The Scientific Theory Crackpot Index gives you 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo.

The comments so far have accumulated well over 100 points.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Flat Earth WAS mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.


In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Flat Earth WAS mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.

Galileo was persecuted for claiming that the earth went around the sun, which was also against mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.

Flat Earth WAS mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.

Galileo was persecuted for claiming that the earth went around the sun, which was also against mainstream scientific belief for hundreds of years.

1. The Planets Move (2000 B.C. – 500 B.C.)
A thousand years of observations reveal that there are stars that move in the sky and follow patterns, showing that the Earth is part of a solar system of planets separate from the fixed stars.

2. The Earth Moves (1543)
Nicolaus Copernicus places the sun, not the Earth, at the center of the solar system.

3. Planetary Orbits Are Elliptical (1605 – 1609)
Johannes Kepler devises mathematical laws that successfully and accurately predict the motions of the planets in elliptical orbits.

4. Jupiter Has Moons (1609 – 1612)
Galileo Galilei discovers that Jupiter has moons like the Earth, proving that Copernicus, not Ptolemy, is right. Copernicus believes that Earth is not unique, but instead resembles the other planets, all of which orbit the sun.

5. Halley's Comet Has a Predictable Orbit (1705 – 1758)
Edmund Halley proves that comets orbit the sun like the planets and successfully predicts the return of Halley's Comet. He determines that comets seen in 1531 and 1607 are the same object following a 76-year orbit. Halley's prediction is proven in 1758 when the comet returns. Unfortunately, Halley had died in 1742, missing the momentous event.

6. The Milky Way Is a Gigantic Disk of Stars (1780 – 1834)
Telescope-maker William Herschel and his sister Carolyn map the entire sky and prove that our solar system resides in a gigantic disk of stars that bulges in the center called the Milky Way. Herschel's technique involves taking a sample count of stars in the field of view of his telescope. His final count shows more than 90,000 stars in 2,400 sample areas. Later studies confirm that our galaxy is disk-shaped, but find that the sun is not near the center and that the system is considerably larger than Herschel's estimation.

7. General Relativity (1915 – 1919)
Albert Einstein unveils his theory of general relativity in which he proposes that mass warps both time and space, therefore large masses can bend light. The theory is proven in 1919 by astronomers using a solar eclipse as a test.

8. The Universe Is Expanding (1924 – 1929)
Edwin Hubble determines the distance to many nearby galaxies and discovers that the farther they are from us, the faster they are flying away from us. His calculations prove that the universe is expanding.

9. The Center of the Milky Way Emits Radio Waves (1932)
Karl Jansky invents radio astronomy and discovers a strange radio-emitting object at the center of the Milky Way. Jansky was conducting experiments on radio wavelength interference for his employer, Bell Telephone Laboratories, when he detected three groups of static; local thunderstorms, distant thunderstorms and a steady hiss-type static. Jansky determines that the static is coming from an unknown source at the center of the Milky Way by its position in the sky.

10. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (1964)
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discover cosmic microwave background radiation, which they suspect is the afterglow of the big bang. Their measurements, combined with Edwin Hubble's earlier finding that the galaxies are rushing away, make a strong case for the big bang theory of the birth of the universe.

11. Gamma-Ray Bursts (1969 – 1997)
The two-decade-long mystery of gamma-ray bursts is solved by a host of sophisticated ground-based and orbiting telescopes. Gamma-ray bursts are short-lived bursts of gamma-ray photons, which are the most energetic form of light and are associated with nuclear blasts. At least some of the bursts have now been linked with distant supernovae — explosions marking the deaths of especially massive stars.

12. Planets Around Other Stars (1995 – 2004)
Astronomers find a host of extrasolar planets as a result of improved telescope technology and prove that other solar systems exist, although none as yet resembles our own. Astronomers are able to detect extrasolar planets by measuring gravitational influences on stars.

13. The Universe Is Accelerating (1998 – 2000)
Unexpectedly, astronomers find that instead of slowing down due to the pull of gravity, the expansion of the universe at great distances is accelerating. If these observations are correct and the trend continues, it will result in the inability to see other galaxies. A new theory of the end of the universe based on this finding has been called the "big rip."

Well there's proof, KP is alive and well! Thanks, buddy.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
*promote

To be fair, Galileo was kind of a dick.

He was far more confrontational and disruptive than he needed to be. This is because, it seems, he had goals more than simply the pursuit of the truth. He was also pursuing political goals as well, trying to improve the court status of the mathematician.

