Saturday, July 12, 2003 Re: Galileo Deserved It? Credit (or blame) Kumar's post below for stimulating these thoughts. Massing's book review of Wade Rowland's "Galileo's Mistake" is so horrible, I cannot believe it appeared in the New York Times. It contains a number of journalistic idiocies, and makes "Galileo's Mistake" look terrible, if Massing accurately reviewed it (a big "if" considering how ill-informed Massing appears to be; I cannot say for sure without having read Rowland's book whether the fault is Massing's or Rowland's or both).
Massing says that "Galileo's Mistake" contends that the traditional view of the Galileo Affair is wrong. I largely agree it was not a simple clash of 'reason' against 'faith,' but this is not a new contention. Massing apparently has no idea that Koestler and others wrote about this years ago. And he does not note the work of scholars who long meticulously analyzed the Galileo Affair. To do that would be to deprive himself of a good reason for anyone to care about this book. Massing does not tell us the most interesting things that complicate our picture of the Galileo Affair.
Massing notes that "Galileo's Mistake" makes much of the fact of the fact that Copernicus was undisturbed, while Galileo was not. Massing does tell us that part of the explanation for this could be that Copernicus dedicated his book to the Pope, and that someone added a preface to Copernicus' book which said a sun-centered system presented here was to be viewed as a mathematical hypothesis, not as a philosophical fact.
There is also this myth that Galileo proved that the Earth moved and the sun was the center of the universe. In my opinion, IT IS NOT TRUE that any rational person HAD TO believe in heliocentrism after Galileo's discoveries (e.g. the phases of venus). Galileo certainly undermined a lot of the old Aristolean cosmology and gave very good reasons for supporting a sun-centered universe (by the way, today, we don't believe the sun is the center of the universe, but only of the solar system). But the evidence is overwhelmingly compelling if you only directly compare Galileo and Ptolemy. But Massing does not mention (neither did Galileo) that there was another alternative system that was widely known, that of Tycho Brache. Brache thought the Earth was at the center, the Sun revolved around the Earth, and the other planets revolved around the Sun. Brache's system was 'inelegant' perhaps, but it was compatible with Galileo's discoveries. A lot of Jesuits followed this system.
Plus, an Earth-centered universe had a major empirical advantage: if the Earth moved, you would expect that the stars would shift when viewed from different points in the Earth's orbit. This 'stellar parallax' was not oberved, I believe, until the 1800s. In absence of this empirical evidence in Galileo's day, one would have to conclude that the Earth did not move or account for this anomoly (which would involve allowing that the universe was much, much bigger than previously thought). Now Galileo was right that the Earth moved, but it is utterly disingenous to pretend that all the evidence favored heliocentricism in his day. Interestingly, this might say a lot about why society should allow freedom of expression that seemingly contradicts scripture, even when all the evidence isn't on the scientist's side. Critics of the traditional interpretation of the Galileo Affair often forget this, and act like the Church (or society) should be able to suppress speculation and science that is not fully proven yet.
Another thing: let us not pretend that Galileo only cared about empirical matters and did not have his own hang-ups. Tycho Brache let Dutch astronomer Johannes Kepler use his miticulous observations of the orbits of Mars and other planets. From this, Kepler discovered that the path of Mars was an ellipse, not a circle. For centuries, astronomers had been fixated on the circle, and believed that all heavenly bodies travelled in circles (or circles upon circles). Ptolemy's earth centered solar system used epicycles, and future astronomers made the system ridiculously complex. But many people also forget that Copernicus ALSO used epicycles-- he STILL thought heavenly bodies travelled in a circular motions-- and as such, his system was still very complicated and is was not clearly the simple, straightforward, and clearly correct system it is often portrayed to be. Galileo went to his death believing in epicycles and circular motion. (Don't forget this if you indict Brache's geo-helio system merely because it is 'inelegant'.) Galileo specifically refused to believe Kepler when Kepler announced his discovery. So Galileo was not pure scientific saint, following empirical truth, wherever it may lead. That fault may be forgiveable, but we should not forget it when people portray Galileo as an absolute advocate of reason and fact over religious faith and superstitution.
Another thing the review does not mention: many scholars think Galileo got himself in trouble by putting the view of the Pope (that God has the power to make things appear in any way he chooses) into the mouth of the simpleton in his dialogue comparing the two world systems. Insulting the Pope is not a good way to avoid the inquisition in the 1630s.
