Tags: Brahe, Chief World Systems, Copernican, Copernicanism, Copernicus, Dialogue, Galileo, geo-heliocentrism, geocentrism,
There are many who refer the tides to the moon, saying that this has a particular dominion over the water. Lately a certain prelate has published a little tract wherein he says that the moon, wandering through the sky, attracts and draws up toward itself a heap of water which goes along following it…
Please, Simplicio, spare us the rest; I do not think there is any profit in spending the time to recount them, let alone the words to refute them. If you should give assent to any of these or to similar triflings, you would be wronging your own judgment.
But among all the great men who have philosophized about this remarkable effect, I am more astonished at Kepler than at any other…[who has] lent his ear and his assent to the moon’s dominion over the waters, to occult properties, and to such puerilities.
I maintain that your explanation of the tides is neither true nor conclusive, and that… God by his infinite power and wisdom might confer the reciprocal motion of the oceans in some other way than by making the containing vessel move…[and] beyond the apprehension of our intellect…this being so, it would be excessive boldness for anyone to limit and restrict the Divine power and wisdom to some particular fancy of his own.
What admirable and angelic doctrine! And so well in accord with another doctrine, also Divine, which, while granting us the liberty to debate about the constitution of the universe (perhaps so that the working of the human mind will not become attenuated or grow lethargic), adds that we cannot discover the work of His hands.
I have neither held nor defended the opinion of the earth’s motion and sun’s stability; on the contrary…Copernicus’s reasons are invalid and inconclusive. (April 10, 1633)
I have taken the Copernican side in the discourse…striving by every artifice to represent it as superior to supposing the earth motionless.
I freely confess that…a reader, unaware of my intention, would have had reason to form the opinion that the arguments for the false side [N.B. Galileo here means Copernicanism]…were so stated as to be capable of convincing because of their strength. In particular, two arguments, one based on sunspots and the other on the tides, are presented favourably to the reader as being strong and powerful…I inwardly and truly did and do hold them to be inconclusive and refutable…I resorted to that natural gratification everyone feels for his own subtleties and for showing himself to be cleverer than the average man, by finding ingenious and apparent considerations of probability even in favour of false propositions…My error then was – and I confess it – one of vain ambition, sheer ignorance, and culpable negligence.
I still hold Ptolemy’s opinion as actually true and certain, namely the immovability of the earth and the motion of the sun.
In regard to my writing of the Dialogue now published, I did not write thus because I held Copernicus’s opinion to be true…I do not hold the opinion of Copernicus, and I have not held it. (June 21, 1633)
As usual, Mark Steyn nails it...
The belated dispatch of Osama testifies to what the United States does well – elite warriors, superbly trained, equipped to a level of technological sophistication no other nation can match.Two questions trouble thinking Americans:
Everything else surrounding the event (including White House news management so club-footed that one starts to wonder darkly whether its incompetence is somehow intentional) embodies what the United States does badly. (Mark Steyn – OC Register)
1. Why did we get Osama Bin Laden when we did?
2. Is President Obama purposely screwing things up?
We Got Him!
There are many corollaries to the first question: Was Osama already dead, and we just held that knowledge in our back pocket to wait for the opportune time? Did the raid even really happen, or was it faked? Is Osama still alive?
Al Qaeda answered the last question in the negative, essentially confirming the official story.
“Occam’s Razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects” (Wikipedia)
Occam's Razor says the most plausible answer is the official story. Intelligence has been working this for years, and the time became ripe a month or so ago. That doesn't disprove other theories, it's just that this is the most plausible one.
What do you get when you take a community organizer from Chicago...
The second question can also be explained by Occam’s razor. Barack Obama had nothing in his past experience, training, or education that even remotely qualified him to be president, so his poor performance is no surprise.
He compounded our nation’s ills by surrounding himself with pointy-headed intellectuals who share his embarrassing poverty of real-world experience. National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon may be a fine man, but his foreign policy experience consists of being a lawyer on the periphery of US diplomacy. The administration is full of people like him. No wonder President Obama is screwing everything up.
Hanlon’s Razor also comes to mind…
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” (Wikipedia)This paragraph of the Wikipedia article is also instructive…
A practical observation on the risks of stupidity was made by the German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in Truppenführung, 1933:
"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities.
Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"I’ll leave it to you to decide if the paragraph fits, and if so, which part.
How was that for a change of pace? Cheers!!!