No Title

In A Discourse on Method, self-intellect is cast as the most important of human traits. Descartes speaks out against those who accept the word of others or the church without first asking the most important question of "why?" When looking at the skyline of A Discourse on Method, the most prominent building that stands out is logical thought. While Descartes uses the term self-intellect, a more appropriate term should be logical thought. The ultimate goal of his writings is to encourage the population to think through the basis of what they believe. Rather than just accept the religious teachings as truth and believing anything the church says, Descartes wants people to consider what the teachings imply and judge on a case by case basis which teachings are worth listening to and which should be disregarded. The most relevant modern day example comes with the government. Some people blindly accept government policy as it is given. However men like Stephen Colbert and John Stewart act as Descartes. These men ask American citizens to look at their blind faith in the government and reconsider it. They ask vital questions about why certain policies have been made and make even the most carefully crafted policy seem ridiculous. Their careful analysis of the government helps people realize the ridiculous nature of what they are trained to think. This training can happen unintentionally just from people choosing to ignore what is happening in the world. Just like Descartes, Stewart and Colbert find the most important thing to be the ability to think for oneself and develop valid arguments to back up one’s own opinions.

Descartes

Descartes focuses on widening his understanding of the world. He sets out to do this by (1) abandoning his previous preconceptions about right, wrong, and the like, (2) reading and travelling in order to expose himself to the most of what is available to him, and (3) rebuilding and refining his beliefs. Descartes begins by realizing that his teachers and his studies were biased on the whole; he rests with the idea that he “could discover much more truth from the reasoning that we all make about things that affect us and that will soon cause us harm if we misjudge them, than from the speculations in which a scholar engages in the privacy of his study” (11). On this note, he holds that because students are fed the ideas of their schools and teachers, they are not easily able to formulate their own opinions based on experience. He argues that “our judgments are [not] as pure or as solid as they might have been if we had full use of our reason from the moment of our birth, and had been guided by that alone” (13), thus he seeks to revise his judgments from their base. Descartes describes this process in four parts: (1) only accept what has been proven or is incontrovertible, (2) break the ideas down into separate parts, (3) reevaluate the parts from simplest to most complex, and (4) expose himself to ideas that may conflict with his, so that he can really see all that he has taken it all into account. After the end of these processes, after nine years, Descartes comes to the conclusion that his moral code – that is, what is most important to him – is to: obey laws, customs, and God; be firm in his actions and opinions; and control his desires (in a similar fashion to what Krishna would promote) by trying his best and accepting defeat.

Friendship is like peeing on yourself, everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feelin that it brings

Rene Decartes shows that self-intellect is the most important thing a person should have. He doesn't like it when people just go off of what philosophers and what the church tells people to do. He feels that people start to only believe what they say and then that gives people narrowed views on a topic when they should be able to think in a large general way. Decartes does not feel that everyone should know all the information about all topics and that sometimes their is guidance needed, but never should someone just hear one persons view on an argument and then make that their own stance. They should use the guidance as a guide and that is all and then form their own self opinions. This is shown when Decartes says "So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine." Decartes holds self-intellect very high on what every human should have and he will disagree with anything that tries to take individuality out of people's opinions.
'

One's Own Path

In Rene Decartes book, A Discourse on the Method, he seeks to show people that they need to use their own intelligence to find what is the truth. However, he does not wish for those people to just blindly jump to conclusions and become single minded and think that their own way is the only right way. This is why he frowns upon the church and philosophers. They all believe that their way of thinking is correct and become single minded. Rene Decartes seeks to promote the idea of thinking with an open mind to all possible answers, not just one's own, and respecting the answers of others “So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine,” (6). He wants people to use their intelligence to spread the knowlege around so as to make all of the people better. This is done to attempt to break the two different types of minds that Decartes believes exists, the minds of people who have too much confidence in their own intelligence and the minds of people who only follow the "intelligent people." He wants everybody to realize the fact that people are all intelligent on some level“Good sense is the most evenly distributed thing in the world” (Descartes 5). This fact however can be debated but according to Decartes beliefs, people should be open minded and not think like that.

I believe that in A Discourse on the Methods, René Descartes is showing how self-intellect is very important to him. He is concerned about people having a strong foundation for their beliefs. He states “I concluded that nothing solid could have been built on such shaky foundations” (10). He is describing how many disciplines just take knowledge and ideas from philosophers and use them as fact, without any further thought of their own.

Descartes comments how “I learned not to believe too firmly in anything that only example and custom had persuaded me of” (11). This is a similar ideal to that of Socrates when he was questioning Euthyphro. It is important to both Socrates and Descartes that people understand the things that they put so much faith in. they urge people not to follow philosophers with blind loyalty, but to think for yourself and discover on your own terms what is true. In part 1, Descartes tells how, no matter how much literature he read, he never really learned anything for himself, he was just accepting other’s words as fact. Thusly, he abandoned all this reading and literature and set out for 9 years of traveling to experience things for himself.