Here is another passage from Massing which I would like to criticize: "Galileo in 1615 published his "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina," in which he argued (in Italian) that not only had the Copernican thesis been conclusively demonstrated, but that the new scientific method had shown its clear superiority over Scripture as a guide to the universe." My recollection of "Letter" (which, I admit, I last read and wrote about almost ten years ago) is that Galileo argues that God gave us two books to read to find out about the universe: the book of nature, and the book of revelation, neither of which could contradict each other. The Bible sometimes spoke in allegory, and Galileo pointed out that scriptural passages seemed to also imply the Earth was flat. Massing's summary of "Letter" is pretty crude. My memory is that Church officials admitted the possibility of the need to revisit passages of the Bible describing physical facts, but the Church had the authority to reinterpet scripture and decide when this would take place. In absence of incontrovertable proof (see above), the Church could maintain that natural philosophers (scientists) should not be theologians. Of course, the Church got to make this determination. And the Church had accomodated themselves to the fact that the Earth was round, for example (it's another myth that Columbus discovered this; most educated people in Columbus' day thought the Earth was round). And the Church was shown to be wrong to declare it a heresy to say the Earth moves. But the Galileo Affair is far more complicated than many people make it out to be.
Posted by Timothy,
6:51 PM
-
Galileo Deserved It? A new book called "Galileo's Mistake" argues that coventional thinking about famous trial of Galileo is wrong. It argues that he deserved it, quite a claim considering the Church itself has apologized for it. Unflattering book review, here.
Posted by Kumar,
2:22 PM
-
The Over-Confident Consumer: Really interesting article in NYT about how we end up wasting lots of money, because we optimistically think we will do more than we do. (Best example: Gym memberships) Read it here.
Posted by Kumar,
1:54 PM
-
Friday, July 11, 2003 Lexington at the Economistwrites:
The real reasons for the profligacy are more depressing. Mr Bush seems to have no real problem with big government; it is just big Democratic government he can't take. One-party rule, which was supposed to make structural reform easier, also looks ever less savoury. Without a Congress that will check their excesses, the Republicans, even under the saintly Dr Frist, have reverted to type: rewarding their business clients, doling out tax cuts and ignoring the fiscal consequences.
The Republican Party's conservative wing stands to lose the most from this. Some conservatives credit Mr Bush with an ingenious plan to starve the government beast: the huge tax cuts will eventually force huge spending cuts. But this is rather like praising an alcoholic for his ingenious scheme to quit the bottle by drinking himself into bankruptcy. There is no better way to stymie the right's long-term agenda than building up the bureaucracy (government being a knife that only cuts leftwards). And there is no better way to discredit tax cuts than to associate them with ballooning deficits. For the moment Mr Bush is still the conservatives' darling. Will they still love him a decade from now?
Posted by Nikhil,
11:50 PM
-
Democratic Primary Schedule: I had been curious for the past few days and so I finally looked it up. I wonder why South Carolina is getting so much attention if all these primaries are so bunched up (because its the first southern state?). Here is the first two months of the schedule:
KING: The comments about -- that he has made concerning Iraq, where he sort of like -- well, Powell let's go to work -- Powell said first. Powell said it was a minor issue, this thing about uranium and Africa. Do you think it's a minor issue?
WOODWARD: It's got to be explained. But one of the things that's most difficult to understand is what is the basis of an intelligence report? And the CIA and the intelligence community do these things called National Intelligence Estimates. And they are big documents where they take all source intelligence, they put it together, they sit in a room, actually, and debate, do we believe this? Is this credible? Is this supported here?
They do them on things when we're not sure. You don't need a National Intelligence Estimate, for instance, on whether the Soviet Union is collapsed. We know it collapsed. But they would do National Intelligence Estimates on things like, well, what is the threat that Iraq poses? Weapons of mass destruction? And so it clearly says it's an estimate. They make judgments. I've seen some of these things. And there will be a liaison intelligence service report, say from the Jordanians, saying we have a source who says the following. There will be a satellite picture. They're little pieces, little fragments. And it's inevitable one's going to be wrong.
KING: But what makes the State of the Union? That's got to go through -- doesn't that go through a lot of checkpoints?
WOODWARD: Yes, yes, it does. And that's a serious mistake. They've backed off on it in the White House. But Bush needs to explain it. He needs to come forward and say hey, look, people accept in their human relations and in their presidents somebody who says, you know, I messed up on this, and this is how it happened. They need to do that.
