You could check books out from the library, why would anybody buy a copy? Because people like to OWN things.
Agreed. I own a heck of a lot of books for this very reason.
I hold no value in my digital music collection, which is far larger than my CD, record, and tape collection, but I value the physical copies. They're MINE. My digital collection is not.
Sorry, but WHAT?!? I suppose if you're talking about DRM crap, you could make an argument that you don't "own" that digital music. But if you have a DRM-free mp3, you own that recording. It may be part of data on your computer instead of data encoded on a CD or whatever, but you still OWN it.
Having only digital copies does make sense if you live in a dorm. Otherwise, the valuable ones are the physical. Non-physicality is worthless.
This is your opinion. I personally tend to agree with it. But if you're naive enough to think that most people think like this, you obviously haven't talked to a lot of people below the age of 30. Already when I was in college in the 90s, I had friends who stopped buying CDs. Their entire collections were thousands of pirated mp3s.
So, if you're making your larger argument about how you think people can make money off the ridiculous assumption that most (or even a large number) of people these days give a damn about physical CDs... well, it's sad that some mods thought you rational enough to give points.
Which, from what I heard, is nearly meaningless in the USA. Right?
Actually, no. It's only meaningless if an author gives away that right. By default, the author has it. Many publishers insist on taking it as a condition of publication, but not all.
The problem with the US system has little to do with book publication anyway, as authors have taken a back seat to Walt Disney and movie studios in the fight to retain rights. When you have giant corporations fighting legal battles and lobbying legislatures, of course things are going to get out of hand. And all of this is continued by giant corporations who buy up various rights from defunct publishers or estates. That sort of thing has nothing to do with the original intent of (US) copyright law.
But the creator of a work does have your "author's right" by default. The author has control of who gets to make copies, hence copyright. It's the author's right to give up, but it is NOT "meaningless" in the US.
The English Statute of Anne (1710) which predated the German grant of rights by nearly 85 years was in its own words enacted "for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books".
Yeah, and that wasn't the beginning of copyright. There were hundreds of years before that where various laws and restrictions were created to encourage various people and prohibit various things in relation to copyright.
Agreed. There was nothing wrong with this old law. Fourteen years is often plenty; if the author still cares after 14, he/she can renew it for another 14.
Almost 30 years is more than enough. It allows for the occasional work that might take a few years to achieve popularity. It's about half of most people's adult lifespan.
Then the work reverts to the public domain. Very few works take decades to become popular. And if for some reason the work does become popular 30 years after it was published, the author can always create something new and trade on his/her newly-found fame.
Copyright should not be the default status of a work. The default status should be public domain, with a "limited time" option available for creators (and distributors) to recoup their expenses in their initial public offering of their creation.
Note that the Constitution wants to promote "progress" -- it wants to encourage the production of new works, not allow creators (and their children) to live off one of them for their entire lives.
The point I try to make in these discussions is that it's just not as simple as "copyright is good" or "copyright is evil". Copyright was an invention, not an innate right. It was invented during a specific historical period in the hopes of achieving certain goals.
Thank you for this. This sums up a very important point to the discussion.
What annoys me about most of these discussions on Slashdot is how everyone seems to act like there are only two choices. Meanwhile, each side has their own assumptions and presuppositions, and they just end up talking past each other.
The reality is that it's simply not practical to try to maintain copyright the way it used to be in the pre-digital age. But, on the other hand, simply declaring that copyright law should have no meaning anymore based on some strange reading or technicality or just a personal belief is also ridiculous.
But rather than trying to figure out a new way to resolve this problem, people here seem to just like arguing the same stupid analogies again and again, while never really examining the fundamental assumptions behind their principles.
And if he loans it out to 10 people that's still 10 people who are no longer going to buy the book.
Really? Something like 75% of my personal book collection are books that I would own anyway, even if I had previously borrowed them. I don't read a lot of random new books or the latest fad, and if I do, I borrow them from the library.
The vast majority of books I own are books I bought because I actually want to refer back to them at some point. Why the heck else would they be taking up space in my house?
Your assumption doesn't take into account the multitude of books that people buy for reference (how does your borrowing argument relate to dictionaries?), how-to books or manuals (how do you deal with cookbooks, instructions for building things, home/auto repair, etc.?), or even good fiction that you might want to re-read someday.
You might want to argue that such reference materials are being replaced by the internet. While that's partially the case (and it's getting better all the time), for most topics, I actually find that published books written by experts are better than some random blog or website when you want to learn about something.
Really, your argument only applies to the people who have to buy the latest crappy best-seller. That may be a lot of people, but it isn't everyone.
Yes, like when you don't care about something. This is a story that talks about whether something actually happened. The truth matters in such a case.
It doesn't matter if the Apple hit Newton on the head or not. What matters is that it is a colorful story that explains the spirit of scientific discovery.
There are lots of wonderful, "colorful" stories in history. We don't need to make them up to have examples of "the spirit of scientific discovery."
It's the same with Einstein -- how many different ways has popular culture misattributed his discovery of the theory of relativity, or attributed a quote to Einstein that was really by somebody else (or made up).
Lots. But if I want to know what Einstein actually thought about something, I want to know whether he actually said it. That's a matter of history.
The story of Einstein endures as much because of his scientific achievement as because of popular culture stories that give people hope. Specifically, the hope that if they are smart and study hard, they can achieve great things.
Yeah... um, Einstein's story would be inspirational even if we didn't make things up about him or assign quotations to him that he didn't say. So what's your point?
We use stories and heroes in scientific literature the same as in any other: To convey our values. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple hit Newton on the head--even if it didn't.
You know, you sort of have an argument here, but then you take it too far. Certainly when we write history, we choose certain people to write about and certain stories to tell about them. We choose certain facts out of the historical record to construct a narrative, and in the process, we might take some things out of context.
But there's a difference between selecting some historical facts to construct a story and actually making stories up out of events that didn't happen.
Historians sometimes get it wrong. But the reasoning of "well, we can just make up a story about history to express our values" is what starts you down the slippery slope to rewriting history for political reasons, burning history books, and even things like holocaust denial.
I know you would probably say that's exaggeration. But if you give up the idea of a "historical fact," where do you actually draw the line?
But I did find it interesting that we aren't born knowing we are going to die, and in fact the revelation when it comes is not one we are happy with at all.
I remember when I learned this fact. My sister (who is much older) took me on a ride on the back of her bike to go to a nearby market for a popsicle. I must have been somewhere between 3 and 5 years old. On the way, we stopped at the cemetery up the road and walked around. It was a pleasant spot; lots of trees, and it was a beautiful, bright day. Although I knew the place was called a cemetery, I didn't actually understand what it was. My sister tried to explain it to me... something about how these people went to sleep and didn't wake up, and they were now under the ground, but they wouldn't come back to see other people anymore. And although I didn't quite get it, I somehow understood. I don't remember getting depressed, but I remember asking her about it later in the day because it was such a novel idea, and I wanted to understand.
It's interesting -- I have very few memories from that age, but I remember that day in detail, even down to the kind of popsicle I ate.
So whether or not we avoid facing this consciously or unconsciously, I find it interesting that that day is burned in my memory so strongly. Not because I got upset about it (at least that I recall), but because it struck me as so significant at the time that people went away and didn't come back.
However, I'd like to point out that you keep saying "it's a reasonable suggestion" without actually claiming to be in favor of it.
You're absolutely right. I think one could make valid arguments for a number of these positions.
Do you actually believe we shouldn't have any kind of search or security checkpoint before boarding a plane?
I think people should be searched if there is probable cause to suspect that they might be up to something. But otherwise?
I do think there needs to be some consistency across airports, or else it could make those with less security into targets. But I think the level of security we had before 9/11 was more than sufficient.
To answer your question directly -- I don't think it could ever happen, but yes, I'd advocate NO security check over our current system. The current system wastes huge amount of time and resources, and if someone is actually intelligent, careful, and determined, our current system probably wouldn't protect us. (Not to mention that until recently in the US, you could actually travel domestically without an ID if you claimed to have forgotten it (and perhaps you still can), which punches a huge hole in all of the careful ID screening.) We spend billions of dollars per year on this security. I've seen the estimates on the amount of time wasted every year by people arriving early and standing in line for security, and each year in the US the collective time wasted in security checks and arriving early at the airport for them comes to over a thousand lifespans. The cost-benefit analysis there says that on average people would lose less collective "lifespans" if we had a 9/11 incident every few years and lost a few thousand lives than the time (and productivity) lost to our current security system. Of course, that's assuming a major terrorist incident every few years that kills thousands of people due to planes, which seems unlikely if only for the fact that it's unlikely that passengers would sit back and let planes be crashed into major buildings again. And the billions of dollars spent directly on security also doesn't take into account the billions of dollars lost because of lost work time, or even the billions of dollars people end up spending on things like bottled water inside the gate area, which they now can't get through security.
All of that said, I can perhaps see the rationale for quick and easy things like walking through a metal detector to detect guns and large knives, as they might do at a courthouse or something like that. But even that has a cost-benefit side. On the very rare occasion where someone would use a weapon on a plane, perhaps the threats of other passengers possibly having weapons might be a deterrent. I don't know.
Either way, our current system is stupid, and I seriously think it creates a sort of "challenge" for terrorists, as well as making the terror effect stronger when a successful attack occurs, because we have a false sense of security and are more sensitive when it appears to be breached.
Of course, the problem with all of these arguments is that most people are irrational (well, all people are to various degrees), and they already react irrationally to flying, plane crashes, etc. So even small terrorist events can have a major impact (economically, socially, and psychologically), which I assume is the rationale behind the current hysteria. And therefore, I don't think that we're going to go back to minimal security anytime soon, even if it might be the most rational course from a security standpoint.
A final thought -- This week's issue of The New Yorker had an interesting column about terrorism. One columnist noted, after the "shoe-bomber" incident, that the shoe-bomber was characterized by acquaintances as highly impressionable, and his bombing attempt was indeed somewhat lamely executed. The columnist speculated that there was some other terrorist who convinced the shoe-bomber to do it
Did I say it should? Geeze, I think you should settle down, go back, and re-read my post if you really want to continue arguing.
