Galileo

[Yirgacheffe]

3DOP:

Witches and Heretics didn't fare too well under the Inquisition.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm#The%20Tortures

Did you check out this sites "articles" on the LDS like where they say "Mormonism is closer to Satanism than it is to Christianity" and a lot more of the same? Two "Wiki's" and an anti-Catholic/anti-Mormon site, sorry butI find Walkers references more credible.

[WalkerW]

sorry butI find Walkers references more credible.

And I'm not even Catholic.

For one thing, four decades of scholarship have made it clear that many of our images of the Inquisition are wild exaggerations and lurid fictions, that over the three centuries of its existence the Inquisition was far more lenient and far less powerful than was onced assumed, and that in many instances...it operated as a benign check upon the cruelty of secular courts. That said, however, I think we can all agree that an inquisition is always in principle--and frequently in practice--a disagreeable institution; that the first two decades of the Inquisition in Spain were especially brutal; and that the relative infrequency of torture or of burning at the stake renders neither practice any less heinous. What should also be remembered, though, is that the Spanish Inquisition was principally a matter of Crown policy and an office of the state. (David Hart, Atheist Delusions, 83-84)

He points out that Pope Sixtus IV authorized the early Inquisition due to pressure from King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

[WalkerW]

Did you check out this sites "articles" on the LDS like where they say "Mormonism is closer to Satanism than it is to Christianity" and a lot more of the same? Two "Wiki's" and an anti-Catholic/anti-Mormon site, sorry butI find Walkers references more credible.

Yeah, those articles are pretty bad.

[Calm]

I appreciate your attempt to defend the indefensible.

I don't see him as attempting to defend the indefensible, but rather attempting to first describe actions accurately---dispensing with emotionally laden and usually imprecise exaggerations---but also with understanding.

[WalkerW]

3DOP:

Galileo a heretic.

http://en.wikipedia....Galileo_Galilei

From your own article:

"Vehemently suspect of heresy" was a technical term of canon law and did not necessarily imply that the Inquisition considered the opinions giving rise to the verdict to be heretical. The same verdict would have been possible even if the opinions had been subject only to the less serious censure of "erroneous in faith" (Fantoli, 2005, p.140; Heilbron, 2005, pp.282–284).

[thesometimesaint]

Yirgacheffe:

I'm not normally given to hyperbole or exaggeration. Anti-Catholic sites don't impress me anymore than Anti-Mormon ones do. The Inquisition was every bit as bad as I have claimed. What others claim really is beyond my control.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

[ELF1024]

One things about the Spanish Inquisition.... nobody expected it.

Anyone else think that Tomás de Torquemada looks alot like Mel Brooks?

[Calm]

One things about the Spanish Inquisition.... nobody expected it.

A little comic relief is always good for relieving tensions.

[Calm]

Yirgacheffe:

I'm not normally given to hyperbole or exaggeration.

This would depend as much on the accuracy of your knowledge as much as any natural tendency.

[Jeff K.]

I look at Galileo within the context of the times he was in. Frankly he doesn't come out smelling like a rose, but then, in those days few did.

[Calm]

Yeah, those articles are pretty bad.

The site cited states that it is meant to be an archive only and does not judge whether or not that which it contains is of truth, but after looking at the list of their articles, I think they would do themselves a favour by at least considering whether they were of actual value or not.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_tema.htm

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

True enough, but that can be said of anyone here. That is why I try to substantiate what I say here.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

He sure didn't do himself any favors by writing "Simplicio".

[Calm]

One things about the Spanish Inquisition.... nobody expected it.

Anyone else think that Tomás de Torquemada looks alot like Mel Brooks?

see here for Mel Brooks *the picture with the closest expression does not work as an image on this board so you have to click on the link:

http://www.beliefnet.com/~/media/9B89817E7DF44577B4EC3357CB7F0F8F.ashx?w=333&h=250

In a certain light perhaps.

[WalkerW]

A nice comparison has been drawn to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. No one is denying that the Inquisition featured brutal torture and burnings, just like no one would deny that Mormons massacred a wagon train of families.

However, there is a difference between the September Dawn nonsense and that of Ronald Walker, Richard Turley, Glen Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (Oxford University Press, 2008). A big difference.

