Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
I'm surprised at you, P.C. I thought you were some kind of historian.
The issue of a heliocentric vs Geocentric paradigm was also largely a scientific debate (science AS DEFINED IN THEIR TIME, NOT OURS).
I do not deny the fact that ancient texts were still looked on as an authoritative source of knowledge. That's a point I will not contest. The corpus of scientific knowledge was in its infancy. The oldest sources of authority were heavily relied on. You can't blame the people of the time for that. Holding historical figures to modern standards (without even being aware that you are) is a profoundly shallow
way to begin a conversation about a topic like this.
The Ptolemaic system was actually the most circulated and accepted model of the universe at the time because it was considered to be more evidence based. Whereas Copernicanism lacked the necessary evidence and was contrary to sensory experience. The Church's primary "scientific" position at the time was that it should be considered a working hypothesis
until it could be proven otherwise.
That, and other political complications ( a war that threatened the Church's political and social influence) contributed to the decision to continue to reject the Copernican model. Toppling over an entire worldview is not an easy thing. Gallieo, who could not scientifically refute the ptolemaic system didn't help its promotion either.
THE ENTIRE AFFAIR WASN'T JUST ABOUT THE CHURCH SCREAMING THAT THE BIBLE SAYS IT AINT SO, SO IT AINT SO.
There was scientific (again, for those people living in THAT PERIOD of time) debate, a social debate, a political debate, and a freaking war going on. It's as simple and honest as that.
There were many secular adherents to an inaccurate model of the universe and secular rejection
of heliocentorism .
Geocentrism simply did not have enough evidence for it at the time. That was a significant part of the Church's argument against it. It wasn't only about scriptural authority.
Given the body of knowledge we have accumulated to date thanks to the many, many contributions of a variety of historical figures, we can't blame our early natural philosophers for relying on ancient texts as authoritative sources. It's grossly unfair. The Church was a significant patron of natural philosophers. Politics and social control certainly played a role. But to claim that the Church stultified scientific progress is a shallow assertion. Natural philosopher's were not tied up and threatened if they practiced the science of their time.
The expectation was that natural philosophy be channeled through the governing political body at the time - the Church.
Science played handmaiden to the Church.
Now who does Science play handmaiden to?
Do you think science is now
You're naive if you do.