ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: Allan F on September 13, 2013, 01:55:30 PM
-
Today, a danish court ruled against Niels Harrit in his lawsuit against a newspaper, which had mentioned him as "Harrit and the other conspiracy loonies". Harrit had sued the newspaper for 25.000 dKr (a little under 4.000 USDollars) because he didn't like being called a looney. He lost, and has to pay 15.000 dKr to the newspaper to cover their trial costs.
Edit: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article2095969.ece
-
That reminds me of how Bill Kaysing sued Jim Lovell for calling him wacky. The case was dismissed on First Amendment grounds. AFAIU, this sort of comment is not considered libel in the United States because it is stating an opinion, not making a factual allegation. Are the Danish libel laws similar? Is that why Harrit lost?
Personally, I find it amusing/annoying when conspiracy theorists feel that it is perfectly acceptable for them to make allegations of fraud or mass murder or whatever against people, but if someone says their ideas are crazy, oh no, that's completely wrong and deserving of legal action!
-
This article contains his closing arguments (pale blue box starting with "Niels Harrits procedure")
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article2071338.ece
This article contains the exact wording used.
"'Skal vi have en planche med kreationistisk plattenslageri op at hænge på en af Danmarks fineste oplysningsinstitutioner? Hvorfor ikke bare invitere Niels Harrit og de andre tosser fra 9/11 skeptiker-miljøet ind, nu vi er i gang? Hvad med Holocaust-benægtermiljøet? "
Translates as :"Shall we have a board with creationist ("plattenslageri" is fraud/disinformation - snake oil peddling) up on the wall of one of Denmarks finest educational institutions? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other loons from the 911-skeptic community inside, while we're at it? And what about the Holocaust-denier community?"
This is the text he sued the newspaper over. I don't have the energy to translate his closing arguments, but a cursory read shows he's running all over the place, trying to prove his 911-allegations, instead of focusing on the libel.
-
This article contains his closing arguments (pale blue box starting with "Niels Harrits procedure")
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article2071338.ece
This article contains the exact wording used.
"'Skal vi have en planche med kreationistisk plattenslageri op at hænge på en af Danmarks fineste oplysningsinstitutioner? Hvorfor ikke bare invitere Niels Harrit og de andre tosser fra 9/11 skeptiker-miljøet ind, nu vi er i gang? Hvad med Holocaust-benægtermiljøet? "
Translates as :"Shall we have a board with creationist ("plattenslageri" is fraud/disinformation - snake oil peddling) up on the wall of one of Denmarks finest educational institutions? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other loons from the 911-skeptic community inside, while we're at it? And what about the Holocaust-denier community?"
This is the text he sued the newspaper over. I don't have the energy to translate his closing arguments, but a cursory read shows he's running all over the place, trying to prove his 911-allegations, instead of focusing on the libel.
I'm not surprised by the underlined part. I have to wonder if he brought this suit because he really felt defamed, or if he just thought it was a good way to spout his nonsense in an official forum. Either way, I hope it was worth the 15.000 dKr to him ;D
-
Are the Danish libel laws similar? Is that why Harrit lost?
Probably. And also Harrits own choice to not hire an attorney. Since his expertise (?) is chemistry, and his performance didn't revolve around the legal aspects of the case, he didn't stand much of a chance.
He WAS a chemistry teacher the Copenhagen University, now retired.
-
For those interested. Here are his closing arguments - google translated. I'll try to correct the worst blunders by the GT.
Niels Harrit procedure - as was argued in court on 16 8
HIGH COURT x
In 1593 Galileo Galilei lived in the Italian city of Pisa. Among other things, he amused himself by throwing various objects from the Leaning Tower - throughout the city's attention.
These tests are considered as the starting point for science. It was the first quantitative, systematic experiments in science history and led to the establishment of Galileo's two falls laws describing bodies' free fall towards the ground.
Galileo's experiments were of great importance, and the results were the basis for Newton's famous Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in the 1687th
It contains Newton's three laws , the other of which is a mathematical direct derivation of Galileo 2 law of gravitation.
My lecture is about the collapse of the three skyscrapers in Manhattan, 11th September 2001.
I demonstrate here, based on figures, data and observations using the scientific method that the three skyscrapers in the World Trade Center did not collapse as a result of a collision with the two jets.