I did read your post multiple times. And my point wasn't actually to argue with you or your opinion about these particular searches, which I think is a perfectly valid one to hold. I was just trying to point out some subtleties to the examples that you gave. For example, "freedom of speech" is still not applicable to your first example. Yes, a clear verbal threat that advocates violence against the POTUS would allow you to be arrested. But that's not what you described. If we're having a discussion about Obama, and you say "Sic semper tyrannis" as a calm part of an argument, even in the presence of Secret Service men, you probably can't be arrested for that speech, because it does not constitute a clear verbal threat on the face of it. However, if you add the fact that you're shouting it while running toward the President, and now your actions as a whole constitute a threat. Again, freedom of speech per se would not come into your example; you could be yelling almost anything, even "I love you Obama," but you'd probably be tackled and interrogated if you ran at the President suddenly. I could go through again and respond case-by-case again, but I don't think that's a productive use of either of our time.
My whole point is that I don't *personally* think I would find these scans to be more invasive than a pat-down, but not only shouldn't that judgement necessarily apply
And yes, I do think that a post where you give a bunch of examples about how you think you have a lower expectation of privacy, followed by your opinion that you'd be okay with these searches, constitutes at least an argument that maybe you think these things are okay in some general sense -- despite your "mental defect" comment, which yes (of course) I understood as not being literal. If you just wanted to state your feeling about the matter, I doubt you'd have prefaced it by an entire argument about privacy rights.
I don't think anyone had the expectation that the government would be scanning random people at the airport, but that the body scan would be part of the security checks that are conducted before you're allowed to go to your gate.
Actually, the "government" is scanning random people at the airport. Who do you think the TSA is? They're the ones operating the scanners in the "security checks". They are the government, specifically part of the Department of Homeland Security. And there aren't too many other "random people" at airports, other than people who want to board a plane. No -- actually, there are plenty of people, like family members, etc. People I might want to say farewell to before I get on my flight. Notice how they aren't allowed into the gate area anymore? Why? You could argue that they're a security risk, but from a legal standpoint, it would be much more difficult for the government to force searches on them. Before 9/11, when government agents weren't doing the searching it was one thing, but now? So it's just easier to exclude those people from the gate area, rather than deal with the legality of searching them.
So actually I am a little annoyed that these government-controlled searches prevent me from spending an hour or two at the gate with family members or friends before leaving.
Umm... I want to get a on plane, and I understand that in order to be allowed on a plane, I have to submit to a search. I can refuse to be searched, and then I won't be allowed on my plane. Again, if you want to argue that we shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane, go ahead and argue that. I don't think you will, though.
Actually, I also think it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion to argue that you shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane. You aren't search
I think the problem here is that you're confusing a heck of a lot of different issues. This may seem like legalese to you, but when it comes to rights, the distinctions are important.
Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while. There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason.
Actually, this is not an issue of "freedom of speech" at all. You were threatening to attack the President of the US. That is actually a crime in and of itself. No need to violate freedom of speech.
I think the example you may be looking for might be something like falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, which is a classic example used for supposedly restricted speech, for the obvious reason that it can cause panic, injury, etc. Although this example is often used, the ruling was later limited, so the restriction on speech only occurs when the speech would incite imminent lawless actions, such as rioting.
Thus, the reasons for restricting freedom of speech are very, very few. Your example has nothing to do with that.
Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.
The reason for this has to do with the fact that school administrators are de facto guardians serving in loco parentis, i.e., acting in the place of parents. They are not acting as police, but rather assume the duties of parents for minors. This has nothing to do with probable cause, but rather the fact that you're dealing with minors who are in the care of the state. For a similar reason, prisoners give up their rights against searches, because they are in the care of the state. This has nothing to do with the general adult population, however, and it's a poor analogy.
So given this issue of context,
This "context" is irrelevant. Rights don't disappear depending on "context." The situations you mention don't deprive anyone of any of their normal rights under the law.
I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.
You could say that, but before 9/11 and the Patriot Act, you'd be on rather shaky ground. Before 9/11, the scanners were operated by the airlines, even though the process was administered by the FAA; in any case, it wasn't actually law enforcement who were conducting searches. Basically, in general you consented to search in order to do business with the airlines. There are actually precious few exceptions to the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches -- under almost all circumstances, a warrant is required. The only exceptions generally require a high standard of probable cause, and they usually only happen in circumstances where time is critical, such as in airports, where warrants would delay travel.
The relevant exceptions to airline security are the administrative exception, the stop-and-frisk exception, and the consent exception. The last one is obviously what most searches have traditionally fallen under, which is simply that people just consent to them, and therefore they are legal. That isn't really a "lower expectation of privacy," since you are voluntarily giving it up. The "stop-and-frisk" exception requires probable cause; it's generally what a police officer would use if he/she thought you were carrying contraband and didn't have time or opportunity to obtain a warrant. Note that it still does *require* probable cause. That's the reason police don't just pat down everyone in security; they wait until you show up on the scanner as potentially carrying something of int
This water is just marginally more radioactive than brazil nuts.
Thank you for this. This is just the sort of post that negates the entire nonsense about this issue entirely. Certain words -- like radiation, mercury, lead, asbestos, etc. -- seem to cause an irrational fear reaction for so many people, even here on Slashdot.
My first reaction when I'm not familiar with the quantities being discussed is to look up how they compare to normal levels we might be exposed to every day. Most of the time, it turns out that this scary thing (whatever the evil substance of the day is) is only present at a level slightly higher than those we encounter on a regular basis, as you've proven here. Often it's even below the normal baseline. Occasionally, it is a legitimate cause for concern, but rarely does one hear such comparisons reported.
This church is called "St Lawrence Jewry"? What a confusing and possibly offensive (to Jews) name for a church. Unless there's something I'm missing about British English.
It's not something you're missing about "British English." It's something you're missing about history.
With just one search, you could have clarified the historical reasons for this. The name dates back to a time when Jews were welcomed into England (even as they were being persecuted elsewhere) after William the Conqueror arrived. The old Jewish quarter in London includes prominent streets like Old Jewry and nearby old landmarks like St Lawrence Jewry.
"Confusing"? Potentially. But it's a reference to an address whose name is almost a millennium old. "Offensive"? Only if you don't know anything about history. It sort of reminds me of the idiots who want to remove the term "Providence Plantations" from the name of the state Rhode Island (whose official name is "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations"), because they somehow think that "plantation" only refers to places where there were slaves. That's not what it meant in the 17th century, when the colony was founded.
Historical ignorance offends me. In the name of reason, try to educate yourself before assuming that a term or name from centuries ago must be intended to offend people.
but you're also trolling, attempting to debate someone that is not engaging you, taking words out of context, and bordering on ad homenum attacks
In all seriousness, I am sorry. You made an assertion in reply to another post (which notably is still modded up to +4 for being informative), and I wrote a reply pointing out some possible flaws. You could have left it there, but you did engage with me, and at first I tried to have a discussion. But then you kept referring to lots of anonymous people who were doing things, plotting stuff behind the scenes, hiding evidence that they ever did anything, and saving science from a corrupt church. I do apologize for taking some cheap shots, but honestly your story started to get a little odd. It's a fine story, but honestly I've never heard of it, and if you did indeed learn about it in graduate seminars, I would actually be grateful to you for references to anything that discusses such things.
(By the way, you state that you learned his "contributions were mildly suspect." Perhaps you're referring to some obvious problems with the predictions of Copernicus's model, whose holes had to wait for Kepler and others to plug. Those problems merely suggested that Copernicus didn't do as many observations as he might have, or perhaps chose to ignore some problems -- not that he wasn't the originator of the idea.)
And just to clarify, I never argued that Copernicus conceived the idea fully-formed in complete isolation. As I've said repeatedly, of course he learned things from classical sources, probably Islamic astronomers, and was probably prompted into some of his ideas by his own teachers and colleagues (though we don't have a lot of evidence or details about the latter). But as I understand the historical record, he pretty much developed the heliocentric ideas in his earlier Commentariolus independently, which he then circulated among colleagues. News got around, but without the details of a full treatise, other astronomers couldn't really know what to make of such a proposal. Some thought it intriguing, but we have at least a few accounts of people ascribing the heliocentric idea to Copernicus at that time, so it doesn't seem like everyone had already been thinking it. He started working on a larger manuscript for a long time, and was probably prompted to publish it after the visit in 1539 of the young Rheticus (who had heard of Copernicus through the grapevine of astronomers), and Rheticus encouraged him and seemed to spark some interest in the old man.
Rheticus published a short version of some of Copernicus's ideas, and with the favorable reception, Copernicus was convinced to publish. Then, Copernicus edited the draft he had for the treatise and, with the help of some colleagues, found a publisher, and it may or may not have completed final printing before he apparently died of complications from a stroke (though it seems that it was printed, though probably without the "Hollywood ending," as you call it).
That's the story as I know it, and as I've heard and read it in numerous places. I've never heard of the "anonymous" people you're talking about participating in this complicated scheme, since there are number of astronomers I know of who were involved with the publication, but we know who they are, and we know their roles... and pretty much, it seems like they convinced an aging man that his ideas were actually valuable, and he should take the time to publish them. I'm not trying to be confrontational at all here -- if you've been taught something else in graduate seminars, I sincerely would be interested in knowing what other historical evidence contradicts this standard account.
If you'd like to know more about this story, there's a great relatively new pop-science book that summarizes a lot of new evidence by Owen Gingerich, called The Book Nobody Read. If you want more scholarly sources as well, I can provide them. But also, just check out the Wikipedia pages
Can I name the anonymous contemporaries? No. They were anonymous.
I don't mean to be blunt, but this is getting to be a crazy argument. If these people existed, how do you know about it? There has to be some historical evidence suggesting that they existed, or else you're just making something up. So, if you can't name them, where's the historical evidence that these people existed?