Rene Descartes

It appears that Descartes holds a similar opinion regarding knowledge as Socrates. For instance, throughout the first three parts of Descartes Discourse on the Method, he details his travels to various cultures, and he uses each experience to challenge and solidify his own opinions. Because, as Descartes points out in the beginning of the reading, all men have the equal ability to judge, but “we have different ways of directing our thoughts, and do not take into account the same things” (5). So, the experience of a singular culture does not guarantee in any way the correctness of an idea, but rather each society should be utilized so as to examine every perspective of the topic at hand. Descartes then emphasizes that with this challenged and subsequently strengthened knowledge, we should be sure to act upon it. “The most important thing, is to apply it correctly” (5). So, as Descartes outlines the methods by which he has reached this conclusion, he hopes the Discourse on the Method will be used as a guideline for others to discover the same. In effect, Descartes appears to be concerned with two main things. One, is to emphasize that opinions should be challenged and explored and solidified so that the subsequent knowledge can applied. Second, the Discourse is intended specifically to guide people in the method by which Descartes reached this conclusion that regards the appropriateness of how life should be lived.

Storytime

I believe in the book A Discourse on the Method, Descartes is trying to get across a point. In part one, I believe he is trying to portray and paint a picture of his early childhood. He goes on to say on page 6, “…in this essay, I shall gladly reveal the paths I have followed and paint my life as it were in a picture, so that everyone may come to a judgement about it.” Also, I believe that Descartes is also trying to introduce a new of thinking and teach and or educate people about his positions. After my first quote, he goes on to say, “I shall add a new way of acquiring knowledge to those which I habitually employ.” Also, he goes on to say, “So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine.” These quotes I believe just supported my argument on what Descartes is trying to say early on in his book. In part two, I believe he continues telling a story and painting a picture of his life. He starts off part two by telling the story of his hiatus and arrival at Germany for the wars and keeps telling the stories. The way I interpreted was that Descartes was just trying to give some background on his life to set up chapters later in the book.

Descartes

Rene Descartes writes his essay ­A Discourse on the Method on the importance of using your intelligence and making the most of what you are given. He says, “So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine,” (6). He wrote the essay with intentions of others using it as a sort of step-stool towards good actions yet not to follow verbatim. He feels everyone has their own mind and should use it to its full potential, and some just need help being guided in the right direction.
Descartes feels there is nothing more discouraging than a great mind that is not used to its full potential. He quotes “it is not enough to possess a good mind, the most important thing is to apply it correctly,” (5). One who possesses a high IQ but chooses to not study or apply themselves Descartes feels is a waste of potential and he feels it is wrong to those who were not blessed with the gift but use what knowledge they do have to the best of their power. Knowledge is an incredible gift and if used right is a gift to more than one. The magic and power can be spread throughout a community and that is exactly what Descartes wanted.

Challenge

Descartes cares about reasoning. He wants people to actively think about what they are doing and have a clear method and steps instead of simply going through the motions that someone else instructed them to perform. He says “…There are those who, believing themselves cleverer than they are, cannot stop themselves jumping to conclusions, and do not have enough patience to govern their thoughts in an orderly way…Second, there are those who…must content themselves with following the opinions of others rather than seeking better ones from themselves,” (15). With this quote Descartes is telling you what he cares about. He wants people to make up their own minds and use their own ideas, but to do it in a way that is logical so other people will be able to understand it. He continues with this when he says “The first was never to accept anything as true that I did not incontrovertibly know to be so…and to include nothing in my judgments other than that which presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly, that I would have no occasion to doubt it.
“...The third was to conduct my thoughts in a given order, beginning with the simplest and most easily understood objects, and gradually ascending…to the knowledge of the most complex…” (17). This makes it clear that Descartes cares about thinking for yourself, but documenting your steps in a way that will allow others to go back and follow what you have done and recreate it. Descartes wants people to challenge what they accept as true and try to come up with an alternative, as long as it is well documented.

Rene Descartes states the purpose of his essay right on page six. He states, “So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine,” (6). He wants his essay to be a useful guide to people for actions they should imitate, and not follow.

However, I believe Descartes is concerned with how people utilize their minds. He wanted to be very clear that each person is given the same tools for success (good sense and reason). Descartes said, “The diversity of our opinions arises not from the fact that some of us are more reasonable than others, but solely that we have different ways of directing our thoughts, and do not take into account the same things. For it is not enough to possess a good mind, the most important thing is to apply it correctly,” (5).

By telling people his story, he is encouraging them to use their own minds and form their own conclusions. Descartes wants people to gain as much knowledge as they can in their life time and reap all the benefits from it. As Anya said, he wants people to know how to use their intelligence and interpret their learning’s with it.