This conclusion is a direct consequence of Galileo's case laws of Newton's three laws of motion - and the law of conservation of energy.
In other words: The official explanation is inconsistent with the most basic laws of science.
Soren Villemoes ' article in the Weekend newspaper is headed
MADNESS IN THE BLACK DIAMOND !
The article is certainly not humorous, but offers terms such as "offensive nonsense","the mad frenzy","diplomatic and scientific mess", etc.
We got a picture of a veritable madhouse.
When Soren Villemoes should illustrate the madness which he believes has at the Royal Library, he wrote the following:
"Should we have a poster with creationist plattenslageri on the wall on one of the finest information institutions in Denmark? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other idiots from 9/11 skeptic environment now we're at it? What about the Holocaust denier environment? "
As explained, my scientific work rooted in science deepest reason. Juxtaposing it with "creationist plattenslageri" and "Holocaust denial" implies an unequivocal accusation of scientific misconduct and thus a charge .
Academic dishonesty is something University of Copenhagen does not like , which include seen in the case against Elena Penkova. (Note: Penkowa was a highly regarded brain researcher, until it was discovered she had fudged several experiments, falsified images and made lab notes up without doing the experiments. Grants were removed, she was fired and a court case is pending. - Allan F)
A charge must be documented.
But the defendant has not at all been able to document its accusations - yes, have even demonstrated complete ignorance of my scientific activities.
During the hearing of evidence, Soren Villemoes acknowledged
1) That he is completely without means to understand and criticize scientific problems,
2) That he has attended one of my lectures. This claim, however, appear as untrustworthy as Soren Villemoes could not remember where and when he was at this lecture. It is called selective memory. When questioned, he acknowledged that he had nothing to criticize the lecture. As can therefore be assumed that he could remember? It's hard to believe this explanation.
3) That he has read the scientific article that describes the content of dust from the World Trade Center and is authored by yours truly, along with eight other authors. Then he made accusations against our samples authenticity despite the "chain of custody" is thoroughly described in the article. Soren Villemoes accusing us undisguised of falsifying samples! It is a crystal clear allegations of scientific misconduct and thus a charge in the criminal sense.
4) The defendant's witnesses characterized him my activities as "pseudo science, revisionist theories" and that I was in violation of "consensus" , which was based "in science." Again, this undisguised accusations of scientific misconduct and therefore charges in the criminal sense.
The defamatory statements is set forth in the obvious intention to belittle and ridicule me, which is clearly revealed when Soren Villemoes user predicate "idiot". And it happens - as explained - in a context that is anything but playful.
LEGAL ISSUES
I am not a lawyer. So I looked up law texts, Posted 03/06/2002, last modified 18/08/2011 .
Under "libel "can also include read:
The Criminal Code defines two forms of defamation (§ 267) : First, " offensive words or actions " also called contempt utterances. First, "charges" , that is insulting accusations.
The old formulations of the Criminal Code must be interpreted in accordance with the Human Rights Court. The distinction between value judgments and accusations (same as charges ) . '
The value judgments that includes opinions and ratings shall not special requirements for documentation . Value judgments can not be proved or disproved , and there may be a requirement that assessments have some factual basis.
But accusations (equivalent to " charges " in the Danish Criminal Code) , appears as facts , and here required documentation.
The specific context determines whether an utterance most emerging as a fact or most similar to an opinion or judgment.
Human Rights Court has in recent decades been important in the Danish courts . It is emphasized that the subject has " public interest " or " public interest " and is dismissed if information is based on research that meets the standards of good journalism. "
MATERIAL COLLECTION FROM SØREN JUUL
Lawyer Søren Juul sent the day before yesterday ( d.14/8-2013 ) a collection of material to highlight the importance of Danish case law on Article 10 of the European Menneskeretttighedskonvention .
The distinction
One consequence , as we read in Schaumburg -Müller's article ,
P. 8: "The problem with this simple theoretical distinction ( ie between accusation and defamatory utterances / NH) is that it is not particularly useful in practice. "
P.9 : " Often it will not be necessary to use the distinction ."
