science view is complicated by
a) Copernicus managed to say similar stuff without getting into trouble
b) Galileo was friends with the Pope, but literally called him retarded when invited to present his views
and most importantly:
c) Galileo's hypotheses were incorrect according to the observable data of the time
In the 1600's, the lack of an observable stellar parallax was strong evidence against Galileo's claims, which in turn causes a pretty big issue in the "Galileo disproved geocentrism and the church hated him for it" theory.
Okay, that's better. And I didn't mean not to respond to some of this in the past - I either didn't see it, didn't have the time, etc.
First, I only brought this up because I had thought of it as I read the topic headline. My first response was, well, look what they did to Galileo. It may not be 300 years, but I think it'll be a
long time until they accept SSM. The Roman Church is usually among the last of the holdouts and the diehards against new findings, ideas, etc.
Now, I'll respond.
My hang-up, and it's a hang-up, is not that the Roman Church opposed an idea or challenged a discovery, but the extraordinary lengths they went to to squash it. I mean, they disagree with a guy's findings, so they put him under house arrest and take away his telescope? If slavery is/was objectionable, I dare say that is too.
Copernicus wasn't trying to challenge anyone, firstly. The Church said that his proposed system was okay so long as it was only viewed as a hypothetical and helped mathematicians explain things that the Ptolemaic system could not. Copernicus left it at that. I mean he had to go through them to get it published anyway.
Galileo did not. He pushed it, especially when he observed several moons orbiting Jupiter, and he had every right to. The Roman Church declared the heliocentric model "erroneous" in 1616 which was around the time that it started to gain widespread acceptance. So they tried to squash it. They didn't take it off their ban list until the early 19th century when it was way past accepted. I've read most of Galileo's
Dialogue, and it's a vast stretch to say that he called the pope retarded. He did not. He illustrated the many errors in the Roman Church's position on the issue, which largely fell back on Ptolemy and Aristotle, NOT anything they were observing.
I would disagree that Galileo's findings were not supported, but at that point we probably need to take it to the History
Department board.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.htmlhttp://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/galileo.htmlhttp://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileochronology.html
Poll
