tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-931118226392796332.post4853569063756500469..comments2024-02-23T10:10:20.285-08:00Comments on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Against O'Floinn on Relation of 17th C. Scientific Revolution to 13th C. ScholasticismHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-931118226392796332.post-35829547216125833312013-11-19T04:53:36.263-08:002013-11-19T04:53:36.263-08:00He has done his part three: here and I have answer...He has done his part three: <a href="http://tofspot.blogspot.fr/2013/11/summa-origines-scientiarum-articulus-3.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and I have answered:<br /><br />To reply to obj 5:<br /><br /><i>Besides, geometry is mathematics, not natural science. (No one proves a geometric theorem by collecting and measuring empirical data.)</i><br /><br />False. Pi is measured over and over again by laying out pebbles along a circle and its diameter, another circle and its diameter and counting the pebbles and doing the division.<br /><br /><i>Not unless Coyne can show which aspects of Greek paganism informed the invention of geometry.</i><br /><br />Shall we take Pythagoras or Euclid? Pythagoras owed lots to superstitious motivation, just as astronomers to astrological one. Euclid to its weakening through Aristotle, though.<br /><br />From reply to Obj 7:<br /><br /><i>Two-thirds of the world's Christians are members of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, not of Bill and Ted's Excellent Bible Shack, and neither traditional Church has a problem with the scientific theory of evolution.</i><br /><br />Except that traditionally they have so. St Robert Bellarmine would have stood with Hovind and not with Lemaître. You are generalising, since it is wrong to say Catholics and Orthodox accept evolution just because some do so.<br /><br />citing ad 8<br /><br /><i>The Greek philosopher Xenophanes observed marine fossils in the hills of Greece and believed them to be actual fish and shellfish somehow turned to stone. The only natural process he knew of that could deposit marine life in the high hills was a flood -- a really, really big flood. Like a cover-the-whole-world flood. This bit of wisdom entered common culture and showed up in the legends of a great many cultures. (Other peoples than the Greeks could spot fossil shells.)</i><br /><br />Wow, Xenophanes a better Christian than Schönborn!<br /><br /><i>Creation is not a scientific proposition at all and has nothing to do with the transformation of Stuff from one form to another. This is an ignorance shared (as usual) by atheists and fundamentalists alike.</i><br /><br />Oh, fundies are ignorant about this one are they?<br /><br /><a href="http://creation.com/before-the-big-bang" rel="nofollow">CMI - Before the Big Bang<br />by Russell Griggs<br />http://creation.com/before-the-big-bang</a><br /><br />citing 12 itself<br /><br /><i>Newton, for instance, couldn’t explain regular planetary motion, and had to invoke divine intervention (so much for God helping science!) until Laplace came along and showed that orbital irregularities could be explained in a purely naturalistic way.</i><br /><br />The question was perhaps not so much orbital irregularities as how a balancing between gravitation and inertia could lead to revolution after revolution after revolution of two bodies around common centre of gravity ... and it is not just two bodies either ... without ever getting out of balance and smaller body shooting off at a tangent or falling in to the bigger one.<br /><br />And so far I have not come across Laplace's purely naturalistic solution. I have time after time come across his theory of planets forming from original disc of whirling gas, which is another matter.<br /><br />Which is one reason why I prefer the medieval solution also supported by Riccioli (thanking O'Floinn for citing him!) which I outlined here:<br /><br />Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Against O'Floinn on Relation of 17th C. Scientific Revolution to 13th C. Scholasticism = article above<br /><br />In paragraphs:<br /><br /><i>But the machina mundi that Sacrobosco and St Thomas envisaged was not selfrunning. Confer my remark about a bike.<br /><br />If you want to make a model of the universe as seen by the men of the 13th C. make a merry-go-round. etc.</i> (see above in article)Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com