P.9 : " The distinction can not form the basis of ( criminal ) court judgment. "
In truth proof ( Schaumburg- Müller continued)
P.9 : " .... it was in breach of Article 10 to require proof of the truth " value judgments " when they also were based on correct facts. "
P.9 : " There is no truth required evidence of value judgments when they are based on anything factual . "
P.9 : " In my judgment can not therefore deprive truth of proof in libel cases , at least not if the case is just some public interest. "
P.11 : " Danish practice, however, examples of the limits of press freedom , the more stringent requirements for the information content in the case of individuals. "
P.15 : " ... the practice of EMD does not accept punishment for assessments made on the basis of facts. "
NH: Which all means that assessments are not made on the basis of facts , shall be liable to punishment.
Oluf Jørgensen Article
Page 19: " An accusation is permissible only if the journalist or other writer in the publication has a reasonably sound basis for believing in the accuracy . "
Page 20: " There can be no requirement of proof of an opinion or judgment. But it may not be completely without factual basis . "
NH CONCLUSION : Although value judgments must have a minimum of factual basis .
Supreme Court Decision in Case of Kjaersgaard
Karen Sund was convicted of libel in the High Court.
But she will be acquitted by the Supreme Court .
In the Supreme Court premises writes , p 39:
" The European Convention on Human distinguish whether there is a value judgment ( " value judgment " ) or an opinion on a fact ( " statement of fact " ) . May be required indeed evidence of a statement of fact , but not a value judgment , which should not be excessive ( " excessive " ) and below must not entirely lack a factual basis . "
Supreme Court acquits her because:
Page 41 : "The use of the word ( racist ) ..... have had sufficient basis in Pia Kjærsgaards opinions on the Danish People's Party's annual meeting. "
CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court's decision implies therefore that the acquittal of making defamatory statements requires - even for value judgments - that there must be a factual basis .
END OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS
Primary: Alleged criminal charges
As a summary and conclusions of the review of these legal references must begin by finding that the Danish Criminal Code is not written on . Criminal Code defamation clause no 267 - and particularly the aggravating circumstances in paragraph 3 if the insults disseminated to a wider circle - is still Danish law.
In law it operates with the notion of " the specific context " that determines whether a defamatory utterance is a charge or a value judgment .
This " specific context " includes today's hearing and Soren Villemoes 's testimony , where he has characterized my activities as pseudoscience .
In his article in the Weekend newspaper has Søren Villemoes demonstrated that his placement of my scientific work in the category of " creationist plattenslageri " and " Holocaust denial" - the specific context - clearly implies an allegation of scientific misconduct .
And it is a charge that requires clear evidence to prevail .
We have not seen truth evidence today. Yes we have not even lifted us from the starting line.
Thus , the defendant has not had a single witness who could substantiate their charges .
They can not .
That's because I'm right.
Alternative opinions are " value judgments "
Should it - contrary to expectations - be that the court finds that Sean Villemoes ' statements are value judgments made there - even in the Human Rights Court - the requirement that assessments have some factual basis.
From Soren Juul Material Collection I have enumerated many examples from case law and literature that a factual basis is an absolute condition to impunity can be obtained for a defamatory utterance.
For press this minimum requirement is fulfilled only if the defamatory statements are based on " research that meets the standards of good journalism ... " .
I need not emphasize that SV 's article does not meet this requirement and hence the requirement of impunity.
So - in this case it really matter whether one adopts the Danish Criminal Code distinction between criminal charges and contemptuous expression , or accept the concept of the convergence of Clause 10 of the ECHR and the subsequent case .
The defendant has demonstrated that he can under no circumstances provide a factual basis , this minimum, there must be , that he can achieve impunity for making defamatory statements - whether charges or value judgments .
Therefore I maintain the claim - that the defendants ar sentected partly for libel , and partly for the spread of such .
CLEARANCE
Until seven years ago , I thought that the World Trade Center consisted of two twin towers and they collapsed due to collision with the two jets.
Then I happen to be a video showing the collapse of World Trade Center 7
I immediately had two problems.
If what I saw really was the World Trade Center , there was an obvious discrepancy between the number of airplanes and skyscrapers . There were two jets , but three skyscrapers.
Which - still the first - meant that the people who control the media information in Denmark , had decided that the collapse of Building 7 was an event that I should not know about.
Secondly , I could not understand why this building would collapse for no apparent reason.
I have lived a long life in science after I received a thorough education at the University 50 years ago .
I have taught at all levels of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. I have published more than 60 scientific papers in the best journals . I have lost count of the number of masters - and Ph.D. is I've trained. I belong to a generation where we did not keep records of the kind .
