Galileo Dust Up on Renaissance Mathematicus

[timoneill]

See the comments on the posts An interesting question and But it doesn't move!. Some of the names of those in a spluttering rage will be familiar from Butterflies and Wheels. Thankfully the retired school teacher has yet to make an appearance to drone at us all.

A Kiwi guy who describes himself as "a scientist with no ideological axe to grind" (on a blog riddled with references to new atheists and Richard Carrier et al *cough*) has posted an outraged response: Galileo’s revolutionary contribution.

"Let slip the attack poodles of war!"

[noons]

Allow me to contribute a contingent of Chihuahuas!

[wraggy]

I enjoy The Renaissance Mathematicus

Of course I only go there after visiting Quodlibeta.

But you cannot please everyone.


Ken said on his blog in response to ThonyC's article:

"I will leave aside his/her tactic of blaming the victim – which seems quite fashionable among religious apologists writing on this issue today. For example Thony C claims.....".

Although he later denies that he thinks that ThonyC is an apologist.

Rebekah Higgit replies:

"We should be clear here that Thony’s account is by and large the one that is now taught to undergraduates and masters’ students in history of science. It is the version I learned from my reading and my supervisors: people with PhDs in history of science, teaching in a renown university, with first-class research records, whose background was in science (if that makes a difference), who were themselves atheists and agnostics.

Good historians have worked on this topic in recent years and produced a much more interesting, sophisticated and well-documented account than deserves the name apologetics. It may not be the account you prefer, but it’s the one produced by those who have dedicated their lives to researching it. Historians are not interested in attributing ‘blame’ and should not be out to find evidence to support a preconceived thesis. We all have our biases, but history has developed methodologies, a wealth of data and professional norms that mean that biased work and apologetics will be criticised".

I cannot help but feel that Ken almost feels betrayed by people who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic but point out that Ken's conclusions about the Galileo affair are misguided.

[fortigurn]

It does seem like an awful lot of passion to waste on a subject which is essentially trivial in the overall history of science itself.

[wraggy]

Jun 24, 2011 18:49:14 GMT fortigurn said:

It does seem like an awful lot of passion to waste on a subject which is essentially trivial in the overall history of science itself.

There would not be so much passion if people did not attempt to use history to prop up their ideology.

[fortigurn]

Jun 26, 2011 0:03:44 GMT wraggy said:

There would not be so much passion if people did not attempt to use history to prop up their ideology.

Yes, there's clearly a lack of objectivity from some people on both sides.