3 ms·
This is a false equivalence. Galileo was concerned with physical fact, whereas this professor's controversial opinions are sociological and fairly subjective--t
by 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 agoA fact not yet widely verified and an opinion cannot, in general, be distinguished
- superb-owl 4y agoI 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 agoRight, 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 agoTrue! I like this formulation of your statement
- foobarian 4y agoI'm not so sure, even the helio/geocentrism is a matter of opinion due to relativity of motion.
- superb-owl 4y agoHah 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 agoI 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 agoThis isn't true, because one frame is an inertial frame and the other is not (i.e. not real).