Scientists have an instinctive , analytical relation to our physical surroundings. We I would like to understand how it works.
In all modesty , so it goes pretty well most of the time .
But at the sight of Building 7 's collapse , I was confronted with an inexplicable riddle : How on earth could this skyscraper - three times Rigshospitalet - collapse on the way ?
Symmetrical , I could see .
With free fall acceleration - I had to later admit.
Without any apparent reason ?
It took me several weeks to understand that this event was the most important event in my time and that I had to look at it.
Which led me - and thousands of peers across the globe - to the conclusion that there was an obvious contradiction between the official story on the one hand and the elementary laws of nature on the other.
The official story is simply contrary to Galileo and Newton .
At that moment , it was "pay -back time" for me.
I got my ( excellent ) education of society in his time. And society has paid my salary in the over forty years that I have taught and researched at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.
My inner voice - Kant 's categorical imperative - said that now it was time to bring this scientific insight back - into the public debate.
I was naive enough to believe that if only we stood on a soap box and told the truth, then ran it all by itself .
Nix .
My idea of the Danish press and integrity of the persons who control it, was naive .
Therefore this lawsuit basically not about me .
The act effectively on the information I have tried to give the Danish public, and - most importantly - it is about an influential representative of the Danish press, a prominent newspaper , which is widely respected for its high journalistic standard.
But in this case Weekend newspaper tried to discredit the messenger rather than listen to what he says .
Yes , the truth hurts.
But the lie is killing us !
Lawyer Juul likely in a moment rely on the press right to use a certain freedom of speech on matters of public interest. But journalists who speak out about Bruno Kreitsky whether Haider - which are the examples Søren Juul has brought in his collection of materials - allocated a certain space , I can not see is relevant to this case.
It had dressed Søren Juul if he had instead pointed to libel law , where scientists had been wrongly accused of dishonesty and where the infringer had been acquitted .
Apparently he did not find any .
It's not because scientists have not been subjected to sanctions from society because of their work.
I therefore conclude by telling you about the most famous of all these cases.
Galileo Galilei was commissioned by the Catholic Church to write a book about the workings of the world. But based on his observations - and the earlier work of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler - he wrote that the sun was the center of the world , and that the earth revolved around outside .
The church did not like that.
So in 1633 was Galilei before the Inquisition. We do not know how he was treated in the four months he spent in detention before trial. He had his seventieth birthday along the way. But we know that during the trial itself was established instruments of torture in a corner of the room , presumably to ensure - as it did - that the old man in the bar shirt, got down on his knees for there to swear that the earth stood still in the center of the universe .
Galileo's book came on the church's list of banned books and was for 1838.
Our civilization has made great progress since Galileo's time. And although the torture has come into fashion again at other latitudes in the wake of 11 September has still liberalism Grundtvig Denmark , where scientists can provide information about natural law , their consequences without being accused of dishonesty and exposed to other insults .
I expect the court with its decision today confirms this state.
Thank you.
-
Wow, he starts right off with the Galileo comparison.
This certainly does seem to be a remarkably reliable flag for crackpottery.
-
Wow, he starts right off with the Galileo comparison.
This certainly does seem to be a remarkably reliable flag for crackpottery.
Especially since the Galileo episode basically seems to have been a pissing contest between G.G. and the Pope, while the rest of the world went right along developing and refining the heliocentric model.
-
Tell me more. History isn't my strong point, but it would be useful to know the full story here.
-
The whole business about Galileo's arrest and persecution could have been averted if only Galileo hadn't been such an arrogant sod.
Galileo had a history of acting as if his knowledge and observations of the world and skies set him up waaaay above his peers. He was often denigrating and insulting of those who did not understand or disagreed with his arguments and, rather like a certain person who recently returned to this forum, dismissed everyone who suggested he might be wrong as idiots best ignored. Unlike Heiwa, he was actually a remarkable scientist, and his arguments do indeed form the basis of a lot of modern science. He explained the ideas of relative motion centuries before Einstein formalised them with calculations, for example.
