tôi yêu bản dịchThe NOVA documentar

tôi yêu bản dịch

The NOVA documentary, Galileo's Battle for the Heavens, presents the struggle between Galileo and the church for his vision of the cosmos. This drama, the Galileo Affair, has been told and retold. It is the story of a man whose guide was fact and not inherited wisdom. A hero in the battle between faith and reason. In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend also presents Galileo as a heroic figure. For Feyerabend, Galileo's guide was often intuition not fact. Feyerabend believed that great science does not work the way it is painted in textbooks. He used Galileo as an example since Galileo's commitment to Copernicism did not agree with facts known at the time. In other words, Galileo himself was going on faith.

Looking for older page. It's here

Galileo's Straw Man
Much has been written about Galileo's problems with the church over his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. In the Dialogue, Galileo's argued for the Copernican Model against the Ptolemaic Model. This was Galileo's straw man argument. In a straw man argument, you create or choose an opposing argument that is easy to defeat, then proceed to destroy it. Your own argument wins by default. The problem with Galileo's argument was that there were at least 5 "world systems"! When Galileo wrote his Dialogue, the Ptolemaic model had been already supplanted by alternative models [_1_] .

The 5 major planetary models that were in play when Galileo published the Dialogue were the Tychonic, Ursine, Capellan, Copernican and Keplerian. Three were geo-heliocentric (Tychonic, Capellan, Ursine) where some bodies circled the sun and some the earth. Two were heliocentric (Copernican and Keplerian). Early on, Galileo's Battle for the Heavens describes Galileo's discovery that Venus went through phases. This could only be explained if Venus was orbiting the Sun and not earth. If the choice was between a Copernican model (sun-centred) and Galileo's straw man (the earth-centred Ptolemaic) it was clear proof for the Copernican Model. But it wasn't a two-way choice. All five models mentioned were compatible with the Galileo's discovery. Most discussions of the Galileo Affair fail to mention this.

The Galileo Affair-The Missing Pieces
Straw man arguments aren't scientific arguments. Galileo narratives compound this flaw with shallow discussions of both the Copernican and Ptolemaic models. In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend spends several chapters discussing Galileo and both the arguments and counter-arguments for Copernicism from a philosophical and scientific point of view. The noted philosopher's conclusions are at odds with the digested version of the controversy presented in the typical biography:

...while the pre-Copernican astronomy was in trouble (was confronted by a series of refuting instances and implausibilities), the Copernican theory was in even greater trouble (was confronted by even more drastic refuting instances and implausibilities).

The problems identified by Feyerabend are only one issue with modern portrayals of the Galileo Affair (e.g. Galileo's Battle for the Heavens). They often share the same missing pieces:

Stellar Parallax
The Astronomical Record
The Church's Treatment of Copernicus
Johannes Kepler
There are necessary consequences of a moving earth. One is stellar parallax (see Copernicus and Stellar Parallax). If the earth was moving relative to the sun it demands that viewers on earth be able to see some change in the relative positions of nearer and distant stars over the course of a year. No-one in Galileo's time was able to detect any change in the positions of the different stars. Stellar parallax was eventually detected, but not until 1838.

Stellar parallax was not the only problem with the Copernican Model. Planetary models are mathematical models. They can be used to predict the position of any planet at any time during a year. Deciding on a model should have been as easy as comparing predicted positions with actual positions for each of the different models. But it seemed that all the models (excepting the Keplerian) were observationally equivalent. This has been confirmed by modern computer-aided analyses [_2_] . Galileo narratives ignore the fact that the Copernican Model used perfect circles, and the problem required the use of Kepler's ellipses.

Kepler's model would prove better than the others but because it was so new, this was not obvious during Galileo's lifetime. The Kepler Model did have its successes, even during Galileo's lifetime. Kepler's model predicted that Mercury would pass between the Earth and Sun on November 7,1631. This is known as a Transit of Mercury (see Gassendi's Transit). A Catholic priest, Pierre Gassendi, asked astronomers around Europe to help verify the Transit. The Transit occurred within minutes of Kepler's predictions. Gassendi calculated the error of Kepler's model as 14 minutes (of an arc) while that of the Ptolemaic model was 4 degrees 25 minutes. The Copernican Model was worse than either at 5 degrees (see Nicolaus Copernicus Thorunensis). Galileo ignored this important experiment. He had announced his decision to ignore Kepler's work well before the experiment. (see Galileo's Contemporaries).