In his essay, A Discourse on the Method, Descartes is concerned for the common good of the people. He wants people to get as much out of their lives as possible, and live their lives to the fullest extent by learning.

Triumph of Experience

One of the more minor notes about Descartes' text is the avocation of equality among men that he emphasizes in the first few pages. He feels that all men have been created with the same amount of reason and that there is no aristocracy of inherent understanding as had been suggested in the past. This seemed to stray a bit from his thesis about his own reasoning, but was probably added just so he could come off a humble. The heart of his writing was the fact that he feels a formal education leaves the curious mind hungry for more knowledge. He seems to feel that the various subjects and histories he learned in his schooling are irrelevant to his life in his time and separate him from what is going on around him. To soothe this academic hunger he decided to leave his education in favor of traveling the world to gain his knowledge first hand. This represents Descartes' values in the field of knowledge and wisdom. He feels that true knowledge can only be gained through one's own first hand experience and that it is far more valuable than simply knowing facts from civilizations past. This has a number of implications, as it redefines what knowlege is and who is knowledgable. So it is not the Stanford graduate with a 4.0 GPA, but the plumber who has worked all over the United States that is more intelligent by Descartes' definition. And it will typically be the old who are more intelligent than the youth, as they have likely been many more places and done many more things. This is not set in stone, however, as if the old person was a shut in their entire life. Descartes would likely consider them rather stupid. It is an interesting claim Descartes makes and one that is not entirely valid in my view.

Descartes Skyline

Rene Descartes is a very interesting person to read about. His style of writing portrays a man who is intelligent, but is modest about it and does not brag. While reading the parts one, two and three in his A Discourse on the Method, what he cares about most is the application of one’s mind.

This is what Descartes cares about most because he makes many references to it within those three sections. He even begins his book with a statement about intelligence: “Good sense is the most evenly distributed thing in the world” (Descartes 5). This sets the rest of the book up to hear about intelligence and mind application. Descartes discusses the two types of minds: the ones who are overly confident on their intelligence, and the ones who follow the overly confident ones. This proves that Descartes spends much time deciphering what people think and feel about opinions and how they express that feeling.

Descartes wants each human to use their mind well; not blindly following opinions of others, but searching for our own answers while simultaneously not jumping to our own conclusions. He says that although intelligence is wide spread, not many people know how to use it correctly which, as he points out, can be a problem, especially when it comes to interpretations.

This is what Descartes cares about because he is trying to end some conflict which seems to be similar to the Galileo/Church conflict. But Descartes is attempting to end to conflict from a different approach, one of trying to lead people to learn to interpret things with an open mind. Maybe we could all learn a little something from Descartes and apply it to our daily lives.

Blog Assn #22: Descartes

Please post on the following by 8 PM Tuesday night.

"Skyline" time again: What does Descartes' ­A Discourse on the Method indicate about what most matters to him?

religion and science

There are definitely conflicts between religion and science. I think that one of the biggest conflicts right now is the dispute between evolution and intelligent design. Many people believe that humans first began existing with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. However, now more recent evidence are starting to convince people that we evolved from apes and came out of Africa. There has been such a big change in views on this issue that now evolution is being taught in schools. I don’t think that we can follow the Bible literally at all times. There are some things that I believe that are just meant to be metaphors. In Galileo’s time people believed that God made the sun to revolve around the earth, but we know now that that is not true. There are also many treatments that are offered to patients that are against their religious views, such as blood transfusions. Religion operates more on faith while science operates more on physical evidence, and I think that is why more people are turning away from religion. People want to be sure of things, so they look for the facts in many situations, and science looks to provide these facts. When these facts don’t go along with what religion says, more people begin to give up their faith. There are definitely many conflicting issues with science and religion.

Mitchell no longer sounds like death!

Galileo makes several interesting points in terms of science and religion in his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. Within the first two paragraphs, Galileo writes that scientists have no right quoting the Bible, especially if they are going to misquote and not-understand the Bible. However, as his arguments progress, he cedes that the Bible may be quoted as long as the user fully understands the meaning of what he or she means to say using the quote. In fact, Galileo uses a quote from the Bible early on in his argument to the Grand Duchess. He says, "...we ought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favor to our error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way..." (173). Galileo manages to use a Bible quote correctly to further his logical argument, while the others attempt to just beat him over the head with the Bible. Further into his letter to the Grand Duchess, Galileo’s argument gets more heated. He claims that priests and people of the church would have followers abandon their views just to test to see if they’d follow, even if it is a misinterpretation. Looking at the way his argument is constructed, this is probably not far from the truth. Galileo claims that, “they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our sense in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense” (179). An interesting example of this is the not-so-recent chalkings at Ursinus. I have heard many groups complain that the Leviticus quotes are not so much offensive as they are misquoting the Bible’s true meaning in the phrase. Galileo is making the same argument here as he tries to separate the poor religious arguments from true scientific arguments.