What he is best remembered for now is, of course, his conflict with the Catholic Church. He agreed with the Copernican idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Unlike Copernicus, who had simply hypothesised and drawn up new models, he had the tools to make better observations that supported some of the ideas. The phases of Venus, for example, or the discovery of the four largest moons of Jupiter which are still to this day known as the Galilean satellites. Here for the first time were observational proofs that not everything revolved first and foremost around the Earth. Jupiter's moons were clearly revolving around Jupiter, whatever Jupiter itself was revolving around. Venus's phases were only possible if Venus revolved around the Sun. Galileo presented these observations to many people and argued in favour of the heliocentric system. The church in fact had nothing against his promotion of this idea.
What is often not mentioned by the people who want to use Galileo's persecution as some kind of defence for their arguments is that Galileo was not just some random scientist whose book caught the eye of the church officials and ticked off the Pope. Galileo was a personal freind of the Pope at that time and had many a face to face conversation with him about the studies he had made of the heavens. He requested, and was granted, permission to publish his ideas about the heliocentric model directly from the pope, under the condition that he include a disclaimer to the effect that since God is omnipotent he could easily have made the system appear to fit a heliocentric model while still having the Earth fixed in the centre. After all, He can do anything. Galileo agreed.
He then shot himself in the foot, because his arrogant nature couldn't let him pass up the opportunity to snidely show what he thought of these arguments. He wrote the treatise as a dialogue between three people: The scientist, who represented his own arguments; the 'man in the street', who was basically the intelligent but ill-informed man who provided the questions to be answered; and the religious person who held to the belief of a geocentric world. It's a brilliant piece of work, but for two things: First, his scientist has all the same arrogance and dismissveness of Galileo, and is frankly obnoxious, several times going off on long rants about how idiotic some of the arguments against his conclusions are and what fools people must be to hold to them. Second, the religious character was given the name Simplicio which, as it sounds, means loosely 'simpleton'. He put all the geocentric arguments and the disclaimer insisted upon by the Pope in the mouth of this simple person he'd been ridiculing throughout the work! Oddly enough, the Pope and his cardinals were not overly impressed by this, and hence the whole house arrest and trial occurred. Galileo had been given a chance to publish his arguments but couldn't resist ticking off the highest authority in the land, and paid the consequences for it.
He was never persecuted simply because he believed in a heliocentric system, though this is often what the crackpots believe (or want us to believe), but rather he suffered because of the way he presented it.
I can strongly recommend reading the work, Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems. It is a brilliant read if you can get past the rudeness of the main protagonist, and shows just how intelligent Galileo actually was.
-
Oh, yeah. No, if Galileo hadn't been so arrogant and obnoxious, the world might look very different today. Makes you wonder who crackpots would choose as their primary comparison, though, doesn't it?
-
So what was Galileo forced to recant?
-
Well, it became obvious to anyone who'd read the book which system he favoured. That, you'll forgive the reference, he wasn't "just asking questions."
-
So what was Galileo forced to recant?
He was forced to recant his belief in the heliocentric world system. Up until that point the Church had never had much of a problem with the model, on the understanding that it was just that: a model that could be used more simply to predict the movements of the celestial objects. As long as Galileo did not claim that the world system was actually heliocentric and presented it is a true debate on the relative merits of the two models he would have been fine. And he had been told as much by the Pope, for heaven's sake! But his arrogance wouldn't let him do that and he not only presented it in such a way as to heavily favour the heliocentric model, he put the position of the Church in the character of a simple idiot. He essentially provoked them, and got his just desserts for doing so.
Yes, these days we know he was right, but the situation is not as the crackpots present it: that he published a theory that the Church disagreed with and they punished him unjustly for it. He was given a golden opportunity to publish his work without upsetting anyone, despite the controversial nature of the argument, but couldn't manage to do it because he was such a git.
-
No, if Galileo hadn't been so arrogant and obnoxious, the world might look very different today.
Indeed. Had he stuck to the guidelines and presented it as a purely academic work as he had been asked to, then quite possibly the heliocentric theory would have simply chugged along gaining more and more momentum with every new discovery and eventually the Church may have been persuaded by the evidence. Let's not forget that in that time scientists and members of the clergy were frequently one and the same. Copernicus was a monk, after all. There was none of this 'religion versus science' stuff that is so prevalent these days.
Instead, Galileo's arrogance resulted in a massive division that lasted for centuries. It was only in this century that an official statement from the pope was made admitting that Galileo was right!
Makes you wonder who crackpots would choose as their primary comparison, though, doesn't it?
Indeed. If ever time travel is invented I'd love to bring Galileo back to talk to some of these people who are using him to defend their crackpottery and watch him dismantle them in style....