Galileo's Battle for the Heavens is all about Galileo's struggle with the Catholic Church over his support for the Copernican Model. It seems odd that no mention is made of Copernicus's own struggles with the Catholic Church over his Model. Copernicus's struggles are not mentioned because there were none. What happened after Copernicus died says much about what happened during his life. Instead of being buried in a cemetery, like most members of the diocese, he was honoured with a burial inside Fromborg Cathedral [_3_] . Copernicus was either in the care or employ of the church from the time he was orphaned at age 10 to his death at age 70. The church funded his university education, and provided him with an income (through sinecures) even while at university. In his last days, he was being cared for by a church canon, at the request of a Catholic bishop. About 10 years before his death Copernicus's ideas reached the Vatican. The result was a letter asking him to share his work with other scholars (see Schonberg's Letter). Copernicus ignored the request. It then fell to Tiedemann Giese, a Roman Catholic bishop and close friend of Copernicus, to convince Copernicus to publish. Copernicus finally agreed, but only to publish his mathematical tables. It was Geise and Copernicus's student, Rheticus, who convinced Copernicus to publish his theory as well. Geise, being one of Copernicus's closest friends, did warn him to expect pushback from other astronomers [_4_] . When the manuscript was finally published, it contained a copy of Schonberg's Letter, the imprimatur of the pope, and an expression of thanks to the pope and Geise.

Kepler and the Jesuits
Kepler is usually credited with our modern view of the solar system. Kepler was not a Catholic. Born a Lutheran, he had been excommunicated from the Lutheran church for some of his beliefs. He remained a devout Christian, but outside of any formal tradition. Nothing seemed to come easy for Kepler. Early in his career, Kepler had trouble borrowing a telescope. Galileo ignored his requests. It would be left to the Catholic bishop of Cologne to lend him one. Over time Kepler developed a close relationship with the Austrian Jesuits (especially Paul Guldin). Kepler would use the Jesuit network of institutions as his private postal service. The Jesuits chased down and returned a manuscript that was stolen from him. Niccolo Zucchi, a master Jesuit telescope builder, built a telescope for Kepler, at Guldin's request. Kepler acknowledged the help with a gushing thank you to the Jesuits in his last book, the Somnium.

Galileo, Kepler and some Jesuits disagreed on the design of telescopes. Galileo's preferred design used a convex objective and a plano-concave eyepiece. A few years after Galileo introduced his telescopes, Kepler proposed a design with a convex objective and a convex eyepiece. This design was largely ignored; except for a group of Jesuits, led by Christopher Scheiner. Scheiner started building and using telescopes using Kepler's design. He detailed this in his work, Rosa Ursina, in 1630. Astronomers remained skeptical. But not for long. Shortly after Galileo's death, astronomers discarded the Galilean design in favour of Kepler's. Scheiner was only one of many church scientists who made important contributions to the early development of telescopes. This included building the first crude reflecting telescope, inventing a telescope mount that is still used widely today and proposing the reflecting telescope design that would dominate in the twentieth century. Fathers of the Telescope details some of the contributions of church scientists to the early development of the telescope.

The Galileo Myths
Narratives such as Galileo's Battle for the Heavens do Galileo a tremendous disservice. Galileo's greatness could be argued using only one of his works, Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences. Yet Galileo narratives unnecessarily embellish his record with myth and hyperbole. As a result, it is difficult to know where the real Galileo ends and where the mythical Galileo begins.

