5 ms·

"University of Pisa has canceled the Prof. Galileo's lecture on celestial bodies due to the controversy surrounding his views on heliocentrism, after continued

by akomtu 4y ago

"University of Pisa has canceled the Prof. Galileo's lecture on celestial bodies due to the controversy surrounding his views on heliocentrism, after continued protests by the students who reject the unholy idea that the planet they live on isn't the center of the Universe. Department of Heresy and Inquisition has temporarily suspended Galileo and referred him to Church."

superb-owl 4y ago
This is a false equivalence. Galileo was concerned with physical fact, whereas this professor's controversial opinions are sociological and fairly subjective--they boil down to a value judgement. That's not to condemn (or defend) the professor. This just isn't a fair characterization of the debate.
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  A fact not yet widely verified and an opinion cannot, in general, be distinguished
  - superb-owl 4y ago
    I disagree. We can judge the falsifiability of statements without knowing whether or not they're false. E.g. "red is a better color than blue" is obviously a subjective opinion, where as "ʻOumuamua is made of frozen nitrogen" is obviously a falsifiable statement.
    - AbrahamParangi 4y ago
      Right, there are specific instances of opinions which cannot be verifiable facts, but the verifiability of a fact is not, in general, itself verifiable!
      - superb-owl 4y ago
        True! I like this formulation of your statement
- foobarian 4y ago
  I'm not so sure, even the helio/geocentrism is a matter of opinion due to relativity of motion.
  - superb-owl 4y ago
    Hah this is a really good point. IIRC the Catholic Church was actually OK with using heliocentric mathematical models, just not with interpreting them as factual.
    - foobarian 4y ago
      I wonder what really happened. I'm guessing Galileo was one of those vocal people that just can't help poking the bear. Edit: reading up a bit more it seems Galileo had a bit of a Linus T. streak, with gratuitous insults and ad hominems against authority. Makes me want to read the source documents now :-)
  - aydyn 4y ago
    This isn't true, because one frame is an inertial frame and the other is not (i.e. not real).
panarky 4y ago
"The MIT statement on free expression states that in order to encourage provocative thinking, controversial views, and nonconformity, the university will protect all speech within the boundaries of the First Amendment." "Therefore, as a junior member of the Flat Earth Society, I demand MIT provide me an auditorium and a microphone to legitimize and amplify my nonconformist opinion about the shape of the Earth."
- superb-owl 4y ago
  This is also a false equivalence. MIT is obviously only going to consider inviting speakers that would appeal to some subset of its community. The statement doesn't give anyone a right to demand an audience at MIT, it gives the MIT community license to invite controversial speakers.
  - panarky 4y ago
    Which gives the lie to all the sanctimonious talk about protecting all speech that's legal under the First Amendment. MIT isn't protecting all legal speech, they're amplifying speech the MIT community wants to hear, and suppressing speech the community doesn't want to hear. If the MIT community wants to legitimize and amplify speech about perpetuating the current hierarchy of elites, and suppress protest speech aiming to open up and overturn that hierarchy, it's up to the community. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Contrary to all the feel-good language about platforming nonconformity, the goal is not to provide an equal platform to all viewpoints, because that would be ridiculous.
    - superb-owl 4y ago
      Free speech isn't about giving all ideas an equal footing. It's about letting any individual speak their mind without fear of repercussions. And that is exactly what MIT appears to be pledging to do here. Ideas are still subject to the marketplace, and the MIT community is a very discriminating market.
- PubliusMI 4y ago
  Are there many members of the community at MIT that would be eager to see such a talk?

by akomtu 4y ago

superb-owl 4y ago

This is a false equivalence. Galileo was concerned with physical fact, whereas this professor's controversial opinions are sociological and fairly subjective--they boil down to a value judgement. That's not to condemn (or defend) the professor. This just isn't a fair characterization of the debate.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago
A fact not yet widely verified and an opinion cannot, in general, be distinguished
- superb-owl 4y ago
  I disagree. We can judge the falsifiability of statements without knowing whether or not they're false. E.g. "red is a better color than blue" is obviously a subjective opinion, where as "ʻOumuamua is made of frozen nitrogen" is obviously a falsifiable statement.
  - AbrahamParangi 4y ago
    Right, there are specific instances of opinions which cannot be verifiable facts, but the verifiability of a fact is not, in general, itself verifiable!
    - superb-owl 4y ago
      True! I like this formulation of your statement
foobarian 4y ago
I'm not so sure, even the helio/geocentrism is a matter of opinion due to relativity of motion.
- superb-owl 4y ago
  Hah this is a really good point. IIRC the Catholic Church was actually OK with using heliocentric mathematical models, just not with interpreting them as factual.
  - foobarian 4y ago
    I wonder what really happened. I'm guessing Galileo was one of those vocal people that just can't help poking the bear. Edit: reading up a bit more it seems Galileo had a bit of a Linus T. streak, with gratuitous insults and ad hominems against authority. Makes me want to read the source documents now :-)
- aydyn 4y ago
  This isn't true, because one frame is an inertial frame and the other is not (i.e. not real).

panarky 4y ago

"The MIT statement on free expression states that in order to encourage provocative thinking, controversial views, and nonconformity, the university will protect all speech within the boundaries of the First Amendment." "Therefore, as a junior member of the Flat Earth Society, I demand MIT provide me an auditorium and a microphone to legitimize and amplify my nonconformist opinion about the shape of the Earth."

superb-owl 4y ago
This is also a false equivalence. MIT is obviously only going to consider inviting speakers that would appeal to some subset of its community. The statement doesn't give anyone a right to demand an audience at MIT, it gives the MIT community license to invite controversial speakers.
- panarky 4y ago
  Which gives the lie to all the sanctimonious talk about protecting all speech that's legal under the First Amendment. MIT isn't protecting all legal speech, they're amplifying speech the MIT community wants to hear, and suppressing speech the community doesn't want to hear. If the MIT community wants to legitimize and amplify speech about perpetuating the current hierarchy of elites, and suppress protest speech aiming to open up and overturn that hierarchy, it's up to the community. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Contrary to all the feel-good language about platforming nonconformity, the goal is not to provide an equal platform to all viewpoints, because that would be ridiculous.
  - superb-owl 4y ago
    Free speech isn't about giving all ideas an equal footing. It's about letting any individual speak their mind without fear of repercussions. And that is exactly what MIT appears to be pledging to do here. Ideas are still subject to the marketplace, and the MIT community is a very discriminating market.
PubliusMI 4y ago
Are there many members of the community at MIT that would be eager to see such a talk?