Cassie likes to cough on people and get them sick

In my opinion, I do not think that it is possible to compare both science and religion. Science uses logic, reason and lots of evidence to come up with the answers to people questions. This is a vital part of our life and it is the main bases for our society. However, there are some answers that science has not yet been able to answer, and that is where religion comes in. People hate not knowing answers to questions and they feel like they need an answer. So when the question comes up "What happens when we die?" science can't find an answer with the facts to answer the question. So people turn to religion and religion answers the question, for example if you live a good life you go to heaven and if you live a bad life you go to hell. There are also some questions like "how we were made?" and religion also helps answer this question saying god created us all. Overall I feel that religion and science were to have a conflict it would be that religion has no evidence for their answers and science criticises them for not having evidence, but I think that the main conflict between science and religion is that religion answers the questions that science can't answer.

Religion and Science

My personal views set aside, Galileo seems to find that there is a combination of religion and science. It frustrates him more than ever when people quote Scripture as to support scientific ideas, because no one is qualified enough to really interpret the Bible correctly. It is purposefully left open-ended. The Bible “was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which,…could not be made credible by science” (183). The Bible and science are two separate things, though religion and science, he feels, are one in the same. In a sense, God is nature because God is everything and everywhere, so nature would be included. The Christian religion does not have scientific flaws in it because God is without imperfection. The Bible, on the other hand, does not talk about science. It speaks only of “essential matters more directly [relating]… to their salvation and to the benefit of the holy Church” (185). Therefore the Bible cannot be held as a scientific source.

Conflict

There is clearly a conflict between science and religion. When Galileo is talking about how the earth rotates around the sun, those who didn’t agree with him had direct support from the Bible. “…In the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still.” (181). With support like this, there is obviously a conflict. Religious people believe everything the Bible says and takes everything literally, so any contradiction to the Bible is seen as a huge threat. There can be no reconciling science with religion when science directly opposes the Bible. Galileo takes this a step further when he says “It is obvious that such authors, not having penetrated the true senses of Scripture, would impose upon others an obligation to subscribe to conclusions that are repugnant to manifest reason and sense, if they had any authority to do so.” (190). Galileo is creating enemies of all those in positions of power within the Church, for he is saying that they are misinterpreting the Bible. With this Galileo makes it so that his ideas will probably never be accepted by the Church, simply because he called everyone foolish. With this Galileo has deepened the conflict between science and religion, a conflict that still exists today. While the issues are different, it still boils down to the difference between what the Bible says and what research proves to be true. Religion and science will always be in conflict as long as scientists continue to conduct research that the religious disagree with.

To say the religion and science conflict is an understatement. Each ones stands for what the other dismisses. Religion pushes faith: believing without seeing. Science advocates physical evidence before belief. Some topics bring about more controversy between the two than others. Especially in the matter of less explored practices. Suppose a scientist wanted to prove something wrong that was mutually accepted as true in a religious community. The religious advocates would have, as Galileo puts it, “endeavored to spread the opinion that such propositions in general are contrary to the Bible and are consequently damnable and heretical”(177). It is commonly seen that people damn what they do not understand/believe; A fear of the unknown.

As I was growing up, I went to a catholic school until 8th. Before the time I transferred I can honestly say I was never informed of the theory of evolution. Everything was made in 7 days by God. No questions asked. The teachers seemed to “abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage”(179). I don’t see why it is so hard for them to believe someone could be a Catholic and believe in evolution. Like Galileo points out, even Nicholas Copernicus “was not only a catholic, but a priest and a canon”(178). I think the conflicts are pointless. If something a scientist says doesn’t suite you, then don’t believe in it. People can fight and butt heads all they want, but most scientists aren’t set out to shatter someone’s religious beliefs. They just want to find answers to their questions, just like someone of faith can find answers in God.

I personally believe there are more than one difference between science and religion. The first difference that comes to my mind is abortion. Abortion, according to the Christian religion is strictly prohibited to any of its followers. However, it is quite a popular commodity in modern day science. Another difference that comes to my mind is stem cell research. To people who follow the Christian religion, they believe it is murder as they believe abortion is murder. To scientists and supporters, it is a health survival technique that keeps quality human beings alive and able to keep whatever of their independence is left. Also, in Florida a few years back, there was a woman a few years back by the name of Terry Shivo. Terry Shivo was brain dead, living off a life supporter and had been given no chance of any sort of comeback. All amongst the nation, groups wanted to take her off the life support or opposing groups wanted to keep her on the life support, pleading that it would be murder to take her off of it. This was a difference between science and religion. The science group basically said there was no hope for her and she needed to be taken off the life support while the religious groups said she needs to stay on, citing that it is murder to take her off.
There are more conflicts but these are the two conflicts that are the most popular and are the most modern and contemporary. People fight over these subjects and it has even reached the highest levels of government, being the Supreme Court. Even as time goes on, the fight between religion and science continues.