There are several examples of myth-making from Galileo's Battle for the Heavens. This from an award-winning documentary that is used widely in science education in the United States. The program's accompanying website stated "...Despite myriad embellishments, however, most optical telescopes in use in the 21st century derive from the two types developed in the 17th century by Galileo and Newton, on whose shoulders all astronomers, both amateur and professional, stand today.". Astronomical telescopes are based on Kepler's design, not Galileo's. The quote exaggerates Newton's importance as well. Newton's designs are still used by amateu

Kết quả (Anh) 1:

I love a roomThe NOVA documentary, Galileo's Battle for the Heavens, presents the struggle between Galileo and the church for his vision of the cosmos. This drama, the Galileo Affair, has been told and retold. It is the story of a man whose guide was fact and not inherited wisdom. A hero in the battle between faith and reason. In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend also presents Galileo as a heroic figure. For Feyerabend, Galileo's guide was often intuition not fact. Feyerabend believed that great science does not work the way it is painted in textbooks. He used Galileo as an example since Galileo's commitment to Copernicism did not agree with the facts known at the time. In other words, Galileo himself was going on faith.Looking for older page. It's hereGalileo's Straw ManMuch has been written about Galileo's problems with the church over his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. In the Dialogue, Galileo's argued for the Copernican Model against the Ptolemaic Model. This was Galileo's straw man argument. In a straw man argument, you create or choose an opposing same-argument that is easy to defeat, then proceed to destroy it. Your own argument wins by default. The problem with Galileo's argument was that there were at least 5 "world systems"! When Galileo wrote his Dialogue, the Ptolemaic model had been already supplanted by alternative models [_ 1 _].The 5 major planetary models that were in play when Galileo published the Dialogue were the Tychonic, Capellan, Copernican and Keplerian, Ursine. Three were geo-heliocentric (Tychonic, Capellan, Ursine) where some bodies circled the sun and some the earth. Two were heliocentric (Copernican and Keplerian). Early on, Galileo's Battle for the Heavens describes Galileo's discovery that Venus went through phases. This could only be explained if Venus was orbiting the Sun and not earth. If the choice was between a Copernican model (sun-centred) and Galileo's straw man (the earth-centred Ptolemaic) it was clear proof for the Copernican Model. But it wasn't a two-way choice. All five models mentioned were compatible with the Galileo's discovery. Most discussions of the Galileo Affair fail to mention this.The Galileo Affair-The Missing PiecesStraw man arguments aren't scientific arguments. Galileo narratives compound this flaw with shallow discussions of both the Copernican and Ptolemaic models. In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend, spends several chapters discussing Galileo and both the arguments and counter-arguments for Copernicism from a philosophical and scientific point of view. The noted philosopher's conclusions are at odds with the digested version of the controversy presented in the typical biography:... while the pre-Copernican astronomy was in trouble (was confronted by a series of refuting instances and implausibilities), the Copernican theory was in even greater trouble (was confronted by even more drastic instances implausibilities and refuting).The problems identified by Feyerabend, are only one issue with modern ' portrayals of the Galileo Affair (e.g. Galileo's Battle for the Heavens). They often share the same missing pieces:Stellar ParallaxThe Astronomical RecordThe Church's Treatment of CopernicusJohannes KeplerThere are necessary consequences of a moving earth. One is stellar parallax (see Copernicus and Stellar Parallax). If the earth was moving relative to the sun it demands that viewers on earth be able to see some change in the relative positions of nearer and distant stars over the course of a year. No-one in Galileo's time was able to detect any change in the positions of the different stars. Stellar parallax was eventually detected, but not until 1838.Stellar parallax was not the only problem with the Copernican Model. Planetary models are mathematical models. They can be used to predict the position of any planet at any time during a year. Deciding upon a model should have been as easy as comparing predicted positions with actual positions for each of the different models. But it seemed that all the models (excepting the Keplerian) were observationally equivalent. This has been confirmed by modern computer-aided analyses [_ 2 _]. Galileo narratives ignore the fact that the Copernican Model used perfect circles, and the problem required the use of Kepler's ellipses.Kepler's model would prove better than the others but because it was so new, this was not obvious during lifetime Galileo's. The Kepler Model did have its successes, even during Galileo's lifetime. Kepler's model predicted that Mercury would pass between the Earth and Sun on November 7.1631. This is known as