That's not to say that the Church didn't fight against the truth to maintain its political power. Just that it's a lot more complicated than Sagan presents. By focusing on only a few elements of Galileo's persecution, Sagan really does cast Galileo as a myth--a symbol-story standing for and exemplifying a certain view of the relationship between science and faith.

It's not entirely a wrong view. But it is incomplete.

>> ^vermeulen:
>> ^imstellar28
don't have a 401k champ. If you were versed in Austrian economics you would've seen this coming a mile away too You can find some stat on a website, some source, that blames this on some obscure government regulation, I am sure, but when every other single person who analyzes this situation tells you it's a problem with deregulation, who isn't a insane fundamental capitalist, you should maybe start to see past your biases.
You really are no different than a religious lunatic with this, and have seriously made me think twice about my libertarian views,


1. federally controlled interest rates are "obscure" regulation?

2. remember in science class when they talked about systemic error? its what happens when the instrument is miscalibrated and ALL results taken by ALL people are wrong. what do you think happens when the majority of economists in America receive the same education? they have the same ideas! its called systemic error and thats what I'm trying to convey, the whole "measuring system" is the problem! I'm not any more insane than Galileo was--you think the sun revolves around the earth because you haven't looked through a telescope.

3. religion implies faith. I don't have faith in my ideas, I know they are correct as much as Galileo knew the earth revolved around the sun because I have explicitly derived them myself: http://www.videosift.com/member/imstellar28/blog

Educated people who preach total deregulation are being willfully ignorant of externalities, monopolies, contract enforcement, copyright/patent enforcement, eminent domain, ignorance of most consumers, how little success in competition has to do with the price/quality of the product in many cases (advertising FTW), and how food labels could lie and get away with it.

Between two competitors in the same fixed market, advertising is basically a zero-sum game that wastes revenue and increases the price to consumers.

Pharma companies spend half their revenue on advertising to convince people to buy drugs that most of them don't need. If all the money were spent on research instead, all the drugs could be a lot cheaper. The US economy already produces much more than enough to satisfy the real needs of most people, and the rest of the economy revolves around brainwashing people into thinking they need things that they don't need through advertising.

You don't make money by providing the best or cheapest product to your customers, you make money by making them THINK that whether or not it involves actually doing it. Someone has to call advertisers on their bullshit. A typical corporate executive's only imperative is this: make a profit by any means necessary, even if it means lying to shareholders, customers, etc.

Most of the great advances in basic science did NOT come from anybody working for a company. Immediate get-rich schemes do not involve trying to understand the universe for the sake of understanding the universe. Newton was a professor, Darwin was an unemployed med school dropout who went with a ship captain to keep him company, Galileo was on state patronage, Einstein worked for the patent office, etc.

But I digress. The crux of the argument is externalities. Taxing negative externalizes and subsidizing positive externalizes are essential, as you'll see in any modern economics textbook. Otherwise we'd all kill each other with pollution and toxic waste, while neglecting to eradicate polio. If you've studied game theory at all (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma or the pollution game), you'll see that individual self interest often leads to an equilibrium that is bad for everybody. Government can adjust the payoff matrix so that the optimal (utilitarian) outcome is also an equilibrium for self-interested agents.

The reason private companies aren't mass-producing solar and wind power without subsidies is because it's still more expensive than oil and coal. Without government regulation, oil and coal would remain cheaper until we deplete the world's supply of oil and coal. If we deplete the world's entire supply of oil and coal, we'll breathe soot while Miami is underwater. Clinton's statement that massive amounts of wind/solar power would be in the interest of corporations only applies when governments tax fossil fuels or subsidize alternatives. The moral justification for taxation of negative externalities is basically the same as the moral justification for the government punishing somebody for beating up somebody else.

>> ^MINK:
what exactly is "smartness" ?
the way i see it, atheists do the same trick in reverse, they say "science is the way to understand the world, and science has no room for God, so... therefore... there is no God!!! I am smart now!"
Yes i know some atheists are not that retarded, but a lot are. If you say religion is incompatible with science, and then you try to use science to criticise religion, well... you're retarded.
The smart answer is to say "God is everything, therefore God is science, and atheism, and murder, and bombs, and flowers, and jealousy, and 9/11 conspiracy theories, and cheese sandwiches, and love, and DNA, and evolution, and the bit on a car engine that lets the fuel into the piston, etc ad INFINITUM"... then work on from there.


