Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious by thisrod on Thursday October 06, 2016 @05:58PM (#12656478)

Maybe he was an idiot, but everyone who lived in the previous 4 billion years was a worse idiot. In the land of the blind and all that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious by gumby on Thursday October 06, 2016 @06:34PM (#12656707)

He was preceded by giants -- he was at best an ordinary human.

Fortunately Aristotle doesn't care what I think.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious by omarchowdhury on Thursday October 06, 2016 @10:36PM (#12657734)

Ordinary humans don't have others talking about them thousands of years later.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious by nurettin on Friday October 07, 2016 @01:17AM (#12658346)

Well, we are obviously typing about Aristotle, so you seem to be wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious by hueving on Friday October 07, 2016 @03:48AM (#12658902)

The person you are replying to was pointing out that we don't talk about ordinary humans today to contradict the GP. So you echo the point and then say he/she is wrong?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious by nurettin on Friday October 07, 2016 @07:22AM (#12659753)

Just making a point doesn't make it true. Namely, Aristotle could fall into a certain definition of an ordinary person and still be talked about until sun fades away. And you could be an extraordinary person and be forgotten one decade after you die. Just because society deems you something doesn't mean you are that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious by omarchowdhury on Friday October 07, 2016 @01:17PM (#12662285)

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[ Parent | on HN ]