-
Well, it became obvious to anyone who'd read the book which system he favoured. That, you'll forgive the reference, he wasn't "just asking questions."
No, he was actually answering them...
Thanks to Jason for a fascinating story, though I flinch at the highly subjective word "arrogant". The term is still a favorite of those on the losing side of a debate unable to answer the factual arguments from the other side. It's often lobbed at scientists who shoot down creationism and 'intelligent' design, for example.
I know it was a very different time, but it's still been several centuries since arrogance was universally considered a valid reason to deprive someone of their freedom. And sometimes those on the losing side of an issue even deserve to be ridiculed, especially those in positions of undeserved authority accustomed to a monopoly on what might also be called arrogance. Like, say, the medieval Church.
"One horse-laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent." - H.L. Mencken
-
I was watching a list of the hundred most influential people of the millennium, back in fall of '99, and number two on their list was Newton. And all I could think about was how angry he'd be that he wasn't number one. Sometimes, "arrogant" is the right word. It's just that "arrogant" is not a synonym for "wrong."
-
So who was #1 on that list?
-
Thanks to Jason for a fascinating story,
You're welcome.
though I flinch at the highly subjective word "arrogant". The term is still a favorite of those on the losing side of a debate unable to answer the factual arguments from the other side. It's often lobbed at scientists who shoot down creationism and 'intelligent' design, for example.
I agree the term is often misused. However, Galileo most certainly reaned its use. It was not just people who opose his views who thought so. He was widely regarded as such at the time and since, and reading his works and letter shows how obnoxiously arrogant he could be.
I know it was a very different time, but it's still been several centuries since arrogance was universally considered a valid reason to deprive someone of their freedom.
Alone it wouldn't have been, but when it is used to ridicule the highest authority in the land you can't expect to escape unscathed.
And sometimes those on the losing side of an issue even deserve to be ridiculed, especially those in positions of undeserved authority accustomed to a monopoly on what might also be called arrogance. Like, say, the medieval Church.
However true that may be, Galileo had enaged in numerous conversations with the Pope about his belief in the heliocentric system. They had debated it at length, and by all accounts quite reasonably. There are no reports of heated arguments and by all accounts the two men were good friends. Galileo had argued his side, the Pope had argued (quite rightly) that the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter, while they show that not everything has Earth as its primary, are not in themselves proof of a moving Earth. The Tychonic system was still held by some as a pretty decent compromise which would also answer the observations. As a way of modelling the movements of the heavens there was no objection to the heliocentric theory. As an actual description of reality there was. Galileo was given an opportunity to present the arguments, instead of which he stuck a knife between the Pope's shoulder blades, publicly ridiculing his arguments and effectively calling him an idiot. That understandably annoyed him. Whether his response was justified is another discussion in itself, but you have to admit Galileo pretty well shot himself in the foot.
-
So who was #1 on that list?
Gutenberg. On the grounds that, without him, we probably wouldn't have heard of most of the others or else that they relied on him for their own advances. Though that didn't stop them from putting Elizabeth I lower than both Shakespeare and Drake.
Oh, and don't forget that the character who was advocating geocentrism in the book was called "Simplicio." That's not exactly subtle. Galileo claimed he'd named the guy after an earlier astronomer, but would you have believed him?
-
Indeed. If ever time travel is invented I'd love to bring Galileo back to talk to some of these people who are using him to defend their crackpottery and watch him dismantle them in style....
He could also possibly get over his arrogance by observing the tact and subtlety with which scientists today usually talk about creationists.
That said, this great division which was the product of Galileo's arrogance is not much in evidence to me.
-
That sounds like an interesting list; can you provide a link?
I wonder about the criteria. Should it include inventors of influential inventions? Even though I'm an engineer I'd lean against it. Contrary to popular belief, few if any inventions come from some solitary genius toiling away in his lab, conceiving things no one else would ever have thought of. (The patent system is based on this myth, one of the reasons it's so thoroughly broken.)
The real basis of invention is the underlying science, so Newton certainly deserves his spot. Applications of a new scientific principle usually appear very quickly, often by several people at the same time. The classic example is the telephone, invented nearly simultaneously by Bell and Grey.
So I wonder about Gutenberg. The moveable type printing press was certainly the most influential invention of the last milennia, but if Gutenberg hadn't invented it don't you think someone else would have?