Now... I'm not saying there was some secret committee of heliocentrists that Copernicus represented...
Actually, it's beginning to sound like that.
I'm saying that he DIDN'T WORK IN A VACUUM
Absolutely agree with this. He didn't work in a vacuum. He had lots of colleagues who were astronomers, some of whom he showed some of his ideas very early on, and obviously they were very important in helping him flesh out the ideas that he ultimately developed into his treatise.
Yes... I'm saying they had heliocentrism to consider PRIOR to having access to Copernicus' manuscripts.
While some of them may have heard of suggestions of such a system, almost all those suggestions (that survive anyway) were critical toward such a system. So show me some evidence that other astronomers were actively considering this before Copernicus.
I'm saying that Copernicus likely was one of many... er... of at least a handful of heliocentrists prior to any published work.
"Likely"? On what evidence? And now we're down to a "handful"? Before you said, "Everyone working on the issue KNEW there was something wrong with the accepted paradigm... and many had come to the solution of heliocentrism." Maybe there were a few. I even said that in my first reply. But I don't know that there's clear evidence on that issue, other than of astronomers who were in direct contact with Copernicus's work and came to agree with it. I'm not saying he didn't continue to develop the system along with some colleagues; I'm saying that the evidence suggests that he was probably the first to work out the system in any detail and start sharing the idea with colleagues. If others had it before, show me some evidence.
Copernicus was lucky to have friends in his field, and its incredibly likely that the idea didn't come to him all by himself.
Now it's "incredibly likely"? On what evidence?
Others, anonymous others, that we can't name because Copernicus kept them anonymous, were there right along with him.
I'm sorry to say this, but you're beginning to sound like a 17th-century conspiracy nut... postulating mysterious anonymous people without evidence that they existed?
it was more a deception.
Okay, so it *IS* a conspiracy theory!!
He knew he was dying, his heliocentric friends knew he was dying...
Um... again, on what evidence? It took a good year to get through the publishing process. He apparently had a stroke near the end. But what evidence do you have that he knew he was dying when he started on the path to publication? It wasn't an easy thing -- it required printers who had more resources to publish such a technical treatise, and a number of corrections before the final version. Do you have proof that he or anyone else knew that he was "dying" when he started to publish?
and someone had the idea for Copernicus to publish close to death so that science could advance without the risk of the Church destroying them.
Wow... I mean no disrespect, but you really do sound like a complete conspiracy nut now.
So, I guess this is where I stop. You can keep posting if you want, but I have no way of fighting arguments about the existence of "anonymous" people who propagated a massive "deception" to save science from the Catholic Church. If you come by some real evidence of this someday, maybe we can actually debate that evidence.
They were aware of the problems with the Ptolemaic model, and they immediately recognized that the ancients probably had it right, or more right.
Ptolemy was an ancient, too. As for the few hints at a heliocentric model from the ancients, these are no more than second-hand accounts in ancient treatises, usually making fun of those ancients who made those accounts. Hardly enough to build a theory out of. And certainly not proof that any of those ancients had it "more right."
Didn't Copernicus study the Classics?
Of course Copernicus studied the classics, but as I've said, there isn't much there for someone who wants to build a new heliocentric model to go against the accepted Ptolemaic one. (Ptolemy's ancient treatise does survive, so those who studied classics would probably tend toward that model.) But you're changing the subject from your original post, where you claimed that there were lots of contemporaries around who believed in heliocentrism. That has nothing to do with what the Greeks thought 2000 years earlier.
Is it so hard to believe that he may have stolen, or more correctly or more completely sculpted, what had just been laying around somewhere for a thousand years?
I've never said that he wasn't influenced by ideas from other writers -- at one point, he acknowledged that heliocentric systems were hinted at by some Greeks, but then he later edited that sentence out (probably because learned classics scholars of the time knew that the few references to those ancient works lampooned them). He certainly was influenced by some of the medieval Islamic astronomy that had trickled into Europe, and he probably got some ideas there. I'm not saying he wasn't well-read or that perhaps he didn't get inspiration from some old treatise. But that has nothing to do with your original post, which was claiming that there were lots of writers around Copernicus's time who were afraid to publish what they already knew.
Is it so hard to fathom that the ideas were so novel that the people who worked with him realized they were in danger, and kept quiet, hidden?
Now it's only "the people who worked with him"? I thought that a lot of people in Europe already believed in it. As for whether it's "hard to fathom" that people around Copernicus "realized they were in danger, and kept quiet, hidden," well, no, it's not "hard to fathom." But there's no proof of it. If you show me some proof of it, I'll believe you.
All the evidence suggests that Copernicus's colleagues were encouraging him to publish. It also suggests that they were intrigued by his ideas, not that he was merely supporting something they already had figured out for themselves. And many of them were also in the Church.
I mean, come on. Copernicus's treatise was dedicated to the Pope. He explicitly challenged people to refute what he said by pointing out that some learned people might object if they didn't understand the math. Even if he had died, evidence now suggests that the treatise was widely read throughout Europe, even by many devout Catholics. If the Church felt as threatened as you suggest, and others had been living in fear of even suggesting such an idea, the Church would have immediately banned the book, or at least bothered to publish a refutation by one of the main censors. They didn't. It wasn't until the Galileo affair got going that they took any major action against Copernicus's treatise.
You're basically claiming that there were a bunch of anonymous invisible people who already believed in heliocentricism around Copernicus's time, but were afraid to publish or even to say anything about it. The circumstantial evidence doesn't suggest that at all. So, the burden of proof is on you to show that such people existed. Is it possible? I suppose. But the evidence doesn't suggest it.
A very late reply, but I just saw your comment....
My analogies were not intended to be exact in every way (that's sort of the nature of analogy), but they do point out that where quality is actually really important, you want more than some amateur who may or may not be talented.
As for the teacher analogy, I wasn't so much concerned with the one-on-one aspect as the status of the educational system as a whole. If you pay X dollars, and 75% of your teachers are idiots, you end up with a relatively small amount of effective teaching. If you pay Y dollars, and you quadruple the amount of good teachers, you get a larger pool of good teaching. You're right that this is mitigated somewhat by the fact that copies of media are not a limited resource, so if even 1% is producing quality, there's still something good for people to buy. But what if I don't like much of that 1%? If, with better incentives, 10% or even more were better quality, maybe I'd have more choices that I like -- since the pool of good material is 10 times larger.
Honestly, dozens of my friends and acquaintances are associated with the professional music world in way or another. Many of them are either classical musicians or highly-trained jazz or other professional musicians -- i.e., they've graduated from places like Julliard and have spent many hours every day playing the violin or trumpet or whatever since they were 5 or something. There is a degree of precision in their musicality that is rarely matched by your average pop musician or amateur. (That's not at all to say that there are not plenty of fantastically talented pop musicians, but there are also plenty who need artificial pitch-correction and various other acoustical enhancements to sound decent.)
If you want to get together a number of these highly-trained musicians and do a recording of an orchestral piece or a big-band jazz piece or even record a typical movie score, it's going to cost a LOT of money. Why? Because you wouldn't be able to gather the talent needed to perform such music without a pool of people who have devoted their lives to music, and they should be reimbursed for doing that.
Honestly, it would be rather insulting to my friends if you made your arguments about how volunteer amateurs are all we need to make good music.
Maybe you don't care about the kind of music that tends to require the level of achievement I'm talking about. Fine, that's a matter of taste. But, to borrow your argument about analogies, don't insist on applying your economic reasoning to all artistic production. Quality music sometimes requires a serious commitment, equal to that of an engineer, doctor, or scientist. If so, and if those musicians make a product, shouldn't they get something for their investment? And if not, I really think less people will do the required training, and even less will bother to try to produce something of quality.
Not to mention the logistical issues of organizing larger numbers of musicians for some types of music. If you only need 3 or 4 guys from your garage band to do a recording session, that's easy, but if you want to get together a dozen or even dozens of trained musicians to record an orchestral piece, good luck unless you can invest something upfront. And if you pay them upfront, how are you going to recoup your investment for the recording, unless there's a way to make money off of it? Of course, you could just say that there's no need to fund such recordings, maybe because you don't like that sort of music... but are you really ready to say that certain kinds of music shouldn't be created just because it gets in the way of your copyright paradigm?
Oh, actually I guess you are, since I notice that your original post suggested that there would be more plays, since few movies would be made due to resource problems. Oh well, I guess I'll stop arguing now... I'm not particularly in favor of any argument that begins by eliminating entire artistic genres. I'm also not su
Here of some of Copernicus' heliocentric predicessors,
Umm... I'm really not trying to be annoying about this, but the link you have mentions a couple ancient astronomers that I already pointed out in my first reply to you. They weren't Copernicus's contemporaries.
but there were contemporaries of his that have remained anonymous... Copernicus was the beard of a generation of astronomers that believed heliocentrism, but were far to meek to publicly make the claim.
Okay, but can you name any of them, other than the people around Copernicus who believed in the idea once he shared his earlier stuff with them? I know of a couple random references that might imply heliocentrism in medieval texts, and some Islamic astronomers who proposed or hinted at such systems (both in medieval times and more contemporary with Copernicus), but among scientists in Catholic lands around that time? It wouldn't surprise me if it was suggested by a one or two people, but I've never heard or seen evidence that there were oodles of astronomers around who already believed in heliocentrism but were scared to put it into print. And even if there were some who thought it made sense, that's far from coming up with a detailed mathematical proof based on years of observations... I agree with you that people thought there were some problems with the model, but I'm pretty sure Copernicus was the first one to come up with a detailed heliocentric solution.
But I could be wrong... let me know if you find something that discusses this point.
But in the quote I gave Luther is making an argument against the Copernican model based entirely on scripture. So this is absolutely an example of biblical-inerrancy induced idiocy. The Bible is an abysmal source when trying to figure out how nature works, and anyone who uses it as such is being foolish.