a Transit of Mercury (see Gassendi's Transit). A Catholic priest, Pierre Gassendi, asked astronomers around Europe to help verify the Transit. The Transit occurred within minutes of Kepler's predictions. Gassendi calculated the error of Kepler's model as 14 minutes (of an arc) while that of the Ptolemaic model was 4 degrees 25 minutes. The Copernican Model was worse than either at 5 degrees (see Nicolaus Copernicus Thorunensis). Galileo ignored this important experiment. He had announced his decision to ignore Kepler's work well before the experiment. (see Galileo's Contemporaries).Galileo's Battle for the Heavens is all about Galileo's struggle with the Catholic Church over his support for the Copernican Model. It seems odd that no mention is made of Copernicus's own struggles with the Catholic Church over his Model. Copernicus's struggles are not mentioned because there were none. What happened after Copernicus died says much about what happened during his life. Instead of being buried in a cemetery, like most members of the diocese, he was honoured with a burial inside Fromborg Cathedral [_ 3 _]. Copernicus was either in the care or employ of the church from the time he was orphaned at age 10 to his death at age 70. The church funded his university education, and provided him with an income (through sinecures) even while at university. In his last days, he was being cared for by a church canon, at the request of a Catholic bishop. About 10 years before his death Copernicus's ideas reached the Vatican. The result was a letter asking him to share his work with other scholars (see Schonberg's Letter). Copernicus ignored the request. It then fell to Tiedemann Giese, a Roman Catholic bishop and close friend of Copernicus, to convince Copernicus to publish. Copernicus finally agreed, but only to publish his mathematical tables. It was Geise and Copernicus's student, Rheticus, who convinced Copernicus to publish his theory as well. Geise, being one of Copernicus's closest friends, did warn him to expect pushback from other astronomers [_ 4 _]. When the manuscript was finally published, it contained a copy of Schonberg's Letter, the imprimatur of the pope, and an expression of thanks to the pope and Geise.Kepler and the JesuitsKepler is usually credited with our modern view of the solar system. Kepler was not a Catholic. Born a Lutheran, he had been excommunicated from the Lutheran church for some of his beliefs. He remained a devout Christian, but outside of any formal tradition. Nothing seemed to come easy for Kepler. Early in his career, Kepler had trouble borrowing a telescope. Galileo ignored his requests. It would be left to the Catholic bishop of Cologne to lend him one. Over time Kepler developed a close relationship with the Austrian Jesuits (especially Paul Guldin). Kepler would use the Jesuit network of institutions as his private postal service. The Jesuits chased down and returned a manuscript that was stolen from him. Niccolò Zucchi, a master builder, built a telescope telescope Jesuit for Kepler, at Guldin's request. Kepler acknowledged the help with a gushing thank you to the Jesuits in his last book, the Somnium.Galileo, Kepler and some Jesuits disagreed on the design of telescopes. Galileo's preferred design used a convex objective and a plano-concave eyepiece. A few years after Galileo introduced his telescopes, Kepler proposed a design with a convex objective and a convex eyepiece. This design was largely ignored; except for a group of Jesuits, led by Christopher Scheiner. Scheiner started building and using telescopes using Kepler's design. He detailed this in his work, Rosa Ursina in 1630. Astronomers remained skeptical. But not for long. Shortly after Galileo's death, astronomers discarded the Galilean design in favour of Kepler's. Scheiner was only one of many church scientists who made important contributions to the early development of telescopes. This included building the first crude reflecting telescope, inventing a telescope mount that is still used widely today and proposing the reflecting telescope design that would dominate in the twentieth century. Fathers of the Telescope details some of the contributions of church scientists to the early development of the telescope.The Galileo MythsNarratives such as Galileo's Battle for the Heavens a tremendous disservice by Galileo. Galileo's greatness could be argued using only one of his works, Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences. Yet Galileo narratives unnecessarily embellish his record with myth and hyperbole. As a result, it is difficult to know where the real Galileo ends and where the mythical Galileo begins.There are several examples of myth-making from Galileo's Battle for the Heavens. This from an award-winning documentary that is used widely in science education in the United States. The accompanying program's website stated "... Despite the myriad embellishments, however, most optical telescopes in use in the 21st century derive from the two types developed in the 17th century by Galileo and Newton, on whose shoulders all astronomers, both amateur and professional, stand today. ". Astronomical telescopes are based on Kepler's design, not Galileo's. The quote exaggerates Newton's importance as well. Newton's designs are still used by amateu

