Rick Perry, the Texas governor presidential wannabe 2.0, and Galileo Galilei, one of the great scientific thinkers in Western history -– BFFs?

It was a double-take moment in the Republican presidential sweepstakes debate at the Ronald Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley. Perry, a science scoffer on evolution and global climate change, invoked the ghost of the persecuted and brilliant Galileo to support his fingers-in-the-ears, don't-confuse-me-with-facts sentiments about global warming:

"The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet to me is just nonsense," Perry said. "Just because you have a group of scientists who stood up and said, 'Here is the fact.' Galileo got outvoted for a spell," he said.

Comments

Search

laika   |2011-09-09 14:55:33 In light of recent discussion, I thought this was kinda fun. Perry seems to accept heliocentrism as fact, and doesn't rule out evolution or climate change: "The science is not settled on this," he says. This openess to new information is really in keeping with the scientific method, isn't it? Perry and Galileo may have more in common than the wit who wrote the article recognizes.

emperorbma   |2011-09-10 14:47:47 I would venture that most modern scientists don't believe that the science is "not settled" about evolution, though.

laika   |2011-09-10 19:42:09 Well, yeah, and the same is true about climate change, too. I was giving Mr. Perry the benifit of a doubt. The truth is probably that a Republican candidate can't appear to agree with science these days and expect to be elected, so they have to hedge a bit in order to ride the anti-wave. And to be honest, the contrarian in me is feeling the tug of this anti-science movement. I'm seriously considering a switch to geocentrism. Seems like the perfect moment to up the ante.

emperorbma   |2011-09-10 21:43:27 laika wrote: I'm seriously considering a switch to geocentrism. Seems like the perfect moment to up the ante. You ain't the first, but that seems to me like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Actually, for that matter, that article I just linked just gave me another place YEC doesn't generally take the literal position of Scripture: "The sun arises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5) There is really something awry afoot that we have people denying things that are true to defend other things that are true, though. It is like people didn't get the memo about the fact that things can be "logically independent..."

laika   |2011-09-11 00:21:07 Oh my gosh, that map of the Square and Stationary Earth is beautiful! emperorbma wrote: ...that seems to me like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I'm to the point that I'd like to hasten the decline we're heading toward, empy. The sooner we get it all out our system, the sooner we can rebuild. We need to go ahead and crash. The Tea Party, geocentrism, climate change denial, etc... it's all starting to look good to me. I'm seriously thinking of embracing the zeitgeist and doing what I can to see that we follow the logic all the way to the tipping point and be done with it. Antonio Gramsci wrote: “The old is dying, and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum there arises a great diversity of morbid symptoms.” Maybe it's time to facilitate the morbid symptoms. emperorbma wrote: Actually, for that matter, that article I just linked just gave me another place YEC doesn't generally take the literal position of Scripture: "The sun arises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5) I mentioned in the other discussion that it seems so odd that most literalists seem to take heliocentrism as having been proven in a way that is irrefutable. Somehow it's OK to make allowances there. I honestly don't understand that. emperorbma wrote: It is like people didn't get the memo about the fact that things can be "logically independent..." There seems to be a bottleneck on those memos; it looks like they pass from you to the rest of us. Logical independence is is just the latest that I'd never heard of.

emperorbma   |2011-09-11 03:34:29 laika wrote: I'm to the point that I'd like to hasten the decline we're heading toward, empy. The sooner we get it all out our system, the sooner we can rebuild. We need to go ahead and crash. You know, it's funny that you should put it that way. I think I feel something similar when I run across something hostile toward religion. Occasionally I get this thought like "If all of us Christians just gave them what they want and went off to peacefully enclave ourselves somewhere..." We can go practice our beliefs in peace and nobody else would hear about them or be annoyed about us Christians.  Then when society goes to hell they would see the folly of their ways and regret their hostility.  Of course, after that we can just keep to ourselves like the Amish and tell them that "you sowed their bed, now lay in it." Of course, I realize that this doesn't work out. For one, it's not really Scripturally sound and playing Poe's law doesn't really discourage the sentiment you want to oppose. laika wrote: There seems to be a bottleneck on those memos; it looks like they pass from you to the rest of us. Logical independence is is just the latest that I'd never heard of. It helps to have studied the foundation of mathematics on this. BTW, logical independence is one of the conclusions of Godel's incompleteness theorems. See, mathematics and logic are all ultimately based on set theory. Science, of course, is based on math. Specifically, 10 axioms collectively called Zermelo-Frankel set theory + the Axiom of Choice. (aka ZFC) Funny enough, that last axiom is logically independent from the other 9...

laika   |2011-09-11 20:59:19 emperorbma wrote: Occasionally I get this thought like "If all of us Christians just gave them what they want and went off to peacefully enclave ourselves somewhere..." We can go practice our beliefs in peace and nobody else would hear about them or be annoyed about us Christians. Then when society goes to hell they would see the folly of their ways and regret their hostility. Of course, after that we can just keep to ourselves like the Amish and tell them that "you sowed their bed, now lay in it." But see, I was talking about more fully embracing dominant mainstream culture, which, of course, is Christian. Call it Christianity or call it consumerist pop culture, but your conclave already exist, 300 million strong.