The field of science has nothing to do with religion. It has no such "goal" to disprove the existence of god and if there are atheists that claim such a thing, then they are definitely NOT scientists. Science is the very best tool we have of discovering the truth about the universe: from quarks to quasars. The UNINTENDED side effect is that such discoveries are inconvenient to religion's dogma. Note the word in caps.

History is filled with scientific advances of this kind. But let's not pretend that scientists' motivation is to "bring down" religion. You think men such as Galileo and Kepler worked out the orbital arrangement of the solar system to disprove god? They were looking for the truth, my dear boy. The insurmountable problem seems to be that religion cannot integrate these truths into their world. But then, religion does not need to. Faith is the natural enemy of truth, not the other way around. By that, I mean religion is the plaintiff and science is the defendant.

So let's all be clear: NOTHING will bring down religion. Note the word in caps.

Yes, despite being a devout Catholic, and despite trying to remain loyal to the church, Galileo could not ignore the observations showing the sun at the centre of the solar system. The catholic church was of course teaching that the earth is the centre of creation and the universe (Aristotle). They persecuted Galileo. In later years, the catholic church recruited and funded astronomers which was the beginnings of the church using science for persuasion of its esoteric teachings which still goes on to this day. Today it's called Intelligent Design.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Galileo? Seriously?


In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"The Catholic church gets bashed on a lot and I'm never sure why."


The vatican staying silent about the holocaust during WWII,

Still teaching even today that HIV can pass through condoms in AIDS stricken Africa,

Covering up child abuse allegations, for example that of Father John Geoghan, accused of sexually molesting over 100 boys in the Archdiocese of Boston,

The persecution of Galileo, the inventor of the telescope,

The infamous brutal and violating interrogations directed at the suppresion of heresy,

In fact hundreds of years of years of persection, deceit, lies and social control; much of which can be levelled at any religion in the world. Take your pick.

The vatican's position on evolution does not explicity say that evolution is the most likely creation theory, only that "faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, though man is regarded as a 'special creation', and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins."

This is always worth saying: Science is a METHOD, not a position.

Galileo? Seriously?


In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"The Catholic church gets bashed on a lot and I'm never sure why."


The vatican staying silent about the holocaust during WWII,

Still teaching even today that HIV can pass through condoms in AIDS stricken Africa,

Covering up child abuse allegations, for example that of Father John Geoghan, accused of sexually molesting over 100 boys in the Archdiocese of Boston,

The persecution of Galileo, the inventor of the telescope,

The infamous brutal and violating interrogations directed at the suppresion of heresy,

In fact hundreds of years of years of persection, deceit, lies and social control; much of which can be levelled at any religion in the world. Take your pick.

The vatican's position on evolution does not explicity say that evolution is the most likely creation theory, only that "faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, though man is regarded as a 'special creation', and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins."

This is always worth saying: Science is a METHOD, not a position.

Well, I hope the USA doesn't take as long to apologize for this as the Catholic Church took to apologize for the persecution of Galileo (400 years).

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Interesting discussion. I too do not have a problem with people believing in a god. My problem is when religion injects itself into science as an alternatives answer to question about the natural world.

There is a lot of history of the conflict between religion and science- and up until now it has always ended up with religion looking sheepish about past recalcitrance and going for a "well that was then, we're much more progressive now" kind of stance.

In particular I'm thinking of Galileo, the Scopes monkey trial, Salem witch trials (they were herbalists) and most recently the Intelligent Design movement.

If religion could just stay in its corner of life- centered around faith, unsubstantiated belief and the supernatural I would be quite happy.

Science can and must change as better evidence presents itself. That's why science is a better tool for fact finding: it utilizes observable, measurable evidence, the exact opposite of the definition of faith.

Religion only changes when...wait for it...science makes a fact ubiquitous, such as the Earth revolving around the sun. Did you know that the Vatican never officially conceded that the Earth is not stationary until 1992, when Pope John Paul II "expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

What's happening now is religion is making an attempt to change science using only religious data, however ill-equipped it may be to alter a field of study in which observable, measurable evidence is its mainstay. Faith is a poor surrogate for science. Science, on the other hand, was never interested in replacing faith, rather to establish fact. Science could give a toss about religion. But religion seems awfully concerned about science. Interesting.

"Anything that has no indication in the Koran is false." This seems like a discussion Galileo would have had.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/