Newsgroup: it.istruzione.scuola
Titolo: I classici del laicismo: Il "caso" Galileo

[..] E veniamo al famigerato caso Galileo. Alla semplice domanda:
"Perchè è famoso lo scienziato pisano?" pochi saprebbero rispondere:
"Per aver applicato per primo il metodo sperimentale,tipico della
scienza moderna,per aver perfezionato e utilizzato a fini scientifici
il cannocchiale,per aver messo a punto il termometro,per aver 
scoperto la legge che regola le oscillazioni del pendolo,la
montuosità della Luna,la natura stellare della Via Lattea,i quattro
satelliti di Giove,le anomalie di Saturno,le macchie solari e le fasi
di Venere".
La quasi totalità di coloro che parlano di Galileo si ispira invece
ai due processi dell'Inquisizione in cui lo scienziato fu coinvolto
nel 1616 e nel 1633. Grazie a quegli episodi,il pisano è diventato
il paladino della scienza moderna e del progresso. Una vittima
dell'oscurantismo religioso e conservatore della Chiesa cattolica.
Un agnello innocente immolato sull'altare del solito cattolicesimo
che pretende di possedere verità assolute anche in materie
scientifiche. Un martire della scienza. Un testimone dell'
irriducibile contrapposizione tra la fede e la ricerca.
Qualche cifra come pezza d'appoggio. Secondo un'inchiesta del 
Consiglio d'Europa tra gli studenti europei di scienze,quasi il 30%
è convinto che Galileo sia stato arso vivo dalla Chiesa.
Il 97% pensa che sia stato sottoposto a tortura. I pochissimi che 
dicono qualcosa in più citano la celebre frase "Eppur si muove!"
come sfida lanciata agli inquisitori dopo la sentenza.
Peccato che anche quella frase sia un falso storico prodotto 
nel 1757 a Londra dal giornalista Giuseppe Baretti.
La verità attestata dai documenti,dice che Galileo non fu condannato
per le sue teorie scientifiche,ma per le sue idee eretiche.
Sosteneva che la Bibbia dovesse essere modificata seguendo le sue
scoperte: come dire,dalla teoria eliocentrica a quella egocentrica.
Ma è meglio andare con ordine: prima la ricostruzione della parte
scientifica e teologica,poi la famigerata condanna. Le prime 
scoperte astronomiche di Galileo furono sostenute e confermate
dagli astronomi gesuiti. Mentre furono i colleghi dell'università
a spingere lo scienziato pisano a dichiarare pubblicamente che la
Sacra Scrittura dovesse essere corretta sulla scorta delle sue 
scoperte. Il cardinale Bellarmino,che è un santo,gli era amico e lo
proteggeva. Cercò di comporre la controversia suggerendo allo
scienziato di insegnare le sue teorie per quel che erano,ipotesi
scientifiche,inadeguate alla teologia.Dapprima lui acconsentì,poi
fece circolare il "Dialogo sui massimi sistemi" in cui riproponeva
la teoria eliocentrica sbeffeggiando papa Urbano VIII nella figura 
di Simplicio.
Inquisito nuovamente,Galileo fece rinviare il processo,si direbbe
oggi,per motivi di salute. A Roma soggiornò agiatamente in casa di 
cardinali. Durante il processo seppe portare un solo argomento a 
favore della teoria eliocentrica: era sbagliato. Riteneva che le
maree fossero dovute al movimento di rotazione della terra.
Invece sono dovute all'influsso lunare,come sostenevano i suoi 
accusatori. Oltretutto la teoria eliocentrica risale al VI secolo
avanti Cristo. Aristarco di Samo e la scuola pitagorica avevano
sostenuto fosse la Terra a ruotare annualmente intorno al Sole.
Questa teoria venne ripresa da Copernico,sacerdote polacco,morto
21 anni prima della nascita di Galileo. Se Copernico decise di 
pubblicare i suoi studi solo l'anno della sua morte fu per timore
di essere dileggiato dai colleghi di studi ,non certo dagli uomini
di Chiesa ,dai quali ebbe favori e incoraggiamenti. Proprio come
accadde a Galileo,che ebbe tra i suoi più fieri avversari i 
colleghi,peraltro irritati dal suo carattere tutt'altro che facile,
non i religiosi.
In quel periodo, insomma, si fronteggiavano ad armi pari la teoria
tolemaica e quella copernicana: cioè quella che riteneva essere il
Sole e i pianeti a ruotare attorno alla Terra e quella che riteneva
essere la Terra e gli altri pianeti a ruotare attorno al Sole.
Molti religiosi cattolici sostenevano Copernico,condannato invece
da Lutero.Lo stesso Bellarmino sosteneva che la teoria eliocentrica,
considerata come ipotesi scientifica,non era da scartare a priori,
ma bisognava portare le prove. E in questo si dimostrava molto più
scientifico di Galileo,che senza prove sufficienti,la dava per 
inconfutabile.
Ed ecco le condanne. Nel processo del 1616 di Galileo non si parla
nemmeno. Successivamente convocato dal Sant'Uffizio,gli fu resa nota
la condanna della tesi copernicana e imposto di non insegnarla prima
che venisse corretta e qualificata come ipotesi e non come tesi.
L'ingiunzione gli venne comunicata privatamente per non esporlo al
dileggio dei colleghi. Galileo venne ricevuto dal Papa e promise di
obbedire. Ma non fu di parola.
In seguito al processo del 1633,lo scienziato non passò nemmeno un
minuto in carcere,non venne mai torturato,non gli fu impedito di 
incontrare colleghi e religiosi,di scrivere ,di studiare e di
pubblicare.Il suo "Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a
due nuove scienze",è del 1638,cinque anni dopo la condanna.
Gli rimase l'obbligo,scaduto dopo tre anni,di recitare una volta la
settimana i sette salmi penitenziali.Lo scienziato proseguì
liberamente nella recita anche dopo. Quando morì,a 78 anni e nel
suo letto,una figlia suora raccolse la sua ultima parola:"Gesù".
--
da "Leggenda nera? No grazie" in Gnocchi-Palmaro "Catholic Pride" -
Piemme 2005
xpost
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 dell'oscurantismo religioso e conservatore della Chiesa cattolica.
Curati, invasato. 