KING: Were you surprised that Powell, kind of, dismissed it?
WOODWARD: Well, you know, I'm really on sound ground, here, when I say it's one little piece of thousands of pieces that get sifted when they put something like this together. And you know, I'm sure on occasion, on your show you've said something that turned out to be wrong. You've had bad information. I know in my work, it's happened. And you regret it and you step forward and say, I goofed.
KING: You don't see anything deliberate.
WOODWARD: Not at this point. Not at all. And at the same time, as Richard Nixon said, the cover-up is always worse than the offense. And if they try to not explain it, if they try to say, Oh, you know, we don't have to deal with this, or dismiss it, it's not going to work. They're going to have to come forward and say, Look, this came -- this person -- my understanding is there was some debate about it, and it may have been in one other speech earlier and got deleted and then got put in this one, so...
Posted by sam,
12:41 PM
-
Hillary is in on the Big Lie!
And she spoke out in the Senate, citing bogus intellegence supporting the preposterous claim that Iraq had WMD, in order to try and convince her colleagues to authorize force against Iraq.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Amazing! Looks like we have a vast both-wing conspiracy on our hands here folks!
One can only wonder ... just what was her motivation? Does she have Halliburton shares in her portfolio? Did GW promise her an oil well?
Mr Blair stood by the claim in the September dossier that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons. He insisted the claim was based on different intelligence to the forged documents which have been dismissed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr Blair said: "This is terribly important, because this has again been elevated into something that really is not warranted by the actual facts. There was an historic link between Niger and Iraq. In the 1980s Iraq purchased somewhere in the region of 200 tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called forged documents. They came from separate intelligence. In so far as our intelligence services are concerned, they stand by that."
1. Given that Blair defended this piece of intelligence so vigorously, Bush's SOTU statement that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" still holds water.
2. Either Blair is telling the truth or he's really going way out of his way to hang himself.
3. 200 tons is a lot of uranium. Let's hope the mid-90's inspections got rid of it.
Posted by sam,
12:07 AM
-
Thursday, July 10, 2003 Give our leader's spokesman some slack! Ari Fleischer, master of logic:
I think the American people continue to express their support for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein based on just cause, knowing that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons that were unaccounted for that we're still confident we'll find. I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are. (via TNR)
Simply incredible. I never thought Ari could outdo himself, but is he really saying people who didn't think Saddam had WMD should be responsible for saying where the WMD are? But we should cut the Bushies some slack in the honesty department, right? It's like they KNOW they are being utterly illogical, is it?
Posted by Timothy,
8:54 PM
-
Heh Tucker eats his words.
Posted by Timothy,
8:43 PM
-
Lieberman hires staffer named 'Gobush'
Chatterbox is a Democrat because (among other reasons) Democrats are the party of toleration. A small but telling illustration is the name of Sen. Joe Lieberman's new communications director. It's Matt Gobush. Can you imagine a Republican ever hiring a communications aide named Jason Yayclinton? ... As you would expect, Gobush's own line on his name is that it's widely misinterpreted. "It's a exhortation for our current president to leave office," he told Chatterbox. Chatterbox isn't buying it, but he applauds Lieberman's embrace of a man whose very name constitutes a not-very-subliminal campaign slogan for the opposition. It's hardly Gobush's fault. However, in the interest of self-preservation, Chatterbox has an idea how to even things out a bit. Lieberman should launch a nationwide search to find, and hire, anyone with the last name, Screwbush. Once that person is on staff, Lieberman can assess that person's abilities and find something he or she can do.
Posted by Timothy,
8:39 PM
-
Dean can't get Vermont's Finest?!?
However, Graff said there is likely a strategy behind Kucinich announcing, for example, that Ben & Jerry's Homemade ice cream founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield support him. "It isn't accidental. It's cool, as the kids would say. And why aren't Ben and Jerry as cool and worthy to be listened to as Newt Gingrich endorsing a candidate?" Graff said.
Posted by Timothy,
8:15 PM
-
Trust our leaders... ...especially when they give a bullshit answer and end the press conference:
Q Do you still believe they were trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Right now?
