|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 13, 2010 19:29:19 GMT
Peter, do be careful. You are rapidly revealing yourself to be a Catholic apologist...
Just like Tim.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 15, 2010 8:35:35 GMT
Judging from the latest contributions from ol'Charlie (including what seems to be an attempt at comedy), I think I've made him a bit cross.
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 15, 2010 9:16:04 GMT
Judging from the latest contributions from ol'Charlie (including what seems to be an attempt at comedy), I think I've made him a bit cross. Hello Tim. I was entertained by your comment here www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/gentlemen-declare-your-agenda/#comment-63621 (about 'souls'). Actually we can make falsifiable and testable claims about souls, depending on our definition. If we define a soul as a single underlying principle or explanation of human behaviour and action, for example. On the other hand, if we define it as a non-material, fundamentally unobservable cause of human behaviour and action, then scientific explanation is more difficult. See my musings on the difference between eliminativism and reductionism here ocham.blogspot.com/search?q=reductivistI don't understand where Freeman is coming from here. [edit] Also the thread is quite confusing (yes, it's the Internet). Is it about whether Freeman is an amateur or not (this seems to have got him v upset). Or is it about whether people who write in some approving way about medieval science are funded by organisations with an agenda? Or is it about how the Conflict Thesis is defined?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 15, 2010 12:42:01 GMT
I can see why Freeman is angry at being called an amateur. After all, he makes most of his money from writing history and publishes with respectable houses. Besides professional historians can be just as wrong as amateurs. After all, I don't think Christopher Hill got anything right during his entire career but no one would deny he was a fully accredited academic historian.
However, he responds by further insinuations about me and my own credentials so I am not feeling very sympathetic.
Perhaps I should try offering an olive branch.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Nov 15, 2010 15:13:00 GMT
Your gesture is wasted on the criminally arrogant, James.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 15, 2010 16:29:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 15, 2010 19:47:35 GMT
I just tried to as well, but it seems my "rational" brothers and sisters have decided I must be silenced. My recent posts on either thread have been removed and all attempts at new posts go into the void. Ah, and other mighty blow struck for "freethought"! Anyway, here was what I was trying to post to the thread above, in reply to Charlie on waterpower technology: The book you need to consult is Terry S. Reynolds Stronger than a Hundred Men: The History of the Vertical Waterwheel. Though I doubt you'll find much there to feed your prejudices. Reynolds notes evidence, for example, that the Roman mill complex at Barbegal actually consisted of a run of undershot waterwheels, not the more advanced and efficient overshot variety. And there's not much in his chapter on Medieval waterpower - "Diffusion and Diversification: The Waterwheel in the Medieval Period C500-C1500" - to give you joy either. It's full of stuff about how waterpower spread throughout Europe, transforming the economy and leading to far greater mechanisation of process generally. Clearly Reynolds is in the thrall of the Templeton Foundation and the Vatican. Or something.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 15, 2010 21:35:17 GMT
Ah jeeze www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/even-galileo-was-free-to-believe-what-he-wanted/Do you ever feel like you are wasting your time? Oh Tim, that comment of yours got posted in the end. Doubt anyone will read it. No-one seems to be that interested in history beyond its capacity to provide material for moral outrage. I'm looking forward to being denounced as part of the Vatican-Hannam-O'Neil apologetic axis of evil.
|
|
|
Post by chuff on Nov 15, 2010 21:49:18 GMT
Sadly, I think that you are indeed wasting your time. For instance looking at the comment that followed yours on the page you just linked: Right…
Except back then, science WAS heresy.
Shackleford is dumb as a post.Kind of hard to argue on this topic with someone who appears to treat the conflict thesis as an axiom. *Edited to add - Perhaps it's not a total waste of time though as some people watching from the sidelines might be learning. I do find some of the info very interesting, and you are giving good sources for further reading. If there is one thing this site has been great for, it's filling up my Amazon wish list.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 16, 2010 1:58:53 GMT
Oh Tim, that comment of yours got posted in the end. Yes, it and a few others popped up again when I noted what seemed to be censorship. Since then I've been told I am "belligerent" (of couse, calling me a witless wanker is fine) and my most recent posts have vanished. That includes one explaining why Bruno's execution had nothing to do with science and one about Hypatia. "Free thought" does not equal "free speech" it seems. These muddle-headed fanatics make me ashamed to be a secular humanist.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 16, 2010 3:11:21 GMT
These muddle-headed fanatics make me ashamed to be a secular humanist. Don't worry Tim, we christians have more than our fair share of people to be ashamed about. (Probably some people think I am one!! )
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Nov 16, 2010 9:01:32 GMT
Ah jeeze www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/even-galileo-was-free-to-believe-what-he-wanted/Do you ever feel like you are wasting your time? Oh Tim, that comment of yours got posted in the end. Doubt anyone will read it. No-one seems to be that interested in history beyond its capacity to provide material for moral outrage. I'm looking forward to being denounced as part of the Vatican-Hannam-O'Neil apologetic axis of evil. I am utterly shocked by Freeman's comments, as in #22. What is he driving at, why the spite, slamming and distortion of James' book? "This extract gives you some idea of its racy style!" Indeed. Methinks he protests too much.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 16, 2010 10:03:10 GMT
Guys,
At the risk of making it look like I am indeed the mastermind of an evil consiracy, please could I make a request that we drop the subject of Freeman. Also, I think people posting at Butteflies and Wheels, while very kind, is counterproductive. I had hoped some reasoned debate there might have helped counter Freeman's misrepresentations, but frankly I don't think it is working. Conversations get heated, insults get thrown around and the point is lost. So, while I cannot stop anyone (which is odd since you are all abviously my sock puppets), I would rather that those conversations ended.
We are very lucky that Peter Damian has started to post here and I would far rather explore his comments and criticisms.
Thank you again for your kind support.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 16, 2010 13:02:34 GMT
Ah sorry. I just argued that Giordano Bruno is in fact a martyr for religion, or specifically religious toleration - doubt they will be too keen on that. www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/even-galileo-was-free-to-believe-what-he-wanted/It helps to discuss how he came to his natural philosophical beliefs since a cursory glance at his work will show they stem from his religious inclinations - not the other way round.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 16, 2010 13:10:34 GMT
Free thought" does not equal "free speech" it seems. These muddle-headed fanatics make me ashamed to be a secular humanist. No, it tends to be the same with these places. They tolerate a certain amount of debate but if you overstay your welcome or look like you know what you are talking about they ignore you or find a pretext to get rid of you. It's only really worth spending time on if there are bystanders you can win over to your point of view (as there used to be on RD.net) but not in this case. By the way - have you found a way of retrieving your posts from the defunct Richard Dawkins forum ? The same points keep coming up time and times again and i'd rather copy and paste the work I did before rather than spend time tying up everything from scratch; especially if people just ignore it or launch into non-sequiturs.
|
|