I completely and absolutely agree with you that the Bible is an abysmal source for trying to understand physics or just about any other scientific matter, and perhaps anyone who uses it as such today could be considered foolish.
But if you project that "foolish" argument back to Luther's time, you'd have to conclude that just about every practicing scientist of the day was foolish. To me, the word "foolish" implies someone acting in a way that reasonable people would consider stupid or idiotic. But if using scriptural arguments was a common practice at that time, to not use such arguments would be "foolish" when they could support a point, since that was what was expected. If you want to retroactively declare just about every European scientist (and just about every other writer) from medieval, renaissance, and baroque times to be "foolish" because they quoted scripture in support of arguments, fine. Just keep in mind that would include even the great heroes of the scientific revolution, such as Newton, whose literal biblical interpretations allowed him to try to find codes and scientific information from scripture as well. Was he "foolish"? By modern standards, probably. By 17th-century ones, not particularly (though his views were a little eccentric for the time). In any case, it didn't stop him from making great scientific breakthroughs.
Also, I would caution against applying the phrase "biblical-inerrancy induced idiocy" back to Luther. While it's true that Luther emphasized a "sola scriptura" doctrine, that was to combat corrupt tendencies of the Catholic Church in his day. And while he did believe in inerrancy (as does Catholicism, by the way), neither he nor Catholics subscribe to "biblical literalism," in the normal sense. Inerrancy and literalism are two different things. Inerrancy just is a belief that the Bible does not contain error (i.e., apparently contradictory passages can always be resolved, and the "pure text" -- whatever that is -- of the Bible is the "Word of God"), not that it must all be interpreted literally.
Literalism is mostly a phenomenon that grew out of 19th-century Protestant revivalism, which threw the apocrypha out of the KJV and then decided the KJV was otherwise the "literal" word of God, even though it was simply one translation of something written in a different language. Luther, who was a primary translator in one of the earliest modern translations of the Bible, perfectly understood the idea of metaphorical language and the problems of biblical interpretation. The idea of "literalism" today is often associated with idiocy, because people who believe that are often ignorant of the problems of exegesis. Inerrancy is a different thing, which was often endorsed by both Catholics and Protestants, and by both learned textual scholars and idiots.
Thanks for the vote of (qualified) confidence. But since we're all being ridiculous, I should point out a minor flaw.
But less funny because you really didn't need the second "twitter", you had to force it. *Of course* the twittering twitterers are on Twitter, its the only place you *can* twitter.
From the OED again:
TWITTERER
A bird that twitters; also transf. of a person.
For example:
1834 R. MUDIE Feathered Tribes Brit. Isles (1841) I. 2 When the forest howls to its fury, driving the twitterers from the spray. 1890 O. CRAWFURD Round Calendar in Portugal 178 Several feeble-winged twitterers. 1895 J. G. WOOLLEY in Voice (N.Y.) 17 Oct. 2/1 A mere twitterer of lackadaisical platitudes.
etc.
Though it may be heresy to say such a thing on the internet, "twitterer" actually meant something before the online service existed. Hence, there are other places and ways for birds and even people to "twitter." And I don't even have to go into the many meanings of "twitter," even the ones applicable to people, which can vary from chattering to giggling to teasing to quivering with excitement.
"Twitterers twittering about twittering" makes more sense. And actually, It's funnier.
There, however, you're probably right. More concise is often funnier.:)
I have no particular attachment to Luther, but....
This remark was an off-hand comment made out of ignorance years before Copernicus published his treatise. In general, Luther didn't have anything to say on the subject, so this is hardly representative of his views, and we really don't know what Luther's views were after the publication of the treatise (if he had any). Moreover, even this extreme comment (given that he had no detailed knowledge of Copernicus's theory) was merely a statement in line with the commonly-held scientific opinion of the day.
Historians of science have been quoting this for many years to show the backwardness of Protestantism, but scholars have also known for many years that people who cite this don't give context and cite it out of ignorance.
If you look around a bit, you'll quickly discover that this statement wasn't made out of "biblical-inerrancy induced idiocy." This was the common opinion at the time, and without the details of Copernicus's ideas being known at that time, it's pretty common for educated people to dismiss someone as a quack when it flies in the face of established scientific opinions.
Ah, but this is only because Copernicus, a devoute Catholic, feared and respected the Church, recognized that his theories (which actually others had suggested before, though none would take credit (blame) for them) would be disruptive, and cleverly published his theories posthumously. Had he been alive, the Church surely would have killed him.
About the only thing you have right here is that Copernicus was a devout Catholic and respected the Church.
Who exactly had suggested Copernicus's "theories" before? While some ancients apparently hinted at heliocentric models (Philolaus and Aristarchus, to be specific), we know very little about whether they were fully developed given that the treatises have not survived. And they wouldn't have been "blamed" for them by the Church, since there wasn't even a Catholic Church around to pay attention to them. In terms of immediate predecessors, can you point to anyone who did more than hint at such a system within the Catholic lands of medieval or renaissance Europe? There were some predecessors in Islamic astronomy, but they would hardly be afraid of what was taught in the Catholic Church. Copernicus was really the first to actually work out such a model in any detail in Europe. So I don't know who had "suggested" his theories before, but wouldn't "take credit (blame)" for them. Could you enlighten us?
Copernicus didn't publish his theories posthumously. They were published right before his death, but he had been working on them for many years. (The treatise is incredibly technical and required years of observational evidence to support; it wasn't just some half-assed proposal.) It's true that he was hesitant to publish them, but that's probably because of a number of factors, including worries about the reception within the church. Given that the evidence shows that he had only finished significant portions of the treatise by the 1530s, at most he delayed publication by a few years. If anything, you might note that what seems to convince him to publish was the support and encouragement of a number of his colleagues -- many of whom were also clerics. In any case, there's no evidence to suggest that he knew that he was dying and therefore decided to publish only then, nor that any of his colleagues from the Church tried to dissuade him from publishing. If anything, he was encouraged.
As to whether "the Church surely would have killed him," well, that's interesting speculation. As it was, the treatise wasn't put on the banned books list until over 70 years after its publication, and even then, it only required striking out a few sentences that claimed that the heliocentric system was actually true (which at that time couldn't actually even be proven by experimental data available). The rest of the treatise was perfectly acceptable to read and to study (according to the Church), which is how Galileo read it, with a copy that had a few sentences struck out.
For years, historians have tried to reconcile the fact that Copernicus's ideas were not persecuted with the fact that Galileo emerged as this hero of the scientific revolution by saying the same thing and being persecuted for it. The commonly-accepted explanation was that Copernicus's treatise was simply not read. Supposedly, it was ignored because it was too technical or written by a provincial figure or whatever, and the ideas only came to prominence with Galileo.
This argument was shown to be completely false recently with Owen Gingerich's work, who found every extant copy of Copernicus's treatise, and tracked down who had owned it, what they wrote in the margins, etc. It turns out that almost every major astronomer in Europe got a copy of the book, and many (including many Catholics) read it with great interest, even though they struggled with the technical aspects.
And yet the Catholic Church didn't make any effort to ban the book or even issue any official stance on the issue. In all fairness, a few churchmen dec
Stop talking sense! To make arguments like that, GP has proved that you must be a postmodern hack.
Oh, wait -- your arguments do make some sense. And science is still left standing! In all seriousness, thanks for providing a nice balance of historical information and reasonable arguments.
1. Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo, and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it. Even Luther commented that his ideas were revolutionary.
Ha! And of course you're right, though my impression was that Luther was noncommittal. In an earlier comment in this thread, someone misrepresents him with a quote that I believe was made before Copernicus even published his treatise.
2. Tycho Brahe had been cataloging astronomical observations for decades, and it was upon this data that Galileo relied. If the Church disagreed with the heliocentric model as much as we are led to believe, why didn't the Church also persecute Brahe or ban his works?
Well, Brahe's preferred system (what we now call the Tychonic or Tychonian model) was actually geocentric, so I'm not sure this argument carries a lot of weight. Sure, it was something to say some of the planets went around the sun, but the earth still didn't move. Also, Brahe died in 1601, well before the whole Galileo thing blew up -- he could hardly be held responsible for what someone else did with his data after his death.
3. Why is Galileo credited primarily with the heliocentric model, when Copernicus first put forth the mathematical model and Brahe collected the observations necessary to support it? Could it be because he was prosecuted for heresy, and *someone* wants to paint the Church as anti-science?
Why Galileo is the hero of the scientific revolution -- that's a fascinating question. It wasn't really until the mid-19th century (some two hundred years after all of this happened) that Galileo was really identified this way. Various people have argued that it was the fault of anti-Catholic Protestant propaganda, a new generation of anti-religion scientists rewriting history, and/or the fact that Galileo could now be officially discussed since his works were finally taken off the banned book list and the documents of his trial were made available again for study. I'm not convinced that any of these causes is the primary one. At the most, I'd say that this is one of those many historical myths that were created in the 19th century, as the first modern "histories" of many disciplines were written.
It's a wonderfully dramatic origin myth for the birth of modern science, with good vs. evil, reason vs. ignorance, etc. Of course, many of the trends of modern science had been developing all along (within the Church), as you point out, and the Galileo case was an interesting political diversion from that path of progress. In all fairness, the case probably kick-started a lot of novel scientific trends, so it hardly stood in the way of anything. Even the Jesuit scientists who stuck to their Tychonic model did make some interesting contributions, even if they tend to be forgotten today.
Oh well -- it's still fascinating to watch people who feel some sort of need to defend historical myths created in the 19th century. (Like the idea that most people thought the earth was flat -- thanks, Washington Irving!) It makes the arguments about revisionism particularly ironic. Galileo was a great man, with great achievements, and what was done to him was wrong. Isn't that enough to say that? Why must it be reason versus superstition? Why can't politics or personal quarrels have anything to do with it? Why do we have to insist on projecting our modern expectations back on a world that was very different, and which had (even in the hands of someone like Galileo) a very different conception of science than we understand today??
Slashdot Mirror
You could check books out from the library, why would anybody buy a copy? Because people like to OWN things.