Q No, were they? The statement you made --
PRESIDENT BUSH: One thing is for certain, he's not trying to buy anything right now. If he's alive, he's on the run. And that's to the benefit of the Iraqi people. But, look, I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program. In 1991, I will remind you, we underestimated how close he was to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine a world in which this tyrant had a nuclear weapon. In 1998, my predecessor raided Iraq, based upon the very same intelligence. And in 2003, after the world had demanded he disarm, we decided to disarm him. And I'm convinced the world is a much more peaceful and secure place as a result of the actions. Thank you all very much.
Posted by Timothy,
7:11 PM
-
RE: The Big Lie >>According to BBC: the brits still stand by their assertation Yes, and the BBC is also about to sue members of the British government for defamation for their response to BBC reports on other WMD issues. Additionally, the British government does admit that the only actual reasons they have presented to the public (and as far as we know, anyone else) came from the forged documents and that the white house knew these documents were forged.
>>"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" and that the British government stands by this statement, one might reasonably conclude that Bush's statement is not a lie. The British government has learned [and informed USA] of x. By implication, the US government has learned of x. The US government then recieves information that x is false. Therefore, the US government has unlearnt x. You can play word games whatever way you want; the spirit of the message is still untrue.
Bush also allowed the other false claims of the British Government, revealed in their internal inquiry (though the bastards let Campbell be), pass completely. Not an active lie, but dishonest.
Also bear in mind that the British government was investigated for its claims, no such thing on anywhere close to the same scale has happened to the American government so further indiscrepancies may well remain uncovered.
Its been interesting following the controversy over whether Bush and Blair lied to push the war. Obviously, this is an issue that deserves investigation, just like the inquiry as to what the government knew about 9/11.
Since these allegations are so serious, I think it is very important to define exactly what Bush and Blair are being charged with lying about, so these allegations can be investigated thoroughly and impartially.
Here's the relevant passage from the State of the Union. (emphasis added)
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
Some observations:
Bush doesn't say that Iraq has uranium or nuclear weapons
Powell did not mention the alleged African uranium purchase in his Feb. 5 presentation to the Security council in which he detailed Iraq's non-compliance with 1441 and 687.
Out of an eighteen-paragraph section of the speech making the case for regime change, one sentence is being called into question.
According to BBC: the brits still stand by their assertation: "The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said.
Given that Bush actually said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" and that the British government stands by this statement, one might reasonably conclude that Bush's statement is not a lie. (Although it probably is untrue, the administration probably had intellligence contradicting the Brits, and yes, I'm stooping to a "depends on what your definition of is is" argument here).
Posted by sam,
2:34 AM
-
Wednesday, July 09, 2003 Looking for another reason to hate Lieberman? This has to be among the ugliest things I've ever seen.
Posted by Clint,
1:47 PM
-
WMD If Google can't find them, who can? Go to Google, type in "weapons of mass destruction" and hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.
Posted by Laura,
10:33 AM
-
Tuesday, July 08, 2003 Quick Roundup Bush did lie, so did Blair ...and... The BBC reports on the UNDPs logical conclusions to countries' policies that subsidize cows at $913/year/cow while giving Africa aid at $8/year/person.
Posted by Timothy,
12:14 AM
-
Monday, July 07, 2003 MSNBC shame MSNBC manages to fire Michael Savage after he called a caller a "sodomite" who should "get AIDS and die." And it used to be my cable network of choice. UPDATE: Go here and scroll down to see the long video of Savage going off on the 'sodomites'. I'm sure he had his reasons, though.
Posted by Timothy,
11:55 PM
-
Mother Theresa: Should we call her a saint or a worse consorter with dictators than French President Chirac? Emmett Hogan praises Mother Theresa and her likely canonization, linking to this article. I wonder what Hogan has to say to Christopher Hitchens talking about her consorting with dictators, gathering millions of dollars, and doing little to nothing to prevent the death of poor people. Here’s Hitchens in an interview about his book on Mother Theresa:
[I also had] a sort of journalistic curiosity as to why it was that no one had asked any serious questions about Mother Teresa's theory or practice. Regarding her practice, I couldn't help but notice that she had rallied to the side of the Duvalier family in Haiti, for instance, that she had taken money - over a million dollars - from Charles Keating, the Lincoln Savings and Loans swindler, even though it had been shown to her that the money was stolen; that she has been an ally of the most reactionary forces in India and in many other countries; that she has campaigned recently to prevent Ireland from ceasing to be the only country in Europe with a constitutional ban on divorce, that her interventions are always timed to assist the most conservative and obscurantist forces.