Collaboration is key

Religion and science are commonly at odds in more respects than one. In a farfetched form of science, there is the science of performing an abortion and the confrontation that religion brings to that science. Religion feels it is wrong to perform such acts, which science feels it is an important stride that is necessary to be made.
However, in terms on Galileo, his confrontation of science and religion is that of the motion of the Earth and sun. While the Bible states that the sun revolves around the Earth, Galileo uncovered the truth that the Earth actually revolves around the sun. He faced much opposition due to the fact that it is said in the bible otherwise, yet he is able to face his challengers in debate. “The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes,” (Galileo 186). Many felt that whatever the Bible said was the absolute truth and should not be refuted, but Galileo knew in his heart that through his research and careful experimentation that the Bible was actually incorrect in regard to the motion of the planets.
Religion and science also butt heads in the area of experimentation. Experimentation on humans or animals alike is frowned upon by religion, however in science it is thought to be the only way for us to grow and learn. The two may never come together, but they must learn to collaborate.

The disciplines of science and religion have always been at odds, as evidenced by Galileo’s letter to Her Grand Duchess Christina, and continue to be at odds today. During Galileo’s time, there were many aspects of the world yet to be understood and explored. For example, the rotation of the Earth and the alignment of the universe were very controversial topics during Galileo’s time, especially taking into consideration the conflict with other texts within the Bible. Here lies some of the initial conflict between science and religion. One of Galileo’s arguments against strict adherents to the Bible is, “I do not feel obligated to believe that that same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us the knowledge which we can attain by them” (183). Or, rather, why would God give us the faculties to observe and learn, but then provide us with all the answers without giving us the opportunities to utilize those faculties? In present day the debate between science and religion is still obvious. Controversial topics including abortion, stem cell research, and human experimentation all color the ethics argument, and how far science can go without crossing the moral boundaries dictated by religion. And, though progress has been made, the debate between science and religion does not appear to lessen in the future any more than it had in the past.

Science and religion are two completely different concepts that cause conflicts in theories and ideas. However, the conflicts between religious theories and scientific theories do not occur as much as they did in Galileo’s time. In Galileo’s time, the world was extremely religious, and scientific theories were just starting to be proven. Any idea or theory that differed from the Bible was shunned, causing numerous conflicts between religion and science.
This can be seen from a passage in Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. He stated, “The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still is that in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err, it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes an erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun in inherently motionless and the earth moveable.”
Today, this is no longer a problem. All scientific theories have been proven, and even the Catholic church has admitted that the earth is not the center of the universe. The only conflict that remains is if you choose to believe what science has proven or what the Bible says. It was only a larger conflict back in Galileo’s time because the Bible was the supreme rule, and you were considered un-religious if you strayed from what the Bible stated.

Science's Restraining Order

Science and religion will always clash as they are conflicting philosophies, at least if one takes religion seriously enough. When I think of this argument it reminds me of Santa Claus. On one end you have the advocates that say there is a slightly obese man with hundreds of elvish slaves who makes toys and delivers them to every child in the world on a single night. On the other side you have the people who say "Grow up, your parents put the toys under the tree." Guess which side is religion. While the Santa Claus myth is fine for a little child who needs something magical and fun to believe in, a 36 year old man who believes in Santa is just creepy. The same goes for religion. Using God and all his powers was well and good for early humanity to answer the difficult questions like why is the sky blue or why does it thunder, but we have progressed as a people to an advancement in thought and technology to where we can discover why the sky is REALLY blue. In essence, we are now mature enough to understand that our parents put the presents under the tree. But a conflict remains as there are still the full grown adults who believe in Santa spreading their opinion. This is the conflict we find ourselves in today. Religion thought to explain the entire world and every aspect of it a long time ago and is now being proven wrong at every turn. This makes it defensive and conflict oriented when dealing with science. Because if the Bible is wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe, perhaps it is wrong about this God character. There have been attempts made to tie science and religion together and I believe this is perfectly feesible, as long as either side is open minded. This is the dilemma Galileo presented and why he was placed under house arrest (and why he founded the Illumnati, but that is a different story), because religion was afraid and still is to this day. It took the Catholic church until the 1990's to admit the earth is not the center of the universe. Overall, it is the conflict of understanding based on human development and the loverly defensive nature of religion that brings this conflict about and I fear it will remain unsolved until one of the subjects is done away with.

Note: I do not mean to offend any religious advocates with this post, I merely state the nature of conflict in my humble opinion

Galileo vs. the Church

After going to a school where there was no religious affiliation, to a Catholic school where there was no questioning of anything, I understand what Galileo is going through with the church in his Letter to the Grand Duchess. Galileo cites a few examples of where there is conflict between religion and science.