Agreed. I own a heck of a lot of books for this very reason.
I hold no value in my digital music collection, which is far larger than my CD, record, and tape collection, but I value the physical copies. They're MINE. My digital collection is not.
Sorry, but WHAT?!? I suppose if you're talking about DRM crap, you could make an argument that you don't "own" that digital music. But if you have a DRM-free mp3, you own that recording. It may be part of data on your computer instead of data encoded on a CD or whatever, but you still OWN it.
Having only digital copies does make sense if you live in a dorm. Otherwise, the valuable ones are the physical. Non-physicality is worthless.
This is your opinion. I personally tend to agree with it. But if you're naive enough to think that most people think like this, you obviously haven't talked to a lot of people below the age of 30. Already when I was in college in the 90s, I had friends who stopped buying CDs. Their entire collections were thousands of pirated mp3s.
So, if you're making your larger argument about how you think people can make money off the ridiculous assumption that most (or even a large number) of people these days give a damn about physical CDs... well, it's sad that some mods thought you rational enough to give points.
What you mean, is the author's right.
Which, from what I heard, is nearly meaningless in the USA. Right?
Actually, no. It's only meaningless if an author gives away that right. By default, the author has it. Many publishers insist on taking it as a condition of publication, but not all.
The problem with the US system has little to do with book publication anyway, as authors have taken a back seat to Walt Disney and movie studios in the fight to retain rights. When you have giant corporations fighting legal battles and lobbying legislatures, of course things are going to get out of hand. And all of this is continued by giant corporations who buy up various rights from defunct publishers or estates. That sort of thing has nothing to do with the original intent of (US) copyright law.
But the creator of a work does have your "author's right" by default. The author has control of who gets to make copies, hence copyright. It's the author's right to give up, but it is NOT "meaningless" in the US.
Yes it was.
The English Statute of Anne (1710) which predated the German grant of rights by nearly 85 years was in its own words enacted "for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books".
Yeah, and that wasn't the beginning of copyright. There were hundreds of years before that where various laws and restrictions were created to encourage various people and prohibit various things in relation to copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
So what was your point?
Agreed. There was nothing wrong with this old law. Fourteen years is often plenty; if the author still cares after 14, he/she can renew it for another 14.
Almost 30 years is more than enough. It allows for the occasional work that might take a few years to achieve popularity. It's about half of most people's adult lifespan.
Then the work reverts to the public domain. Very few works take decades to become popular. And if for some reason the work does become popular 30 years after it was published, the author can always create something new and trade on his/her newly-found fame.
Copyright should not be the default status of a work. The default status should be public domain, with a "limited time" option available for creators (and distributors) to recoup their expenses in their initial public offering of their creation.
Note that the Constitution wants to promote "progress" -- it wants to encourage the production of new works, not allow creators (and their children) to live off one of them for their entire lives.
The point I try to make in these discussions is that it's just not as simple as "copyright is good" or "copyright is evil". Copyright was an invention, not an innate right. It was invented during a specific historical period in the hopes of achieving certain goals.
Thank you for this. This sums up a very important point to the discussion.
What annoys me about most of these discussions on Slashdot is how everyone seems to act like there are only two choices. Meanwhile, each side has their own assumptions and presuppositions, and they just end up talking past each other.
The reality is that it's simply not practical to try to maintain copyright the way it used to be in the pre-digital age. But, on the other hand, simply declaring that copyright law should have no meaning anymore based on some strange reading or technicality or just a personal belief is also ridiculous.
But rather than trying to figure out a new way to resolve this problem, people here seem to just like arguing the same stupid analogies again and again, while never really examining the fundamental assumptions behind their principles.
And if he loans it out to 10 people that's still 10 people who are no longer going to buy the book.
Really? Something like 75% of my personal book collection are books that I would own anyway, even if I had previously borrowed them. I don't read a lot of random new books or the latest fad, and if I do, I borrow them from the library.
The vast majority of books I own are books I bought because I actually want to refer back to them at some point. Why the heck else would they be taking up space in my house?
Your assumption doesn't take into account the multitude of books that people buy for reference (how does your borrowing argument relate to dictionaries?), how-to books or manuals (how do you deal with cookbooks, instructions for building things, home/auto repair, etc.?), or even good fiction that you might want to re-read someday.
You might want to argue that such reference materials are being replaced by the internet. While that's partially the case (and it's getting better all the time), for most topics, I actually find that published books written by experts are better than some random blog or website when you want to learn about something.
Really, your argument only applies to the people who have to buy the latest crappy best-seller. That may be a lot of people, but it isn't everyone.
A lot of times, the truth isn't relevant.
Yes, like when you don't care about something. This is a story that talks about whether something actually happened. The truth matters in such a case.
It doesn't matter if the Apple hit Newton on the head or not. What matters is that it is a colorful story that explains the spirit of scientific discovery.
There are lots of wonderful, "colorful" stories in history. We don't need to make them up to have examples of "the spirit of scientific discovery."
It's the same with Einstein -- how many different ways has popular culture misattributed his discovery of the theory of relativity, or attributed a quote to Einstein that was really by somebody else (or made up).
Lots. But if I want to know what Einstein actually thought about something, I want to know whether he actually said it. That's a matter of history.
The story of Einstein endures as much because of his scientific achievement as because of popular culture stories that give people hope. Specifically, the hope that if they are smart and study hard, they can achieve great things.
Yeah... um, Einstein's story would be inspirational even if we didn't make things up about him or assign quotations to him that he didn't say. So what's your point?
We use stories and heroes in scientific literature the same as in any other: To convey our values. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple hit Newton on the head--even if it didn't.
You know, you sort of have an argument here, but then you take it too far. Certainly when we write history, we choose certain people to write about and certain stories to tell about them. We choose certain facts out of the historical record to construct a narrative, and in the process, we might take some things out of context.
But there's a difference between selecting some historical facts to construct a story and actually making stories up out of events that didn't happen.
Historians sometimes get it wrong. But the reasoning of "well, we can just make up a story about history to express our values" is what starts you down the slippery slope to rewriting history for political reasons, burning history books, and even things like holocaust denial.
I know you would probably say that's exaggeration. But if you give up the idea of a "historical fact," where do you actually draw the line?
But I did find it interesting that we aren't born knowing we are going to die, and in fact the revelation when it comes is not one we are happy with at all.
I remember when I learned this fact. My sister (who is much older) took me on a ride on the back of her bike to go to a nearby market for a popsicle. I must have been somewhere between 3 and 5 years old. On the way, we stopped at the cemetery up the road and walked around. It was a pleasant spot; lots of trees, and it was a beautiful, bright day. Although I knew the place was called a cemetery, I didn't actually understand what it was. My sister tried to explain it to me... something about how these people went to sleep and didn't wake up, and they were now under the ground, but they wouldn't come back to see other people anymore. And although I didn't quite get it, I somehow understood. I don't remember getting depressed, but I remember asking her about it later in the day because it was such a novel idea, and I wanted to understand.
It's interesting -- I have very few memories from that age, but I remember that day in detail, even down to the kind of popsicle I ate.
So whether or not we avoid facing this consciously or unconsciously, I find it interesting that that day is burned in my memory so strongly. Not because I got upset about it (at least that I recall), but because it struck me as so significant at the time that people went away and didn't come back.
However, I'd like to point out that you keep saying "it's a reasonable suggestion" without actually claiming to be in favor of it.
You're absolutely right. I think one could make valid arguments for a number of these positions.
Do you actually believe we shouldn't have any kind of search or security checkpoint before boarding a plane?
I think people should be searched if there is probable cause to suspect that they might be up to something. But otherwise?
I do think there needs to be some consistency across airports, or else it could make those with less security into targets. But I think the level of security we had before 9/11 was more than sufficient.
To answer your question directly -- I don't think it could ever happen, but yes, I'd advocate NO security check over our current system. The current system wastes huge amount of time and resources, and if someone is actually intelligent, careful, and determined, our current system probably wouldn't protect us. (Not to mention that until recently in the US, you could actually travel domestically without an ID if you claimed to have forgotten it (and perhaps you still can), which punches a huge hole in all of the careful ID screening.) We spend billions of dollars per year on this security. I've seen the estimates on the amount of time wasted every year by people arriving early and standing in line for security, and each year in the US the collective time wasted in security checks and arriving early at the airport for them comes to over a thousand lifespans. The cost-benefit analysis there says that on average people would lose less collective "lifespans" if we had a 9/11 incident every few years and lost a few thousand lives than the time (and productivity) lost to our current security system. Of course, that's assuming a major terrorist incident every few years that kills thousands of people due to planes, which seems unlikely if only for the fact that it's unlikely that passengers would sit back and let planes be crashed into major buildings again. And the billions of dollars spent directly on security also doesn't take into account the billions of dollars lost because of lost work time, or even the billions of dollars people end up spending on things like bottled water inside the gate area, which they now can't get through security.
All of that said, I can perhaps see the rationale for quick and easy things like walking through a metal detector to detect guns and large knives, as they might do at a courthouse or something like that. But even that has a cost-benefit side. On the very rare occasion where someone would use a weapon on a plane, perhaps the threats of other passengers possibly having weapons might be a deterrent. I don't know.
Either way, our current system is stupid, and I seriously think it creates a sort of "challenge" for terrorists, as well as making the terror effect stronger when a successful attack occurs, because we have a false sense of security and are more sensitive when it appears to be breached.
Of course, the problem with all of these arguments is that most people are irrational (well, all people are to various degrees), and they already react irrationally to flying, plane crashes, etc. So even small terrorist events can have a major impact (economically, socially, and psychologically), which I assume is the rationale behind the current hysteria. And therefore, I don't think that we're going to go back to minimal security anytime soon, even if it might be the most rational course from a security standpoint.