Emmett also says: “The article shows, too, how the suffering created by doubting the existence of God can be spiritually edifying, as it was for the nun of Calcutta.” Well Hitchens claims that Mother Theresa thought the suffering of the poor was also beautiful:
I hesitated to cover this in my book, but I decided I had to publish that she has said that the suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering.
Hitchens talks about looking into Mother Theresa’s facilities for the poor:
The care facilities are grotesquely simple: rudimentary, unscientific, miles behind any modern conception of what medical science is supposed to do. There have been a number of articles - I've collected some more since my book came out - about the failure and primitivism of her treatment of lepers and the dying, of her attitude towards medication and prophylaxis. Very rightly is it said that she tends to the dying, because if you were doing anything but dying she hasn't really got much to offer. This is interesting because, first, she only proclaims to be providing people with a Catholic death, and, second, because of the enormous amounts of money mainly donated to rather than raised by her Order. We've been unable to audit this - no one has ever demanded an accounting of how much money has flowed in her direction. With that money she could have built at least one absolutely spanking new, modern teaching hospital in Calcutta without noticing the cost.
If it need be said, I don’t agree with everything Hitchens says in the interview, but take a look. And Emmett can tell me, for we are engaged in reasoned debate now, how Hitchens is mistaken or what else makes him think of Mother Theresa that “Her life gives the lie to the notion that the Church is ‘too old to produce heroic saints.’”
Posted by Timothy,
7:40 PM
-
A new low for D editorials, and I agree with a dartlogger Alston is right about this column in The Dartmouth by Brent C. Reidy. It seems to be written by an earnest, yet utterly deluded Dartmouth super-patriot, who has the soul of someone who markets products advertised only on late night television. The column actually advances the argument that the College can increase its prestige by giving out DVDs and other prizes to people who recruit the most applicants. I'm sure we'll be mentioned in the same breath as Harvard after resorting to such tactics. If the quality of columns in our daily paper is any remote indication of the prestige our College deserves, we are in deep trouble.
Posted by Timothy,
5:59 PM
-
Willie Nelson endorses Kucinich And The Corner had fun noting Willie Nelson's tax problems.
Posted by Timothy,
4:17 PM
-
Trust the Government to be truthful and forthright Yeah, right... See also comments here. Also, Tom Tomorrow gets cranky in pointing out the idiocy of Andrew Sullivan in defending Bush's "Bring them on!" bravado, which Tommy Franks also echoes. But Tomorrow is great here.
Posted by Timothy,
1:57 PM
-
Maybe they counted D.C. and Puerto Rico....? From today's The Dartmouth:
The new-sprung plan, which went into effect July 1, allows free long-distance service to all 52 U.S. states and Canada. Students wishing to make international calls through the College can arrange to have the service charged to a credit card.
I really hope that mistake is only in the online version.
Posted by Timothy,
1:04 PM
-
Sunday, July 06, 2003 Bush talks to God to determine foreign policy Eschaton points this report in Ha`aretz:
According to [Palestinian Prime Minister] Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
Posted by Timothy,
7:27 PM
-
Which is a more reasonable position? -That legislatures should pass laws outlawing homosexual acts? -That we should ridicule those who want to pass laws to persecute homosexuals?
It seems that many commenters on Joseph's posts on Santorum would rather ridicule the latter position than ridicule the former. And many of you say we should not ridicule because we should always be involved in reasoned debate. Hmmm..
Emmett says we should draw a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable positions. One can do that and still say Emmett's particular position on homosexuality is unreasonable. Unless all positions are reasonable, then this means some positions are unreasonable. And who are you santimonious twits to say my dad isn't being reasonable here, or at least more reasonable than Emmett? Or are you honestly saying one should never ridicule unreasonable positions? I'm sure you always argue with flat-earthers and feel it is always wrong to ridicule racists. Or perhaps you are implicitly deriding Joseph's deeply held belief that homophobia, like racism and sexism, are wrong? Even if you disagree with the method of ridicule used by Dan Savage, don't you think the views and politicians he opposes are more ridiculous than reasonable?
Now being a political theorist, I can allow the potential reasonableness of some judicial philosophies that say when legislatures, and not courts, should decide things. But it's ridiculous and unreasonable to be in favor of actually passing a law banning sodomy. As Andrew Sullivan has commented, Santorum honestly seems in favor of such laws. Texas didn't even ban bestiality! That's worthy of ridicule, no?
