Teacher fired for saying Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally

[Severian]

Don't you think it's a bit quaint to be defending the Tychonic model (which fell out of popularity with the mainstream scientific community, oh, maybe 200 years ago)? Among other things, I was under the impression that it doesn't predict the observed stellar aberration and stellar parallax... which the Copernican model does

 

I was not advocating the Tychonic model. It seems though that you are advocating the Copernican model though, even though it has now been thoroughly disproved.

[bascule]

I was not advocating the Tychonic model.

 

What model are you advocating then?

 

It seems though that you are advocating the Copernican model though, even though it has now been thoroughly disproved.

 

You're talking about by Kepler?

[Pangloss]

Is it necessary to advocate a specific model in order to make a larger point about acceptance and skepticism?

[bascule]

Is it necessary to advocate a specific model in order to make a larger point about acceptance and skepticism?

 

Is that the point that Severian is trying to make? As far as I can tell, he's saying that geocentrism can still be construed as valid in the light of modern knowledge and evidence.

 

While I agree one can think about it that way, the Copernican model made predictions (later observed and verified) which geocentric models do not. What I'm really wondering is what Severian has to say about those.

 

If the Earth is the stationary center of the universe with the sun whizzing around it at 10,000 kilometers a second, what is the cause of stellar aberration and parallax?

[Sayonara]

While I am a scientist and can vouch that it does (mostly!) all work, I find it disconcerting that general public just believe whatever they are told. Their trust is no more based on reason than the ancient Greeks' belief in Zeus.

This is probably small comfort, but I would have thought the average person is quite capable of understanding scientific matters such as the dynamics of the solar system given sufficient study, and therefore would be capable of verifying what they were told for themselves, should they so wish. For many such people not doing so is largely an exercise in making time for things that are of more interest to them.

 

You are right though; it is somewhat disconcerting. Although I have to say I think that scientists are generally more reliable than Zeus on a day-to-day basis, so while the trust is no more based on reason it is almost certainly more helpfully invested (if only by a happy coincidence of historical events).

[swansont]

This is probably small comfort, but I would have thought the average person is quite capable of understanding scientific matters such as the dynamics of the solar system given sufficient study, and therefore would be capable of verifying what they were told for themselves, should they so wish. For many such people not doing so is largely an exercise in making time for things that are of more interest to them.

 

The problem is that many don't do this investigation, or even do a "whiff test" on what they are told, and that's what is relevant to the OP. (and that a noticable subset rejects what scientists say is another topic) A person may have some preconceived notions about how the world works, colored by some ideology. So what happens when they are told that the empirical evidence contradicts their belief? Severian's point that various explanations (models) explain a single behavior is fine, but what happens when you apply those models elsewhere, and find they don't work?

[Severian]

While I agree one can think about it that way, the Copernican model made predictions (later observed and verified) which geocentric models do not. What I'm really wondering is what Severian has to say about those.

 

If the Earth is the stationary center of the universe with the sun whizzing around it at 10,000 kilometers a second, what is the cause of stellar aberration and parallax?

 

The predictions to which you refer are nothing to do with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. They are caused by the model's reference to the relative motion of Earth and (non-local) stars. For example, the original geocentric models said that the 'firmament of the stars' were held in a fixed sphere around the Earth, so they could not accommodate paralax. But all you need to do is let the stars move about and you are fine. At the time of Galileo, parallax was actually supporting the geocentric model with a fixed firmament - since no parallax had been observed, it was reasoned that the Earch must be stationary with respect to the celestial sphere. It is only modern observations which see the parallax.

 

The point I was making (or trying to) was that one can think of modern astronomy from a completely geocentric reference frame (as DH pointed out) and match observations perfectly well. Physics is independent of your reference frame, so it makes no difference were you consider the origin of the coordinate system to be. Galileo's argument should not have been about whether the Earth goes around the sun or vice versa (since both are true) but whether the other planets' orbits are more simply described and better predicted when described in a sun-centered reference frame.

 

The ironic thing is that if Galileo had argued for the Copernican model, against a geocentric model, on purely observational grounds, he would have lost the argument, since the Copernican model made false predictions. It only agrees better when you consider elliptic orbits. So even on scientific grounds, Galileo was wrong, given the current data (though it is admitedly harsh to threaten to burn someone at the cross for making wrong scientific predictions).