A final thought -- This week's issue of The New Yorker had an interesting column about terrorism. One columnist noted, after the "shoe-bomber" incident, that the shoe-bomber was characterized by acquaintances as highly impressionable, and his bombing attempt was indeed somewhat lamely executed. The columnist speculated that there was some other terrorist who convinced the shoe-bomber to do it
Did I say it should? Geeze, I think you should settle down, go back, and re-read my post if you really want to continue arguing.
I did read your post multiple times. And my point wasn't actually to argue with you or your opinion about these particular searches, which I think is a perfectly valid one to hold. I was just trying to point out some subtleties to the examples that you gave. For example, "freedom of speech" is still not applicable to your first example. Yes, a clear verbal threat that advocates violence against the POTUS would allow you to be arrested. But that's not what you described. If we're having a discussion about Obama, and you say "Sic semper tyrannis" as a calm part of an argument, even in the presence of Secret Service men, you probably can't be arrested for that speech, because it does not constitute a clear verbal threat on the face of it. However, if you add the fact that you're shouting it while running toward the President, and now your actions as a whole constitute a threat. Again, freedom of speech per se would not come into your example; you could be yelling almost anything, even "I love you Obama," but you'd probably be tackled and interrogated if you ran at the President suddenly. I could go through again and respond case-by-case again, but I don't think that's a productive use of either of our time.
My whole point is that I don't *personally* think I would find these scans to be more invasive than a pat-down, but not only shouldn't that judgement necessarily apply
And yes, I do think that a post where you give a bunch of examples about how you think you have a lower expectation of privacy, followed by your opinion that you'd be okay with these searches, constitutes at least an argument that maybe you think these things are okay in some general sense -- despite your "mental defect" comment, which yes (of course) I understood as not being literal. If you just wanted to state your feeling about the matter, I doubt you'd have prefaced it by an entire argument about privacy rights.
I don't think anyone had the expectation that the government would be scanning random people at the airport, but that the body scan would be part of the security checks that are conducted before you're allowed to go to your gate.
Actually, the "government" is scanning random people at the airport. Who do you think the TSA is? They're the ones operating the scanners in the "security checks". They are the government, specifically part of the Department of Homeland Security. And there aren't too many other "random people" at airports, other than people who want to board a plane. No -- actually, there are plenty of people, like family members, etc. People I might want to say farewell to before I get on my flight. Notice how they aren't allowed into the gate area anymore? Why? You could argue that they're a security risk, but from a legal standpoint, it would be much more difficult for the government to force searches on them. Before 9/11, when government agents weren't doing the searching it was one thing, but now? So it's just easier to exclude those people from the gate area, rather than deal with the legality of searching them.
So actually I am a little annoyed that these government-controlled searches prevent me from spending an hour or two at the gate with family members or friends before leaving.
Umm... I want to get a on plane, and I understand that in order to be allowed on a plane, I have to submit to a search. I can refuse to be searched, and then I won't be allowed on my plane. Again, if you want to argue that we shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane, go ahead and argue that. I don't think you will, though.
Actually, I also think it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion to argue that you shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane. You aren't search
Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while. There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason.
Actually, this is not an issue of "freedom of speech" at all. You were threatening to attack the President of the US. That is actually a crime in and of itself. No need to violate freedom of speech.
I think the example you may be looking for might be something like falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, which is a classic example used for supposedly restricted speech, for the obvious reason that it can cause panic, injury, etc. Although this example is often used, the ruling was later limited, so the restriction on speech only occurs when the speech would incite imminent lawless actions, such as rioting.
Thus, the reasons for restricting freedom of speech are very, very few. Your example has nothing to do with that.
Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.
The reason for this has to do with the fact that school administrators are de facto guardians serving in loco parentis, i.e., acting in the place of parents. They are not acting as police, but rather assume the duties of parents for minors. This has nothing to do with probable cause, but rather the fact that you're dealing with minors who are in the care of the state. For a similar reason, prisoners give up their rights against searches, because they are in the care of the state. This has nothing to do with the general adult population, however, and it's a poor analogy.
So given this issue of context,
This "context" is irrelevant. Rights don't disappear depending on "context." The situations you mention don't deprive anyone of any of their normal rights under the law.
I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.
You could say that, but before 9/11 and the Patriot Act, you'd be on rather shaky ground. Before 9/11, the scanners were operated by the airlines, even though the process was administered by the FAA; in any case, it wasn't actually law enforcement who were conducting searches. Basically, in general you consented to search in order to do business with the airlines. There are actually precious few exceptions to the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches -- under almost all circumstances, a warrant is required. The only exceptions generally require a high standard of probable cause, and they usually only happen in circumstances where time is critical, such as in airports, where warrants would delay travel.
The relevant exceptions to airline security are the administrative exception, the stop-and-frisk exception, and the consent exception. The last one is obviously what most searches have traditionally fallen under, which is simply that people just consent to them, and therefore they are legal. That isn't really a "lower expectation of privacy," since you are voluntarily giving it up. The "stop-and-frisk" exception requires probable cause; it's generally what a police officer would use if he/she thought you were carrying contraband and didn't have time or opportunity to obtain a warrant. Note that it still does *require* probable cause. That's the reason police don't just pat down everyone in security; they wait until you show up on the scanner as potentially carrying something of int
This water is just marginally more radioactive than brazil nuts.
Thank you for this. This is just the sort of post that negates the entire nonsense about this issue entirely. Certain words -- like radiation, mercury, lead, asbestos, etc. -- seem to cause an irrational fear reaction for so many people, even here on Slashdot.
My first reaction when I'm not familiar with the quantities being discussed is to look up how they compare to normal levels we might be exposed to every day. Most of the time, it turns out that this scary thing (whatever the evil substance of the day is) is only present at a level slightly higher than those we encounter on a regular basis, as you've proven here. Often it's even below the normal baseline. Occasionally, it is a legitimate cause for concern, but rarely does one hear such comparisons reported.
Sorry -- the last link to Rhode Island was screwed up -- for anyone curious, it's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island
This church is called "St Lawrence Jewry"? What a confusing and possibly offensive (to Jews) name for a church. Unless there's something I'm missing about British English.
It's not something you're missing about "British English." It's something you're missing about history.
With just one search, you could have clarified the historical reasons for this. The name dates back to a time when Jews were welcomed into England (even as they were being persecuted elsewhere) after William the Conqueror arrived. The old Jewish quarter in London includes prominent streets like Old Jewry and nearby old landmarks like St Lawrence Jewry.
"Confusing"? Potentially. But it's a reference to an address whose name is almost a millennium old. "Offensive"? Only if you don't know anything about history. It sort of reminds me of the idiots who want to remove the term "Providence Plantations" from the name of the state Rhode Island (whose official name is "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations"), because they somehow think that "plantation" only refers to places where there were slaves. That's not what it meant in the 17th century, when the colony was founded.
Historical ignorance offends me. In the name of reason, try to educate yourself before assuming that a term or name from centuries ago must be intended to offend people.
but you're also trolling, attempting to debate someone that is not engaging you, taking words out of context, and bordering on ad homenum attacks
In all seriousness, I am sorry. You made an assertion in reply to another post (which notably is still modded up to +4 for being informative), and I wrote a reply pointing out some possible flaws. You could have left it there, but you did engage with me, and at first I tried to have a discussion. But then you kept referring to lots of anonymous people who were doing things, plotting stuff behind the scenes, hiding evidence that they ever did anything, and saving science from a corrupt church. I do apologize for taking some cheap shots, but honestly your story started to get a little odd. It's a fine story, but honestly I've never heard of it, and if you did indeed learn about it in graduate seminars, I would actually be grateful to you for references to anything that discusses such things.
(By the way, you state that you learned his "contributions were mildly suspect." Perhaps you're referring to some obvious problems with the predictions of Copernicus's model, whose holes had to wait for Kepler and others to plug. Those problems merely suggested that Copernicus didn't do as many observations as he might have, or perhaps chose to ignore some problems -- not that he wasn't the originator of the idea.)
And just to clarify, I never argued that Copernicus conceived the idea fully-formed in complete isolation. As I've said repeatedly, of course he learned things from classical sources, probably Islamic astronomers, and was probably prompted into some of his ideas by his own teachers and colleagues (though we don't have a lot of evidence or details about the latter). But as I understand the historical record, he pretty much developed the heliocentric ideas in his earlier Commentariolus independently, which he then circulated among colleagues. News got around, but without the details of a full treatise, other astronomers couldn't really know what to make of such a proposal. Some thought it intriguing, but we have at least a few accounts of people ascribing the heliocentric idea to Copernicus at that time, so it doesn't seem like everyone had already been thinking it. He started working on a larger manuscript for a long time, and was probably prompted to publish it after the visit in 1539 of the young Rheticus (who had heard of Copernicus through the grapevine of astronomers), and Rheticus encouraged him and seemed to spark some interest in the old man.
Rheticus published a short version of some of Copernicus's ideas, and with the favorable reception, Copernicus was convinced to publish. Then, Copernicus edited the draft he had for the treatise and, with the help of some colleagues, found a publisher, and it may or may not have completed final printing before he apparently died of complications from a stroke (though it seems that it was printed, though probably without the "Hollywood ending," as you call it).
That's the story as I know it, and as I've heard and read it in numerous places. I've never heard of the "anonymous" people you're talking about participating in this complicated scheme, since there are number of astronomers I know of who were involved with the publication, but we know who they are, and we know their roles... and pretty much, it seems like they convinced an aging man that his ideas were actually valuable, and he should take the time to publish them. I'm not trying to be confrontational at all here -- if you've been taught something else in graduate seminars, I sincerely would be interested in knowing what other historical evidence contradicts this standard account.
If you'd like to know more about this story, there's a great relatively new pop-science book that summarizes a lot of new evidence by Owen Gingerich, called The Book Nobody Read. If you want more scholarly sources as well, I can provide them. But also, just check out the Wikipedia pages
Can I name the anonymous contemporaries? No. They were anonymous.
I don't mean to be blunt, but this is getting to be a crazy argument. If these people existed, how do you know about it? There has to be some historical evidence suggesting that they existed, or else you're just making something up. So, if you can't name them, where's the historical evidence that these people existed?