emperorbma   |2011-09-11 23:47:30 You're coming to the same underlying perspective though. It's just a "you're gonna miss me" about the science instead of the religion. In the end, we both end up saying "you sowed their bed, now lay in it," don't we?

laika   |2011-09-12 13:17:25 emperorbma wrote: You're coming to the same underlying perspective though. It's just a "you're gonna miss me" about the science instead of the religion.  In the end, we both end up saying "you sowed their bed, now lay in it," don't we? Not exactly. See, I think that there's a kind of collective death wish at work right now. Embracing it goes beyond the urge to say "I told ya so," though I respect the self-examination for base motives.

emperorbma   |2011-09-12 14:25:16 Uhh, you might be right then... I never thought of it as a Freudian Thanatos principle. I saw it as misguided Christians defending what they believe, which seems more like an Libidinary/Eros principle. What leads you to believe that it is simply a self-destructive impulse?

holmegm  - re:   |2011-09-12 10:26:14 laika wrote: I'm to the point that I'd like to hasten the decline we're heading toward, empy. The sooner we get it all out our system, the sooner we can rebuild. We need to go ahead and crash. The Tea Party, geocentrism, climate change denial, etc... it's all starting to look good to me. I'm seriously thinking of embracing the zeitgeist and doing what I can to see that we follow the logic all the way to the tipping point and be done with it. Huh? In my opinion, you are lumping a bunch of stuff together that doesn't go together, first of all, but put that aside for a moment.  "Climate change" hysteria, the evolution origins story, driving Christianity out of the public square, new educational methods, etc., etc. have all been ascendent for a very, very long time now. In fact just a few years ago we embraced even more change we can believe in; embraced it good and hard. So ... you ought to be in earthly heaven?  With all the peace, prosperity, and progress that has resulted? :) Seriously, what you are worried about is ever-marginalized, and what you seem to be saying is a more helpful perspective seems to be ever-ascendent. So, why the despair?

laika  - re:   |2011-09-12 13:28:32 holmegm wrote: So ... you ought to be in earthly heaven? With all the peace, prosperity, and progress that has resulted? :) Ah, but all we got was a third Bush term. I'm as disappointed as the next person about that. holmegm wrote: Seriously, what you are worried about is ever-marginalized, and what you seem to be saying is a more helpful perspective seems to be ever-ascendent. So, why the despair? I just don't think we have to destroy in order to create, but we seem bent on doing it the hard way, so why not hurry it up?

whitemice  - re:   |2011-09-11 21:04:26 laika wrote: In light of recent discussion, I thought this was kinda fun. It is "fun" as in "funny"; it is really hard to take his Galileo comment seriously - his comparison is just ubsurd. But I don't feel it is anything like the other discussion. "Conservative scholars" are really irrelevant, as are "scholars" in general. They blow this way and that with the wind [many of them anyway, not all]. But presidents and presidential candidates and all that set - they matter. When they say, and ultimately do, stupid, ignorant, misguided, and occasionally just malicious things - the consequences are spread wide; they sow suffering, poverty, disease, and resentment. These things are visited on real people.

whitemice  - re:   |2011-09-11 21:15:59 emperorbma wrote: You know, it's funny that you should put it that way. I think I feel something similar when I run across something hostile toward religion. Ditto. I've no issue admitting this - so long as in the same sentence I remind myself that this feeling is the whispering of darkness. At it's heart is contempt, which is a manifestation of arrogance. emperorbma wrote: Occasionally I get this thought like "If all of us Christians just gave them what they want and went off to peacefully enclave ourselves somewhere..." We can go practice our beliefs in peace and nobody else would hear about them or be annoyed And we'd bring our sin with us. And in short order be divided into factions and squabbling amongst ourselves over dominion of various corners of our enclave. Actually we probably wouldn't even get there before being locked in a brutal debate about who should be admitted. And, of course, there is no place left to go to. Even if there somewhere to go and everyone agreed (Funny!) on who should go - many of the pending calamities will not respect our silly ideas about sovereign territories.

emperorbma   |2011-09-11 23:45:50 whitemice wrote: Ditto. I've no issue admitting this - so long as in the same sentence I remind myself that this feeling is the whispering of darkness. At it's heart is contempt, which is a manifestation of arrogance. Amen.

laika  - re:   |2011-09-12 19:24:52 emperorbma wrote: What leads you to believe that it is simply a self-destructive impulse? A short answer would be that I think people know better on some level, that they are not your "misguided Christians defending what they believe." They don't truly believe, for instance, that we can pollute on the scale that we do without consequence, but they're so caught up in defending the narrative against bogey-men that they can't openly admit to themselves true conservatism might be a good idea. And then there's inertia, plus a lack of faith in the creative genius of the American people. A better-the-devil-you-know approach. So people are pursuing the change that needs to come through channels that don't bring it to consciousness. Choking the life out of the system while calling it patriotism seems to be the preferred modus.

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."