[john5746]

The ironic thing is that if Galileo had argued for the Copernican model, against a geocentric model, on purely observational grounds, he would have lost the argument, since the Copernican model made false predictions. It only agrees better when you consider elliptic orbits. So even on scientific grounds, Galileo was wrong, given the current data (though it is admitedly harsh to threaten to burn someone at the cross for making wrong scientific predictions).

 

Didn't the Copernican model make better predictions than the geocentric model? - i.e Planet orbits, star "orbits". It only needs to be better than the previous model, not "perfect". What was Galileo basing his argument on? If he would have lost the argument, it would have been because he was arguing with people who would not accept his observations.

 

You don't burn people at the stake for incorrect science. You only do this for political reasons, i.e perceived danger to those in power.

[D H]

The Copernican model was no better in terms of accuracy than the Ptolemaic model. Both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model used epicycles (circles within circles) to accurately describe the observed behavior of the planets. The Copernican model was a step along the path to a simpler and deeper explanation of the universe. Nobody uses the Copernican model now because it is ad-hoc and inaccurate.

[bascule]

The predictions to which you refer are nothing to do with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. They are caused by the model's reference to the relative motion of Earth and (non-local) stars. For example, the original geocentric models said that the 'firmament of the stars' were held in a fixed sphere around the Earth, so they could not accommodate paralax.

 

Yes, that would be the Aristotelian model... the one the Church taught, and what Galileo claimed was wrong.

 

But all you need to do is let the stars move about and you are fine. At the time of Galileo, parallax was actually supporting the geocentric model with a fixed firmament - since no parallax had been observed, it was reasoned that the Earch must be stationary with respect to the celestial sphere. It is only modern observations which see the parallax.

 

However, many other things had been observed to the contrary: specifically the motions of planets did not fit a geocentric model. Furthermore, the Church taught that all things go around the Earth... but Galileo observed satellites orbiting Jupiter.

 

The point I was making (or trying to) was that one can think of modern astronomy from a completely geocentric reference frame (as DH pointed out) and match observations perfectly well.

 

Describing the motions of the planets from a geocentric reference frame is immensely difficult. That's why the Church initially hailed Copernicus as a revolution: he modernized the way they kept their calendar.

 

Physics is independent of your reference frame, so it makes no difference were you consider the origin of the coordinate system to be. Galileo's argument should not have been about whether the Earth goes around the sun or vice versa (since both are true) but whether the other planets' orbits are more simply described and better predicted when described in a sun-centered reference frame.

 

Galileo had many arguments against the Aristotelian model the church espoused. Among them:

 

All things do not go around the earth.

 

The earth is not the center of the universe.

 

The ironic thing is that if Galileo had argued for the Copernican model, against a geocentric model, on purely observational grounds, he would have lost the argument, since the Copernican model made false predictions. It only agrees better when you consider elliptic orbits.

 

In a geocentric model, the orbits are neither circular nor elliptical. They're odd circular spirals. Later attempts to make the Ptolemaic model work (in a mechanical model) started with circular orbits, but had to place all the planets on little spinning cranks that attached to the circles in order to describe their behavior. In order to accurately describe the motions of the planets in a geocentric reference frame, it would've taken hundreds of these little cranks.

 

So even on scientific grounds, Galileo was wrong, given the current data (though it is admitedly harsh to threaten to burn someone at the cross for making wrong scientific predictions).

 

If the Copernican model is wrong, the Ptolemaic model is not even wrong

 

The Copernican model was no better in terms of accuracy than the Ptolemaic model.

 

Actually, as I mentioned earlier the Copernican model revolutionized calendar-keeping at the time, since it massively simplified the business of predicting the motions of the planets.

 

Both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model used epicycles (circles within circles) to accurately describe the observed behavior of the planets.

 

Except the Ptolemaic model didn't accurately describe the motions of planets. While the Ptolemaic model described circular orbits around the earth, the planets did not behave in this way at all... they appeared to move back and forth around this circular (actually elliptical) path. This made predicting the motions of the planets immensely difficult.

 

That's why the Ptolemaic model fell out of favor after Copernicus. Geocentrists jumped onto Tycho Brahe's boat, and remained there until the observation of stellar aberration and parallax demonstrated it to be unteneable.

 

The Copernican model was a step along the path to a simpler and deeper explanation of the universe. Nobody uses the Copernican model now because it is ad-hoc and inaccurate.

 

Kepler certainly revolutionized our knowledge of planetary orbits, however the Copernican model made predictions which were later borne out which are absent from all geocentric models.