Now... I'm not saying there was some secret committee of heliocentrists that Copernicus represented...
Actually, it's beginning to sound like that.
I'm saying that he DIDN'T WORK IN A VACUUM
Absolutely agree with this. He didn't work in a vacuum. He had lots of colleagues who were astronomers, some of whom he showed some of his ideas very early on, and obviously they were very important in helping him flesh out the ideas that he ultimately developed into his treatise.
Yes... I'm saying they had heliocentrism to consider PRIOR to having access to Copernicus' manuscripts.
While some of them may have heard of suggestions of such a system, almost all those suggestions (that survive anyway) were critical toward such a system. So show me some evidence that other astronomers were actively considering this before Copernicus.
I'm saying that Copernicus likely was one of many... er... of at least a handful of heliocentrists prior to any published work.
"Likely"? On what evidence? And now we're down to a "handful"? Before you said, "Everyone working on the issue KNEW there was something wrong with the accepted paradigm... and many had come to the solution of heliocentrism." Maybe there were a few. I even said that in my first reply. But I don't know that there's clear evidence on that issue, other than of astronomers who were in direct contact with Copernicus's work and came to agree with it. I'm not saying he didn't continue to develop the system along with some colleagues; I'm saying that the evidence suggests that he was probably the first to work out the system in any detail and start sharing the idea with colleagues. If others had it before, show me some evidence.
Copernicus was lucky to have friends in his field, and its incredibly likely that the idea didn't come to him all by himself.
Now it's "incredibly likely"? On what evidence?
Others, anonymous others, that we can't name because Copernicus kept them anonymous, were there right along with him.
I'm sorry to say this, but you're beginning to sound like a 17th-century conspiracy nut... postulating mysterious anonymous people without evidence that they existed?
it was more a deception.
Okay, so it *IS* a conspiracy theory!!
He knew he was dying, his heliocentric friends knew he was dying...
Um... again, on what evidence? It took a good year to get through the publishing process. He apparently had a stroke near the end. But what evidence do you have that he knew he was dying when he started on the path to publication? It wasn't an easy thing -- it required printers who had more resources to publish such a technical treatise, and a number of corrections before the final version. Do you have proof that he or anyone else knew that he was "dying" when he started to publish?
and someone had the idea for Copernicus to publish close to death so that science could advance without the risk of the Church destroying them.
Wow... I mean no disrespect, but you really do sound like a complete conspiracy nut now.
So, I guess this is where I stop. You can keep posting if you want, but I have no way of fighting arguments about the existence of "anonymous" people who propagated a massive "deception" to save science from the Catholic Church. If you come by some real evidence of this someday, maybe we can actually debate that evidence.
They were aware of the problems with the Ptolemaic model, and they immediately recognized that the ancients probably had it right, or more right.
Ptolemy was an ancient, too. As for the few hints at a heliocentric model from the ancients, these are no more than second-hand accounts in ancient treatises, usually making fun of those ancients who made those accounts. Hardly enough to build a theory out of. And certainly not proof that any of those ancients had it "more right."
Didn't Copernicus study the Classics?
Of course Copernicus studied the classics, but as I've said, there isn't much there for someone who wants to build a new heliocentric model to go against the accepted Ptolemaic one. (Ptolemy's ancient treatise does survive, so those who studied classics would probably tend toward that model.) But you're changing the subject from your original post, where you claimed that there were lots of contemporaries around who believed in heliocentrism. That has nothing to do with what the Greeks thought 2000 years earlier.
Is it so hard to believe that he may have stolen, or more correctly or more completely sculpted, what had just been laying around somewhere for a thousand years?
I've never said that he wasn't influenced by ideas from other writers -- at one point, he acknowledged that heliocentric systems were hinted at by some Greeks, but then he later edited that sentence out (probably because learned classics scholars of the time knew that the few references to those ancient works lampooned them). He certainly was influenced by some of the medieval Islamic astronomy that had trickled into Europe, and he probably got some ideas there. I'm not saying he wasn't well-read or that perhaps he didn't get inspiration from some old treatise. But that has nothing to do with your original post, which was claiming that there were lots of writers around Copernicus's time who were afraid to publish what they already knew.
Is it so hard to fathom that the ideas were so novel that the people who worked with him realized they were in danger, and kept quiet, hidden?
Now it's only "the people who worked with him"? I thought that a lot of people in Europe already believed in it. As for whether it's "hard to fathom" that people around Copernicus "realized they were in danger, and kept quiet, hidden," well, no, it's not "hard to fathom." But there's no proof of it. If you show me some proof of it, I'll believe you.
All the evidence suggests that Copernicus's colleagues were encouraging him to publish. It also suggests that they were intrigued by his ideas, not that he was merely supporting something they already had figured out for themselves. And many of them were also in the Church.
I mean, come on. Copernicus's treatise was dedicated to the Pope. He explicitly challenged people to refute what he said by pointing out that some learned people might object if they didn't understand the math. Even if he had died, evidence now suggests that the treatise was widely read throughout Europe, even by many devout Catholics. If the Church felt as threatened as you suggest, and others had been living in fear of even suggesting such an idea, the Church would have immediately banned the book, or at least bothered to publish a refutation by one of the main censors. They didn't. It wasn't until the Galileo affair got going that they took any major action against Copernicus's treatise.
You're basically claiming that there were a bunch of anonymous invisible people who already believed in heliocentricism around Copernicus's time, but were afraid to publish or even to say anything about it. The circumstantial evidence doesn't suggest that at all. So, the burden of proof is on you to show that such people existed. Is it possible? I suppose. But the evidence doesn't suggest it.
A very late reply, but I just saw your comment....
My analogies were not intended to be exact in every way (that's sort of the nature of analogy), but they do point out that where quality is actually really important, you want more than some amateur who may or may not be talented.
As for the teacher analogy, I wasn't so much concerned with the one-on-one aspect as the status of the educational system as a whole. If you pay X dollars, and 75% of your teachers are idiots, you end up with a relatively small amount of effective teaching. If you pay Y dollars, and you quadruple the amount of good teachers, you get a larger pool of good teaching. You're right that this is mitigated somewhat by the fact that copies of media are not a limited resource, so if even 1% is producing quality, there's still something good for people to buy. But what if I don't like much of that 1%? If, with better incentives, 10% or even more were better quality, maybe I'd have more choices that I like -- since the pool of good material is 10 times larger.
Honestly, dozens of my friends and acquaintances are associated with the professional music world in way or another. Many of them are either classical musicians or highly-trained jazz or other professional musicians -- i.e., they've graduated from places like Julliard and have spent many hours every day playing the violin or trumpet or whatever since they were 5 or something. There is a degree of precision in their musicality that is rarely matched by your average pop musician or amateur. (That's not at all to say that there are not plenty of fantastically talented pop musicians, but there are also plenty who need artificial pitch-correction and various other acoustical enhancements to sound decent.)
If you want to get together a number of these highly-trained musicians and do a recording of an orchestral piece or a big-band jazz piece or even record a typical movie score, it's going to cost a LOT of money. Why? Because you wouldn't be able to gather the talent needed to perform such music without a pool of people who have devoted their lives to music, and they should be reimbursed for doing that.
Honestly, it would be rather insulting to my friends if you made your arguments about how volunteer amateurs are all we need to make good music.
Maybe you don't care about the kind of music that tends to require the level of achievement I'm talking about. Fine, that's a matter of taste. But, to borrow your argument about analogies, don't insist on applying your economic reasoning to all artistic production. Quality music sometimes requires a serious commitment, equal to that of an engineer, doctor, or scientist. If so, and if those musicians make a product, shouldn't they get something for their investment? And if not, I really think less people will do the required training, and even less will bother to try to produce something of quality.
Not to mention the logistical issues of organizing larger numbers of musicians for some types of music. If you only need 3 or 4 guys from your garage band to do a recording session, that's easy, but if you want to get together a dozen or even dozens of trained musicians to record an orchestral piece, good luck unless you can invest something upfront. And if you pay them upfront, how are you going to recoup your investment for the recording, unless there's a way to make money off of it? Of course, you could just say that there's no need to fund such recordings, maybe because you don't like that sort of music... but are you really ready to say that certain kinds of music shouldn't be created just because it gets in the way of your copyright paradigm?
Oh, actually I guess you are, since I notice that your original post suggested that there would be more plays, since few movies would be made due to resource problems. Oh well, I guess I'll stop arguing now... I'm not particularly in favor of any argument that begins by eliminating entire artistic genres. I'm also not su
I agree with you that people thought there were some problems with the accepted (Ptolemaic) model...
By the way, I'm really not trying to be confrontational about this... if you know of contemporaries to Copernicus, I'd be really intrigued to know.
Here of some of Copernicus' heliocentric predicessors,
Umm... I'm really not trying to be annoying about this, but the link you have mentions a couple ancient astronomers that I already pointed out in my first reply to you. They weren't Copernicus's contemporaries.
but there were contemporaries of his that have remained anonymous... Copernicus was the beard of a generation of astronomers that believed heliocentrism, but were far to meek to publicly make the claim.
Okay, but can you name any of them, other than the people around Copernicus who believed in the idea once he shared his earlier stuff with them? I know of a couple random references that might imply heliocentrism in medieval texts, and some Islamic astronomers who proposed or hinted at such systems (both in medieval times and more contemporary with Copernicus), but among scientists in Catholic lands around that time? It wouldn't surprise me if it was suggested by a one or two people, but I've never heard or seen evidence that there were oodles of astronomers around who already believed in heliocentrism but were scared to put it into print. And even if there were some who thought it made sense, that's far from coming up with a detailed mathematical proof based on years of observations... I agree with you that people thought there were some problems with the model, but I'm pretty sure Copernicus was the first one to come up with a detailed heliocentric solution.
But I could be wrong... let me know if you find something that discusses this point.