Theoretically, there should be no conflict between these two forms of thinking because they are separate schools of thinking. Yet the church, in Galileo’s time, was thoroughly convinced that he was a heretic. The issue here lies in interpretation. The Bible is a difficult thing to interpret, and easy to interpret in a childish way. From the way Galileo explained it, the church officials interpreted the Bible in an “Amelia Badelia” sort of way: too literally. An example if this is when the church officials say the Bible can never err, and it says the earth is the center of the universe, therefore it must be right. But the issue here is that the Bible never claimed to be infallible on historical or scientific things; only on things of the spirit and with God. For if this claim were correct (that the earth is the center and therefore the Bible is never wrong), snakes would have to be talking creatures and even the officials in Galileo’s time knew snakes do not talk, and never did talk.

The other issue of interpretation lies in the fact that church officials take certain passages out of context for “their deceitful purposes” (Galileo, 179). This just jumbles the Bible up and makes no sense of it. Galileo refers to it as hypocritical and I believe he is right. The Bible is a holy book which is not to be used in vain, yet the very officials who preach that are doing what they preach against. Nowhere in the Bible does God command his people to not use their talents of discovery or experimentation. I believe He actually encourages it. Galileo was not trying to disprove thousands of years of knowledge; he was simply stating a new discovery to be examined. But the church shut down all of this with a simple “No, the Bible says you’re wrong.”

Blog Assn #21: Galileo, Science and Religion

Please post on the following by 8 PM Thursday night.

With Galileo pp. 173-197 in mind, write about what -- if any -- conflicts there are between science and religion.

Cassie hit me last night

In Galileo's Dialogue, Galileo is trying to prove to eveyone that the sun does not revolve around the earth, but that the earth revolves around the sun. He tires to show that it is hard to break a common understood theory. It seems that it takes even more information than just the right theory to get people to start believing the theory. No one likes to think that they have been wrong or have been lied to and so it is hard to start to make people believe in something even if they don't want to. Even if it is the right theory. The Dialogue itself is just another way to put his theory in a less obvious way. He tries to make it suttle in the way that other authors that wrote Cannibals tried to do. It is a way to get people to understand what he is saying but not trying to bash previous views.

Galileo

I believe that the point that Galileo is trying to make in his dialogue is very similar to the Socratic method of thinking. Galileo, just like Socrates, does not want us to just accept one way of thinking. We cannot accept what the majority of society thinks. Just because there is a majority does not make it right. There needs to be room for new ideas and people need to be look beyond the majority view. People need to be willing to question everything that this thrown their way, rather than simply accepting everything as fact. If we can get more people to think outside of the box then there are so many more things that we can discover. Back in Galileo’s time, some of the greatest thinkers were seen as weird or outcasts because they went against what everyone else saw as fact. These days there are too many people who accept everything as fact and don’t really search to find their own truths. Galileo is trying to get people to ask themselves how they really know things are true. There are so many things in our world that can seem like they are one way but are actually another, and if we just question things sometimes we can find what is really true, rather than following everyone else’s ways of thinking.

In his Dialogue, Galileo is trying to prove the same point he wrote about in Assayer. He wants people to stop and take a second look at the theories currently being used to explain phenomena. By posing a hypothetical argument, Galileo brings in strong arguments against his cause and proceeds to refute them. Just in the first day, he has the one character bring up both arguments for the Earth being the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it and vice versa. While this may not seem like a good idea, providing instant answers to strong questions prevents more people from attacking his theories without first thinking through their arguments. Galileo’s goal in the Dialogue was essentially two fold then. First, he wants people to consider his theory as plausible. Even if the best evidence is not there yet, he wants people to consider what he is proposing and not to instantly shut down and call God as their evidence for their arguments. Second, Galileo wants people to consider their arguments more carefully. By having the men pose trying questions of one another’s theories in the piece, Galileo is pointing out to the reader that he will most likely be able to refute most of their first claims to the contrary. Even if they do not agree with him, Galileo wants the people to provide proper arguments when they confront him and to make their decisions based on well thought-out ideas.

In Galileo’s “Dialogue” he is trying to prove two things. The first is that he is trying to prove his theory that was brought up in the Assayer. Galileo is attempting to have the reader understand his theory and what makes it correct. However, that is not the only thing Galileo is up to in the “Dialogue.” I agree with Josh Henry in the belief that Galileo was trying to get people to realize that you cannot just accept a fact, but instead question it and discover your own answer and conclusion to the question. This is exemplified by what Sagredo said about Aristotle’s text that nerves originate from the heart. “You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text were not contrary to it, stating clearly that the nerves originate to the heart, I should be forced to admit it to be true,” (2). Sagredo is saying that Aristotle gave such valid arguments and proof that no person ever tried to find the truth for themselves, they believed his findings that were incorrect.