OTOH, Shakespeare probably deserves his spot on the list. Had he never existed, no number of monkeys would ever have written the same set of plays.
-
Galileo had argued his side, the Pope had argued (quite rightly) that the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter, while they show that not everything has Earth as its primary, are not in themselves proof of a moving Earth. The Tychonic system was still held by some as a pretty decent compromise which would also answer the observations.
William of Ockham/Occam lived from 1287-1347, so wouldn't educated people of Galileo's time be well aware of his Razor? That's all you really need to reject the Tychonic system given everyone's observations.
-
William of Ockham/Occam lived from 1287-1347, so wouldn't educated people of Galileo's time be well aware of his Razor? That's all you really need to reject the Tychonic system given everyone's observations.
Which observations in particular at the time went against the Tychonic system?
The point still stands, however: educated people of Galileo's time knew that ticking off the leader of the Catholic Church was not a good move. Galileo had his ear. They were friends. He'd discussed it all with him and he had a great chance to present his arguments to the world. In doing so he called pretty well the entire church, and the Pope in particular, idiots. For a clever man that was a remarkably stupid thing to do.
-
Which observations in particular at the time went against the Tychonic system?
You miss the point. Occam's Razor does not require observations inconsistent with the Tychonic system. The observations are consistent with both the Tychonic and heliocentric systems, so the mere fact that the Tychonic system is considerably more complex is enough to reject it.
In other words, the Tychonic system fails because of its gratuitous complexity. The Pope presumably wanted to retain it for purely religious reasons but religion has no place in science, period. (Not everyone knew that then or even now, but that doesn't make it any less true.)
Now if new observations consistent only with the Tychonic system had appeared, then its extra complexity would no longer be gratuitous. It would be justified, at least until some other hypothesis also consistent with the evidence were to appear with some of that complexity removed.
-
That sounds like an interesting list; can you provide a link?
Astonishingly, I can, despite the fact that the "official" link is just to study questions. http://www.wmich.edu/mus-gened/mus170/biography100 (http://www.wmich.edu/mus-gened/mus170/biography100) Note that I take no responsibility for the vagaries of spelling, capitalization, and so forth on this page.
I wonder about the criteria. Should it include inventors of influential inventions? Even though I'm an engineer I'd lean against it. Contrary to popular belief, few if any inventions come from some solitary genius toiling away in his lab, conceiving things no one else would ever have thought of. (The patent system is based on this myth, one of the reasons it's so thoroughly broken.)
I don't think "no one else would have done it" should be the point, so I'm fine with inventors' making the list. (Though few did.) I think the fact that they did do it is sufficient.
The real basis of invention is the underlying science, so Newton certainly deserves his spot. Applications of a new scientific principle usually appear very quickly, often by several people at the same time. The classic example is the telephone, invented nearly simultaneously by Bell and Grey.
Sure, but let's then discuss calculus, shall we?
So I wonder about Gutenberg. The moveable type printing press was certainly the most influential invention of the last milennia, but if Gutenberg hadn't invented it don't you think someone else would have?
Sure. But they didn't. If someone else had, someone else would have that spot. (Millennium. "Millennia" is plural.) Leaving aside that there are some people on the list that I don't consider all that influential (Caruso? Really?) and that I quibble with some of their placement, there are very few people who I'd say could not have had what they did done by someone else, and most of those are artists. There is only one Mozart, and while some of the changes in music were inevitable, they wouldn't all have come from a single person.
OTOH, Shakespeare probably deserves his spot on the list. Had he never existed, no number of monkeys would ever have written the same set of plays.
Sure. But we never would have heard of him had the Puritans succeeded in closing the playhouses, which they didn't, because Elizabeth I stopped them. Ergo, she is more influential than he is. It seems I'm wrong and Drake isn't even on the list, but she created an England with room for a Drake and a Shakespeare. The first English colonies in the New World were founded during her reign. She's too low on the list.
-
So I wonder about Gutenberg. The moveable type printing press was certainly the most influential invention of the last milennia, but if Gutenberg hadn't invented it don't you think someone else would have?
Of course, but then if Neil Armstong hadn't been first out of the LM in July 1969 someone else would have. Does that take away his historical significance?
It doesn't matter that someone would have done something or invented something or discovered something: The point is that one person did and deserves the credit for such. You could make the same argument for new scientific principles: if Einstein hadn't come up with special and general relativity don't you think someone else would have?
