Can anyone briefly describe to me how the relationship between the Catholic Church and the leaders of the Scientific Revolution was and the struggles that were had by "scientists" (I realize they technically weren't but I couldn't think of any other word hehe) from it?
>Can anyone briefly describe to me how the relationship between the Catholic Church and the leaders of the Scientific Revolution was and the struggles that were had by "scientists" (I realize they technically weren't but I couldn't think of any other word hehe) from it?
Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Galileo thought new things in new ways which were impossible to see for the Catholic Church, even though they agreed in external reality being really important.
Exemplified in Fiction by Brecht's Galileo
Galileo was a fully sick cunt who fucked with the Church for fun, even after being warned that he was messing with their politics. The Church knew his observations were correct, and that his theory might be correct, but that existing theories actually explained the evidence better and that Galileo had falsified much of his evidence. The Church wanted him to pull his fucking head in about the politics to give them time to politically react to the changed observations.
no--you're not getting the big picture: the Church asserts one system, some guys come along and suggest that the church's system is incorrect, the church persecutes the guys for a few hundred years as heretics and enemies of truth, then the church admits the guys were right all along and apologizes for persecuting them.
See? No harm, no foul play, we move smoothly from one idea to another, and religious folks are at peace with the universe, following God's divine plan for understanding and implementing truth.
For a long time people thought that the fight for empiricism and reason returned to the west in the 17th century, after the atrocities of 30 year's war discredited any claims by Catholics or Protestants of having the moral high-ground.
But we now know that the period from 1000-1300 was the true golden age of Europe. Under Catholic monopoly, Europe flourished as a center of trade, art, and study of the classics. Social unrest was unheard of, population and wealth were high above that of the Roman Empire, and universities were opened all across the continent.
This 19th century narrative of the "Age of Enlightenment" overthrowing centuries of dark age religion needs to end. The renaissance and "enlightenment" were far more violent, racist, ignorant, and less innovative than the middle ages. If anything, the Christian middle ages was the true era of science, while the "enlightenment" was the actual era of Christian superstition.
Western societies were extremely lucky in that the Islamic scholars had preserved and translated the works of the Greek thinkers and scientists and a connection to these revolutionary ideas could again be made.
Martin Luther and his comrades had an important role in breaking the power base of the Catholic Church, but in fact they were only substituting old Only Truth with a newer version of the One and Only Truth.
Still the very idea of opposing the might of the unified Catholic Church did much to break the iron grip it did have on the minds of medieval people. After Reformation people started to see that there could be more than one truth. This thought alone was a quite revolutionary and was a great leap towards the real freedom of thought.
The Age of Enlightenment did turn the world around. Soon the Catholic Church itself was forced to reform itself thoroughly in the counter-reformation.
You forgot the bit where the guy makes up data, where his theory doesn't reconcile with his newly observed problematic data, and where he picks a shit fight with the most powerful intellectual organisation in the world over their especial domain of convincing parents to let them rape kids.
There was no idea of scientific progress in the middle ages, it was a contemplative exercise for natural philosophers.
Science in the medieval period was Aristotelian and the only form of progress considered was development towards a final state, for example, of an acorn into an oak. The concept of progress itself arose in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the temporalization of the neo-Platonic concept of the Great Chain of Being
>Galileo thought new things in new ways which were impossible to see for the Catholic Church, even though they agreed in external reality being really important.
>The Church knew his observations were correct, and that his theory might be correct, but that existing theories actually explained the evidence better and that Galileo had falsified much of his evidence
You really don't know about the period, do you?
Copernican theory was not backed by observable data and many of the measurements were proven wrong. It was more correct to believe in geocentricism at the time. Copernicus didn't even want to publish his work at the time because he knew it was flawed. Brahe shit on it immediately.
>fedora's in charge of arguing
It was only a theological debate because Copernicus used theology to justify the size of the planets (which were entirely illogical and impossible) in his theory. He said God made them that way in which the Church said no.
Take it up with Kuhn, cunt.
>You really don't know about the period, do you?
No, I just read the papers and curriculum of a Galileo / Structure of Scientific revolution specialist and the anti-paper as part of a review of a colleagues' work for his promotion, ontop of half a year undergraduate in late medieval early modern social and cultural history.
As you might have been able to tell from my exposition I was explaining Kuhn's argument, then the post-Kuhnian argument.
You might try remedial literacy.
>You really don't know about the period, do you?
Not him, but how is your reply an objection to his post? Galileo's observations were correct and they DID give some plausibility to heliocentrism (If moons can go around Jupiter why can the planets go around Earth?). But even though they were plausible there wasnt any evidence proving that heliocentrism was true that couldnt be explained by geocentrism.
Still, Galileo was a huge prick with an enormous ego that was just interested in fame and proving his theories right, not in furthering "science" or interested in "truth" (just like many scientists through history)