That statement made by Sagredo is what Galileo wanted people to realize about his theory. Galileo wanted people to realize that even though his theory on the earth revolving around the sun is not the popular view, it can very much be true. He wanted people to try and discover their own conclusion on his theory to try and add validity to it. Galileo was basically trying to say, you cannot say a theory is wrong just because of known fact, you can only say a theory is wrong if you tested it and proved it incorrect.

Don't be a follower, be a leader

In today's society, people are told things and told not to question them. With a lot of the facts of today, this is an easy way for people to learn and absorb information. This was the same back in Galileo's time except the facts were a lot more controversial. The people of that time were told that certain theories were correct. In Galileo's "Dialogue", Galileo tries to get people to understand the concept that they should not just accept the answers that they are given at face value. They should question the answer and then should look deeper into the situation and reach the conclusion by themselves. In the "Dialogue", Sagredo explains a situation of a philosopher and nerves. “You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text …I should be forced to admit it to be true” (2). Then Galileo questions Simplicio until he admits that he has never tested any of the theories that he has been told but believes them because he was told that they were fact. By forcing Simplicio to admit that he blindly accepted what he was told, Galileo proved his point that people just accept what they are told and don't seek truth for themselves. Galileo portrayed his point in what seemed to be a calm manner which would express his overall mastery and belief in his position. It also would allow him to look like the "bigger man" in his discussions which often leads more people to believe what he said. Ironically this would be against what his point was trying to make. Therefore while some people would actually get the point and search for truth, others would simply think exactly what Galileo was saying and not search for their own truth.

I truly believe that in, “The Dialogue”, Galileo is trying to portray the truth and distribute the truth to its rightful owner. I also believe that he is trying to simplify things. The way I interpreted it, in the beginning of the dialogue, it seems there is some sort of argument or disagreement over the truth and who came up with the truth. On the second page, the characters seem to disagree with the claims of Aristotle. While, Simplicio is praising the works of Aristotle-Sagredo and Salviatui are questioning his works, saying that he will praise Virgil and Ovid while he does not really acknowledge the great works of Aristotle and also saying that Aristotle is getting undeserved desire for his authority. Also, I believe Galileo is trying to persuade the reader that is not particularly difficult to understand how the universe and all of the stars, etcetera work. Also, to prove my point about distributing the truth to its rightful owner, Simplcio seems to just strip Aristotle of the guide of Philosophy and force a new owner to the guide of philosophy. I think one cannot just have the guide of philosophy be one person one minute, and then just proclaim another guide of philosophy.
I cannot say Galileo completely succeeded despite his best efforts. I would say he did not succeed because I classify myself and I still do not completely understand the universe. Also, I do not believe Galileo succeeded in distributing the truth to its rightful owner because I believe there was some uncertainty and confusion about who was the guide for philosophy.

Teaching in a normal way

In “the Dialogue” by Galileo, Galileo was attempting to explain his recent findings, in a manner that could be understood by the common people of the time. His findings were unheard of and never even thought of before he announced his ideas to the world. He was obviously a very intelligent man having developed the ideas of the earth being in motion and since he was an intelligent man he was smart enough to realize not everyone would be able to understand the science behind it. Not only not everyone but a majority of people would have great difficulty understanding his findings in other forms of presentation such as lecture or paper.
Galileo knew his findings were mind boggling and deeply troublesome to understand yet he wanted to spread his knowledge to the world. His idea was one that he knew was extremely likely to get rebuttal as well so his form of handling his was to put possible rebuttals and explanations for why they don’t work in a dialogue form which yet again is easier to understand.
Another easy way to display why Galileo chose to explain his new discovery in a dialogue manner is with teaching styles. Many students complain when their teachers simply lecture for an entire period and do not include them in discussion. Interaction while learning helps to make it less stressful and easier to comprehend due to the more normal, familiar setting, and Galileo wanted his students to learn the best way possible.

Blind Acceptance

In the Dialogue Galileo is trying to prove that people accept what has been told to them without asking for any proof, which leads to incorrect conclusions. When Sagredo uses his example of the philosopher and the nerves, the philosopher replies with “’You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text were not contrary to it …I should be forced to admit it to be true.’” (2). This quote is the pivotal point in what Galileo is trying to do. He gets Simplicio to admit that he has never actually tested any of the theories, but goes believes them solely because he has been told they are true. Salviati says “You yourself are sufficient evidence that that these authorities have offered it without having preformed it, for you take it as certain without having done it, and commit yourself to the good faith of their dictum. Similarly it not only may be, but must be that they did the same thing too – I mean, put faith in their predecessors, right on back without ever arriving at anyone who had preformed it.” (11). With this Galileo is effectively proving that everyone accepts what has been told to them, and do not bother to check for themselves to see if there is any truth to the so-called facts. Galileo wants people to question what has been told to them, to try and find out for themselves if there is truth to the what is commonly accepted as such, and to look for a better explanation if there is one. Galileo wants people to think for themselves, and be open to new ideas if they are supported by fact, such as the Copernican theory. Galileo is proving the Copernican theory is correct by showing that people blindly accept what has been told to them, when they should be questioning to see if it is truth.