But in the quote I gave Luther is making an argument against the Copernican model based entirely on scripture. So this is absolutely an example of biblical-inerrancy induced idiocy. The Bible is an abysmal source when trying to figure out how nature works, and anyone who uses it as such is being foolish.
I completely and absolutely agree with you that the Bible is an abysmal source for trying to understand physics or just about any other scientific matter, and perhaps anyone who uses it as such today could be considered foolish.
But if you project that "foolish" argument back to Luther's time, you'd have to conclude that just about every practicing scientist of the day was foolish. To me, the word "foolish" implies someone acting in a way that reasonable people would consider stupid or idiotic. But if using scriptural arguments was a common practice at that time, to not use such arguments would be "foolish" when they could support a point, since that was what was expected. If you want to retroactively declare just about every European scientist (and just about every other writer) from medieval, renaissance, and baroque times to be "foolish" because they quoted scripture in support of arguments, fine. Just keep in mind that would include even the great heroes of the scientific revolution, such as Newton, whose literal biblical interpretations allowed him to try to find codes and scientific information from scripture as well. Was he "foolish"? By modern standards, probably. By 17th-century ones, not particularly (though his views were a little eccentric for the time). In any case, it didn't stop him from making great scientific breakthroughs.
Also, I would caution against applying the phrase "biblical-inerrancy induced idiocy" back to Luther. While it's true that Luther emphasized a "sola scriptura" doctrine, that was to combat corrupt tendencies of the Catholic Church in his day. And while he did believe in inerrancy (as does Catholicism, by the way), neither he nor Catholics subscribe to "biblical literalism," in the normal sense. Inerrancy and literalism are two different things. Inerrancy just is a belief that the Bible does not contain error (i.e., apparently contradictory passages can always be resolved, and the "pure text" -- whatever that is -- of the Bible is the "Word of God"), not that it must all be interpreted literally.
Literalism is mostly a phenomenon that grew out of 19th-century Protestant revivalism, which threw the apocrypha out of the KJV and then decided the KJV was otherwise the "literal" word of God, even though it was simply one translation of something written in a different language. Luther, who was a primary translator in one of the earliest modern translations of the Bible, perfectly understood the idea of metaphorical language and the problems of biblical interpretation. The idea of "literalism" today is often associated with idiocy, because people who believe that are often ignorant of the problems of exegesis. Inerrancy is a different thing, which was often endorsed by both Catholics and Protestants, and by both learned textual scholars and idiots.
But less funny because you really didn't need the second "twitter", you had to force it. *Of course* the twittering twitterers are on Twitter, its the only place you *can* twitter.
From the OED again:
TWITTERER
A bird that twitters; also transf. of a person.
For example:
1834 R. MUDIE Feathered Tribes Brit. Isles (1841) I. 2 When the forest howls to its fury, driving the twitterers from the spray. 1890 O. CRAWFURD Round Calendar in Portugal 178 Several feeble-winged twitterers. 1895 J. G. WOOLLEY in Voice (N.Y.) 17 Oct. 2/1 A mere twitterer of lackadaisical platitudes.
etc.
Though it may be heresy to say such a thing on the internet, "twitterer" actually meant something before the online service existed. Hence, there are other places and ways for birds and even people to "twitter." And I don't even have to go into the many meanings of "twitter," even the ones applicable to people, which can vary from chattering to giggling to teasing to quivering with excitement.
"Twitterers twittering about twittering" makes more sense. And actually, It's funnier.
There, however, you're probably right. More concise is often funnier. :)
I have no particular attachment to Luther, but....
This remark was an off-hand comment made out of ignorance years before Copernicus published his treatise. In general, Luther didn't have anything to say on the subject, so this is hardly representative of his views, and we really don't know what Luther's views were after the publication of the treatise (if he had any). Moreover, even this extreme comment (given that he had no detailed knowledge of Copernicus's theory) was merely a statement in line with the commonly-held scientific opinion of the day.
Historians of science have been quoting this for many years to show the backwardness of Protestantism, but scholars have also known for many years that people who cite this don't give context and cite it out of ignorance.
http://www.physik.uni-halle.de/Fachgruppen/history/luther_sum.htm
If you look around a bit, you'll quickly discover that this statement wasn't made out of "biblical-inerrancy induced idiocy." This was the common opinion at the time, and without the details of Copernicus's ideas being known at that time, it's pretty common for educated people to dismiss someone as a quack when it flies in the face of established scientific opinions.
Ah, but this is only because Copernicus, a devoute Catholic, feared and respected the Church, recognized that his theories (which actually others had suggested before, though none would take credit (blame) for them) would be disruptive, and cleverly published his theories posthumously. Had he been alive, the Church surely would have killed him.
About the only thing you have right here is that Copernicus was a devout Catholic and respected the Church.
Who exactly had suggested Copernicus's "theories" before? While some ancients apparently hinted at heliocentric models (Philolaus and Aristarchus, to be specific), we know very little about whether they were fully developed given that the treatises have not survived. And they wouldn't have been "blamed" for them by the Church, since there wasn't even a Catholic Church around to pay attention to them. In terms of immediate predecessors, can you point to anyone who did more than hint at such a system within the Catholic lands of medieval or renaissance Europe? There were some predecessors in Islamic astronomy, but they would hardly be afraid of what was taught in the Catholic Church. Copernicus was really the first to actually work out such a model in any detail in Europe. So I don't know who had "suggested" his theories before, but wouldn't "take credit (blame)" for them. Could you enlighten us?
Copernicus didn't publish his theories posthumously. They were published right before his death, but he had been working on them for many years. (The treatise is incredibly technical and required years of observational evidence to support; it wasn't just some half-assed proposal.) It's true that he was hesitant to publish them, but that's probably because of a number of factors, including worries about the reception within the church. Given that the evidence shows that he had only finished significant portions of the treatise by the 1530s, at most he delayed publication by a few years. If anything, you might note that what seems to convince him to publish was the support and encouragement of a number of his colleagues -- many of whom were also clerics. In any case, there's no evidence to suggest that he knew that he was dying and therefore decided to publish only then, nor that any of his colleagues from the Church tried to dissuade him from publishing. If anything, he was encouraged.
As to whether "the Church surely would have killed him," well, that's interesting speculation. As it was, the treatise wasn't put on the banned books list until over 70 years after its publication, and even then, it only required striking out a few sentences that claimed that the heliocentric system was actually true (which at that time couldn't actually even be proven by experimental data available). The rest of the treatise was perfectly acceptable to read and to study (according to the Church), which is how Galileo read it, with a copy that had a few sentences struck out.
For years, historians have tried to reconcile the fact that Copernicus's ideas were not persecuted with the fact that Galileo emerged as this hero of the scientific revolution by saying the same thing and being persecuted for it. The commonly-accepted explanation was that Copernicus's treatise was simply not read. Supposedly, it was ignored because it was too technical or written by a provincial figure or whatever, and the ideas only came to prominence with Galileo.
This argument was shown to be completely false recently with Owen Gingerich's work, who found every extant copy of Copernicus's treatise, and tracked down who had owned it, what they wrote in the margins, etc. It turns out that almost every major astronomer in Europe got a copy of the book, and many (including many Catholics) read it with great interest, even though they struggled with the technical aspects.
And yet the Catholic Church didn't make any effort to ban the book or even issue any official stance on the issue. In all fairness, a few churchmen dec
Oh, wait -- your arguments do make some sense. And science is still left standing! In all seriousness, thanks for providing a nice balance of historical information and reasonable arguments.
1. Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo, and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it. Even Luther commented that his ideas were revolutionary.
Ha! And of course you're right, though my impression was that Luther was noncommittal. In an earlier comment in this thread, someone misrepresents him with a quote that I believe was made before Copernicus even published his treatise.
2. Tycho Brahe had been cataloging astronomical observations for decades, and it was upon this data that Galileo relied. If the Church disagreed with the heliocentric model as much as we are led to believe, why didn't the Church also persecute Brahe or ban his works?
Well, Brahe's preferred system (what we now call the Tychonic or Tychonian model) was actually geocentric, so I'm not sure this argument carries a lot of weight. Sure, it was something to say some of the planets went around the sun, but the earth still didn't move. Also, Brahe died in 1601, well before the whole Galileo thing blew up -- he could hardly be held responsible for what someone else did with his data after his death.
3. Why is Galileo credited primarily with the heliocentric model, when Copernicus first put forth the mathematical model and Brahe collected the observations necessary to support it? Could it be because he was prosecuted for heresy, and *someone* wants to paint the Church as anti-science?
Why Galileo is the hero of the scientific revolution -- that's a fascinating question. It wasn't really until the mid-19th century (some two hundred years after all of this happened) that Galileo was really identified this way. Various people have argued that it was the fault of anti-Catholic Protestant propaganda, a new generation of anti-religion scientists rewriting history, and/or the fact that Galileo could now be officially discussed since his works were finally taken off the banned book list and the documents of his trial were made available again for study. I'm not convinced that any of these causes is the primary one. At the most, I'd say that this is one of those many historical myths that were created in the 19th century, as the first modern "histories" of many disciplines were written.
It's a wonderfully dramatic origin myth for the birth of modern science, with good vs. evil, reason vs. ignorance, etc. Of course, many of the trends of modern science had been developing all along (within the Church), as you point out, and the Galileo case was an interesting political diversion from that path of progress. In all fairness, the case probably kick-started a lot of novel scientific trends, so it hardly stood in the way of anything. Even the Jesuit scientists who stuck to their Tychonic model did make some interesting contributions, even if they tend to be forgotten today.
Oh well -- it's still fascinating to watch people who feel some sort of need to defend historical myths created in the 19th century. (Like the idea that most people thought the earth was flat -- thanks, Washington Irving!) It makes the arguments about revisionism particularly ironic. Galileo was a great man, with great achievements, and what was done to him was wrong. Isn't that enough to say that? Why must it be reason versus superstition? Why can't politics or personal quarrels have anything to do with it? Why do we have to insist on projecting our modern expectations back on a world that was very different, and which had (even in the hands of someone like Galileo) a very different conception of science than we understand today??