[Calm]

calmoriah:

True enough, but that can be said of anyone here. That is why I try to substantiate what I say here.

Considering the sources you used, I don't think you were all that successful in this case. You usually do much better.

[WalkerW]

I don't see him as attempting to defend the indefensible, but rather attempting to first describe actions accurately---dispensing with emotionally laden and usually imprecise exaggerations---but also with understanding.

I completely agree with this.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

I think we can all agree that disagreement with sources is legitimate. But ultimately futile, as the sources are not here to defend themselves, or retract what they said.

[Calm]

calmoriah:

I think we can all agree that disagreement with sources is legitimate. But ultimately futile, as the sources are not here to defend themselves, or retract what they said.

I don't understand this position. This seems to wave aside any personal responsibility for ensuring that the sources we choose are credible and accurate by shifting it instead to a "futile" state where the only responsibility for defending what they said belongs with those who wrote the sources themselves and not with those who used them.

Perhaps I am confused about what you are saying.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

I use references that support my position. That anyone disagrees with those sources really is beyond my control.

It is like the old farmer who sent his son to school. Upon returning home the young man proudly proclaimed Pi R squared. To which the farmer replied that he had wasted his money because every knew that Pie are round, and cornbread are square.

[Calm]

calmoriah:

I use references that support my position. That anyone disagrees with those sources really is beyond my control.

But what is in your control is the choice of using credible sources or not. A source shouldn't have value simply because it supports one's position, but rather in my opinion a source of value is one that is an accurate position.

And it is not just about disagreement but whether or not one is using a source that promotes falsehoods....

I think one should care a great deal about the source of one's sources to ensure one is not adding to the confusion and misinformation that is out there.

[WalkerW]

I use references that support my position. That anyone disagrees with those sources really is beyond my control.

I think it is more accurate to say that if you feel satisfied with resting your opinion and source of knowledge on Wikipedia and other questionable Internet sites, then that is really beyond our control.

I am almost certain that you haven't read the one scholarly article you linked to. It looks like you did a quick Google search and linked to anything that seemed to support your position.

[ELF1024]

I think it is more accurate to say that if you feel satisfied with resting your opinion and source of knowledge on Wikipedia and other questionable Internet sites, then that is really beyond our control.

Wikipedia is fairly accurate when it comes to some subjects. However, anything dealing with Religion or Politics is a crap-shoot.

[Yirgacheffe]

calmoriah:

I use references that support my position. That anyone disagrees with those sources really is beyond my control.

It is like the old farmer who sent his son to school. Upon returning home the young man proudly proclaimed Pi R squared. To which the farmer replied that he had wasted his money because every knew that Pie are round, and cornbread are square.

Yes I can see your point I will spend some time there to further my understanding of LDS church I'm sure there is a wealth of accurate information available.

[WalkerW]

Wikipedia is fairly accurate when it comes to some subjects. However, anything dealing with Religion or Politics is a crap-shoot.

The science articles are pretty good. But I find the certainty in one's position based on Wikipedia to be rather silly.

I'm reminded of an online debate I had over the effect markets have on human behavior. I provided the following sources:

Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (HarperCollins, 2010).

Michael Shermer, The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics (Times Books, 2008).

Arthur C. Brooks, “Tea Partiers and the Spirit of Giving,” The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 24, 2010).

Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism – America’s Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters (Basic Books, 2006).

Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy, ed. Paul J. Zak (Princeton University Press, 2008).

J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis, R. McElreath, M. Alvard, A. Barr, J. Ensminger, K. Hill, F. Gil-White, M. Gurven, F. Marlowe, J. Patton, N. Smith, D. Tracer, “‘Economic Man’ in Cross-cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-scale Societies,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2005).

What did he provide? What he called "an up-to-date, succinct encyclopedic overview of Behavioral Economics." Or, in other words, he linked to Wikipedia. I pointed out that "this “up-to-date” overview doesn’t include the study I provided or address its findings. In fact, the Wikipedia article doesn’t even mention the Ultimatum Game. Most of the articles cited predate the 2005 study (they all predate Zak’s publication)."

But alas, he was certain that he had defeated me.