Kết quả (Anh) 2:

I love translations The NOVA documentary, Galileo's Battle for the Heavens, presents the Struggle Between Galileo and the Church for his vision of the cosmos. This drama, the Galileo Affair, Told and retold Đã. It is the story of a man was fact and not có guide inherited wisdom. A hero in the battle the between faith and reason. In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend am also presents Galileo as a heroic figure. For Feyerabend, Galileo's intuition guide was often Do not fact. Feyerabend believed that great science does not work the way it is painted print textbooks. He used as an example since Galileo Galileo's Commitment to Copernicism chưa agree with known facts at the time. In other words, Galileo Himself was going on faith. Looking for older page. It's here Galileo's Straw Man Much about Galileo's ghi Đã problems with the church over his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. In the Dialogue, Galileo's argued for the Copernican Model Against the Ptolemaic Model. This was Galileo's straw man argument. In a straw man argument, you create or choose an Opposing arguments nằm easy to defeat, then Proceed to destroy it. Your own wins by default argument. The problem with Galileo's argument was mà There were at Least 5 "world systems"! When Galileo wrote his Dialogue, the Ptolemaic model được already supplanted by alternative hda models [_1_]. The five major print là có models Planetary Galileo published the Dialogue play là khi the Tychonic, Ursine, Capellan, Copernican and Keplerian. Three geo-heliocentric là (Tychonic, Capellan, Ursine) where some bodies circled the sun and the earth some. Two là heliocentric (Copernican and Keplerian). Early on, Galileo's Battle for the Heavens diễn tả Galileo's discovery mà Venus Went through phases. This could only be Explained if Venus was orbiting the Sun and not earth. If the choice was a Copernican model giữa (sun-centered) and Galileo's straw man (the earth-centered Ptolemaic) it was clear proof for the Copernican Model. But it was not a two-way choice. All five models compatible with the Galileo Mentioned là's discovery. Most discussions of the Galileo Affair fail to mention this. The Galileo Affair-The Missing Pieces Straw man arguments are not scientific arguments. Galileo flaw with this compound narratives shallow discussions of Copernican and Ptolemaic cả the models. In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend vài spends chapters discussing Galileo and arguments and counter-cả the arguments for Copernicism from a scientific point of view and Philosophical. The noted philosopher's Conclusions are at odds with the digested version of the controversy in the typical hiển biography: ... while the pre-Copernican astronomy was printed trouble (was confronted by a series of refuting instances and implausibilities), the Copernican theory was printed thậm greater trouble (was confronted by more drastic thậm refuting instances and implausibilities). The problems Identified by Feyerabend are only one issue with modern portrayals of the Galileo Affair (eg Galileo's Battle for the Heavens). They share the same missing pieces often Do: Stellar Parallax The Astronomical Record The Church's Treatment of Copernicus , Johannes Kepler There are cần Consequences of a moving earth. One is stellar parallax (see Copernicus and Stellar Parallax). If the earth was moving relative to the sun it mà Demands on earth thể viewers see some change in the relative positions of Nearer and distant stars over the course of a year. No-one printer Galileo's time was thể detect any change in the positions of the khác stars. Eventually Stellar parallax was detected, but not off until 1838. Stellar parallax was not the only problem with the Copernican Model. Planetary models are mathematical models. They can be used to predict the position of any planet at any time khi a year. Deciding on a model as easy as nên là Comparing actual with predicted positions positions for each of the khác models. But it seemed all the models mà (excepting the Keplerian) là observationally equivalent. This Đã Confirmed by modern computer-aided analyzes [_2_]. Galileo ignore the fact rằng narratives Copernican Model used perfect circles, and the problem required the use of Kepler's ellipses. Kepler's model better than the others would Prove vì but considering it was new, this was not Galileo's lifetime khi Obvious. The Kepler model did have its successes, khi Galileo's lifetime even level. Kepler's model predicted mà Mercury would pass the Earth and Sun giữa on November 7.1631. This is known as a Transit of Mercury (see Gassendi's Transit). A Catholic priest, Pierre Gassendi, astronomers around Europe to help Asked verify the Transit. The Transit lỗi sau minutes of Kepler's predictions. Gassendi calculated the error of Kepler's model as 14 minutes (of an arc) while the Ptolemaic model của was 4 degrees 25 minutes. The Copernican model was