= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
imuli comments on The Galileo affair: who was on the side of rationality? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (70)
This is not a test as to whether we should judge the truth by what the church condemns, but rather for the OP's thesis that they are/were not specifically opposing the progress of truth on an object level.
I think we might both be misunderstanding each other? I thought your post was implying that the most important thing was that Galileo's theory was empirically confirmed and the church's falsified, I then intended to imply that someone could have a correct theory through blind luck while still being unscientific/irrational. (I don't know enough relevant history to have much of an opinion on the specific case of Galileo, I'm just pointing out the meta-level rule.)