I think that Galileo’s Dialogue is a cleverly crafted argument. I think he was trying to prove the point that all this stuff about the earth, planet, and stars isn’t that complicated and that people who aren’t scientists should be able to understand it. To get his point across, Galileo makes has argument in the form of a dialogue. By doing this, he is able to be completely in control of how his facts and arguments are presented. He makes the arguments, the defenses, and the oppositions.

Doing this made such information available to the more common person, because it was presented as a dialogue, not a fancy scientific paper. It’s not like he hasn’t presented ideas about astronomy before. He just reforms his way of presenting it, and thus succeeds in making his point. Because a vast majority of the people of the time were convinced the Earth was not in motion, he had to appeal to more than just the few highly educated. By using the characters in his dialogue, he is able to convince more people that just because a theory is seen as true, that doesn’t make it unchangeable. Galileo was opening people’s minds to the possibility that their well accepted truths were incorrect.

No Exemptions

Galileo’s “Dialogue” discusses in great detail the factual basis of Aristotle’s texts, and other texts including Copernicus and Ptolemaic. However, even though scientific arguments dominate most of the Dialogue, I believe the point of the text is found almost immediately after Sagredo quotes a philosopher in the beginning of the exchange. “You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text were not contrary to it…I should be forced to admit it to be true”(2). After this, Simplicio comments that Aristotle’s texts are so widely accepted do to “the strength of his proofs and the profundity of his arguments”(2). However, Sagredo and Salviati proceed to explain that just because a text is widely accepted does not mean that throughout the course of time, logic and reason can expand and even correct the initial theories, and in this case involving Aristotle’s hypothesis on the motion of the Earth. Salviati even proposes that had Aristotle been presented with the new theories that contradict his own texts, then Aristotle, assuming he be the logical man his texts suggest, would accept what is now being proven as truth. In effect, I believe that Galileo’s point that widely accepted doctrines are not exempt from correction is very clearly made, especially in the end of the Dialogue in which Simplicio accepts that the Earth is in motion, despite the contradiction to Aristotle.

Proving his Point

The dialogue of Galileo seemed to be entirely constructed to illustrate the point that he is trying to make in the rebuttal that we read over the weekend. However, that writing in the book is somewhat convoluted and very difficult to just pick up and read. It seems as though Galileo felt the same way and constructed this dialogue to explain his point, the objections to his point, and his explanation for those objections. The dialogue simply serves as a refined and more craftily created explanation of his theory in a method that can be easily read and interpreted. I feel Galileo does succeed in his effort to provide an articulate scientific argument through his creation of a narrative, as he is able to control the battle field. He is also able to appear more humble in his discovery and not as opinionated, as he claims when he states it as impossible for him to know exactly how the world works and simply ignorant to assume he does, but he can get closer. This also serves as a message to those who turned to God for all of their and explanations, seeming to cut off their argument. He also makes a grand statement about those hopelessly devoted to any scientist or philosopher, using Aristotle in this case, to state that anyone who follows a doctrine so blindly that they don't believe their own senses is a complete fool. He believes that if Aristotle had the evidence Galileo had, he would revise his books completely. It is subtleties like this that make Galileo's dialogue effective. He almost approaches the situation with a calmness shown by Socrates and does not insult or belittle his opponent's philosophy, but gradully brings about new evidence or points out flaws to prove his own point.

Blog Assn #20: Galileo

Please post on the following by 8 PM Tuesday night.

What is Galileo trying to do in the "Dialogue?" Does he succeed?

Galileo and His Tricks

Throughout the text of Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he attempts to denounce one of the systems, while promoting the other system. Yet he makes this attempt in a humorous way, trying to safeguard himself from his enemies who were trying to crush him.

Galileo has two main characters debating between a Geocentric and a Heliocentric universe. The man debating on the Geocentric side’s name is Simplicio. This name was not an accident; Galileo had a point to his name. His point was that the people in favor of a Geocentric universe were simple minded and unwilling to even consider any change to what they had known for many, many years. The other character, who is a substitute for Galileo himself, is named Salviati. This man argues that the universe is set up in a Heliocentric way. This man uses reason and science to defend his answers, while simultaneously refuting Simplicio.

What Galileo attempts to do, is show both sides of the raging debate of his time. He shows the accepted point of view, that of Simplicio’s, and of the new view, his own, which is coming under extreme criticism. By showing these different views in a funny, light-hearted way, Galileo hopes to sway some people his direction, or at least open their minds to the possibility that the old idea might be wrong. While succeeding is making a light, yet fact-ridden dialogue, Galileo gives himself away as the author by clearly promoting a Heliocentric universe. The fact that he named the Geocentric debater ‘Simplicio’ says a lot for itself.