worse than hoặc at 5 degrees (see Nicolaus Copernicus Thorunensis). Galileo bị this important, experiment. He announced his hda Decision to ignore Kepler's work well is before the experiment. (See Galileo's Contemporaries). Galileo's Battle for the Heavens is all about Galileo's Struggle with the Catholic Church over his support for the Copernican Model. It Seems odd fact it is made ​​of Copernicus's mention own Struggles with the Catholic Church over HIS Model. Copernicus's Struggles are not Mentioned vì There were none. What happened after Copernicus says much about what happened Died khi HIS life. Buried in a thay being Cemetery, like members of the Diocese nhất, he was honoured with a burial inside Fromborg Cathedral [_3_]. Copernicus was hoặc in the care or employ of the church from the time he was orphaned at age 10 to his death at age 70. The Church Funded HIS university education, with an income and given below, photographing (through sinecures) while at university even level. In his last days, he was being cared for by a church canon, at the request of a Catholic bishop. About 10 years is before his death reached the Vatican Copernicus's ideas. The result was a letter asking him to share his work with other scholars (see Schonberg's Letter). Copernicus bị the request. It then Jesse Fell to Tiedemann, a Roman Catholic bishop and close friend of Copernicus, to convince Copernicus to publish. Copernicus finally Agreed, but only to publish his mathematical tables. It was Geise and Copernicus's student, Rheticus, who convinced Copernicus to publish his theory as well. Geise, being one of Copernicus's closest friends, did warn him to expect pushback from other astronomers [_4_]. When the manuscript was finally published, it contained a copy of Schonberg's Letter, the imprimatur of the pope, and an expression of thanks to the pope and Geise. Kepler and the Jesuits Thường Kepler is credited with our modern view of the solar system. Kepler was not a Catholic. Born a Lutheran, he hda excommunicated from the Lutheran Church được for some of his beliefs. He remained a devout Christian, but outside of any formal tradition. Nothing Seemed to come easy for Kepler. In His Early career, Kepler telescope hda a borrowing trouble. Galileo bị HIS requests. It would be left to the Catholic bishop of Cologne to lend him one. Over time a close relationship with Kepler Developed the Austrian Jesuits (Especially Paul Guldin). Kepler would use the network of Institutions as his Jesuit private postal service. The Jesuits chased down and trả a manuscript was stolen from mà him. Niccolo Zucchi, a Jesuit master builder telescope, built a telescope for Kepler, at Guldin's request. Kepler Acknowledged the help with a gushing thank you to the Jesuits In His last book, the Somnium. Galileo, Kepler and some Jesuits disagreed on the design of telescopes. Galileo's preferred design used a convex objective and a concave eyepiece plano-. A few years after Galileo introduced his telescopes, Kepler proposed a design with a convex objective and a convex eyepiece. This design was largely ignored; except for a group of Jesuits, led by Christopher Scheiner. Started building and using telescopes Scheiner using Kepler's design. He detailed his print this work, Rosa Ursina, 1630. Astronomers remained skeptical print. But not for long. Shortly after Galileo's death, astronomers hủy the Galilean Favour of Kepler's print design. Scheiner was only one of many church who made ​​important, scientists of Contributions to the early development of telescopes. This included building the first reflecting telescope Crude, inventing a telescope mount still used widely today nằm proposing the reflecting telescope design and mà would dominate in the twentieth century. Fathers of the Telescope details some of the Contributions of Church to the scientists of the early development of the telescope. The Myths Galileo Galileo's Battle như narratives for the Heavens by Galileo a disservice asterisks allow for tremendous. Galileo's greatness could be argued using only one of his works, Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences. Yet Galileo unnecessarily embellish his narratives record with myth and hyperbole. As a result, it is Difficult to know where the real ends and where the mythical Galileo Galileo begins. There are examples of myth-making vài from Galileo's Battle for the Heavens. This from an award-winning documentary nằm widely used print science education in the United States. The program's website Accompanying Stated "... Despite Myriad embellishments, Tuy nhiên, most optical telescopes in the 21st century in use derive from the two types in the 17th century Developed by Galileo and Newton, on có shoulders all astronomers, amateur and professional cả, stand today. ". Astronomical telescopes are based on Kepler's design, not Galileo's. The quote exaggerates Newton's Importance as well. Newton's designs are still used by amateu