-
You miss the point. Occam's Razor does not require observations inconsistent with the Tychonic system. The observations are consistent with both the Tychonic and heliocentric systems, so the mere fact that the Tychonic system is considerably more complex is enough to reject it.
The Tychonic system is not considerably more complex. In fact it is beautifully elegant in explaining the motions of the heavens and explaining why no-one can tell that the Earth is moving. At the time Kepler's elliptical orbits were not widely accepted, and all three systems, Ptolemaic, Copernican and Tychonic, were absurdly complex, with equants and epicycles and so on. Putting Earth in the middle with everything else going round the Sun is one little bit of added complexity on a system that is already swimming in it, and the motion of the Earth required for the Copernican model was not only against religious dogma but against every sense. Remember also that the notion of light speed and the idea that stars were trillions of miles away (hence the lack of detectable parallax at the time) had not been widely accepted or understood either, so what we now think of as the absurd notion that those distant stars are whipping around at speeds many times that of light in order to make one revolution around a static Earth in 24 hours was not such an absurd notion then.
You could just as easily apply occam's razor to the answer to the question 'why don't we detect the motion of Earth directly?' Option one: because we, the air, the water, and everything else are moving along with it through a vacuum that leaves no trail to provide any evidence of our motion that we can detect, and that the stars are actually many orders of magnitude further away than we ever thought possible so we don't detect parallax, and that basically our entire understanding of the world around us is wrong, or option 2: Earth isn't moving. I know which seems simpler to me. I'm an educated man, but I lack the tools necessary to detect the evidence of Earth's motion, and if I didn't know how far away the stars I see every (clear) night are, I'd lack half the framework I needed to conclude that a rotating universe is a ridiculous notion.
-
In doing so he called pretty well the entire church, and the Pope in particular, idiots. For a clever man that was a remarkably stupid thing to do.
Unfortunately, scientific smarts and political (or even interpersonal) smarts do not seem to have any direct correlation. Which is why we don't see a world ruled by scientists (although many rulers have had scientific interests).
In this case, it was particularly unwise to write a treatise treating the religious authorities as simpletons, when they are actually smart enough to read the work and understand that is what you are doing. If he'd been dealing with stupider people, he might have gotten away with it.
-
I got lost in all the wordage: is there anyone here that supports Harrit? I mean, even one person?
-
I got lost in all the wordage: is there anyone here that supports Harrit? I mean, even one person?
No.
-
Gotta love that answer: No.
If we could do this via skype you'd see/hear me laughing my ass off.
-
I got lost in all the wordage: is there anyone here that supports Harrit? I mean, even one person?
Why don't you chime in?
Do you support Harrit in this matter?
Do you think calling Harrit, or anyone else, a "looney" or equivalent is actionable slander? If so why?
-
Gotta love that answer: No.
If we could do this via skype you'd see/hear me laughing my ass off.
If we were on Skype, you'd see/hear me sneezing. Allergies - hate 'em, right?
So, how about explaining your position, rather than wishing you were on Skype?
-
If we were on Skype, you'd see/hear me sneezing. Allergies - hate 'em, right?
There are a number of good reasons not to do this on Skype. Things like bewildered head shaking at the daftness of some HB statements comes to mind. It is better to keep those as far out of sight as possible. Ya, and the sneezing.
-
AND the possibility of people saying things they later deny. Or can't seem to remember.
-
It dawned on me just today why the name Niels Harrit sounded familiar.
(As you know, Bob...) Robert Heinlein published a novel titled The Number Of The Beast in 1980. On one level, at least, the book is a long string of thinly disguised references to various people.
One of the 'Black Hats' we meet early on is a university professor named "Neil O'Heret Brain", regarded by some of his peers as a crackpot and sometimes referred to, behind his back, as "N.O. Brain".
Now, while "Neil O'Heret Brain" is an anagram of "Robert A. Heinlein" (the book is full of self-referencing anagrams), that's still a pretty close resemblance, and casting the character as a crackpot professor... well, it just makes one wonder.
Of course the publication, and Mr. Heinlein's later death (1988) were years before 9/11 and the various nutjobs claims, but RAH kept up pretty well with the research in various scientific fields and could well have known of Harrit in 1980.
Just sort of random thoughts...