 nel 1616 e nel 1633. 
Ma vuoi scherzare?????
In tutto il mondo (visto di prima persona quando giravo nelle univerità
come ricercatrice), al di là del credo religioso, chiunque abbia una
cultura>0 sa con certezza che Galileo è colui che ha dimostrato
l'esistenza del metodo scientifico, pilastro della ricerca (le altre cose
sono "piccolezze" al confronto).
Delle sue vicessitudini religiose si interessano solo quelli che hanno la
coda di paglia!!!
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

Galileo was a practicing Catholic, yet his writings on Copernican 
heliocentrism disturbed some in the Catholic Church who believed in a 
geocentric model of the solar system. They argued that heliocentrism was in 
direct contradiction of the Bible, at least as interpreted by the church 
fathers, and the highly revered ancient writings of Aristotle and Plato 
(especially among the Dominican Order, facilitators of the Inquisition).
The geocentric model was generally accepted at the time, as it had been 
since philosophers first considered the heavens. By the time of the 
controversy, the Ptolemaic model had a serious rival in the Tychonian model 
in which the Earth was at the center of the Universe, the Sun revolved 
around the Earth and the other planets revolved around the Sun. This model 
is geometrically equivalent to the Copernican model and agreed with 
observations in that it predicted no parallax of the stars, an effect that 
was impossible to detect with the instruments of the time. In the view of 
Tycho and many others, this model explained the observable data of the time 
better than the geocentric model did. (That inference is valid, however, 
only on the assumption that no very small effect had been missed: that the 
instruments of the time were absolutely perfect, or that the Universe could 
not be much larger than was generally believed at the time. As to the 
latter, belief in the large, possibly infinite, size of the Universe was 
part of the heretical beliefs for which Giordano Bruno had been burned at 
the stake in 1600.)
An understanding of the controversies, if it is even possible, requires 
attention not only to the politics of religious organizations but to those 
of academic philosophy. Before Galileo had trouble with the Jesuist and 
before the Dominican friar Caccini denounced him from the pulpit, his 
employer heard him accused of contradicting Scripture by a professor of 
philosophy, Cosimo Boscaglia, who was neither a theologian nor a priest. 
Galileo was defended on the spot by a Benedictine abbot, Benedetto Castelli, 
who was also a professor of mathematics and a former student of Galileo's. 
It was this exchange, reported to Galileo by Castelli, that led Galileo to 
write the Letter to Grand Duchess Christina. (Castelli remained Galileo's 
friend, visiting him at Arcetri near the end of Galileo's life, after months 
of effort to get permission from the Inquisition to do so.)
There is evidence of an organized and secretive opposition to Galileo among 
some academic philosophers. This included professors against whom Galileo, 
who was not officially a philosopher at all, had successfully argued for the 
theory of buoyancy developed by Archimedes, as against that of Aristotle, 
which had been taught in the academies. Moreover, the new telescopic 
discoveries in astronomy were, even without arguments on heliocentrism, 
upsetting the established comprehensive theory of the heavens, again due to 
Aristotle. The Jesuit astronomers, after a period of disbelief when good 
telescopes were almost unobtainable, had soon enough agreed on the validity 
of Galileo's discoveries; by contrast, some professors of the secular 
academic world refused for a time to look through the telescope. Caccini's 
attack, if not actually inspired by the philosophers, was welcomed by them 
and had their support.
However, real power lay with the Church, and Galileo's arguments were most 
fiercely fought on the religious level. The late nineteenth and early 
twentieth century historian Andrew Dickson White wrote from an anti-clerical 
perspective:
  <<The war became more and more bitter. The Dominican Father Caccini 
preached a sermon from the text, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up 
into heaven?" and this wretched pun upon the great astronomer's name ushered 
in sharper weapons; for, before Caccini ended, he insisted that "geometry is 
of the devil," and that "mathematicians should be banished as the authors of 
all heresies." The Church authorities gave Caccini promotion.
  Father Lorini proved that Galileo's doctrine was not only heretical but 
"atheistic," and besought the Inquisition to intervene. The Bishop of 
Fiesole screamed in rage against the Copernican system, publicly insulted 
Galileo, and denounced him to the Grand-Duke. The Archbishop of Pisa 
secretly sought to entrap Galileo and deliver him to the Inquisition at 
Rome. The Archbishop of Florence solemnly condemned the new doctrines as 
unscriptural; and Paul V, while petting Galileo, and inviting him as the 
greatest astronomer of the world to visit Rome, was secretly moving the 
Archbishop of Pisa to pick up evidence against the astronomer.>>
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the most respected Catholic theologians 
of the time, was called on to adjudicate the dispute between Galileo and the 
secular university professors who hated him. Bellarmine insisted that 
Galileo furnish more adequate proof of his new theories. Until the proof was 
forthcoming, the ideas should only be taught as theories. This put Galileo 
in a difficult positions, since his theory was correct only in its broad 
strokes: he argued that the tides proved heliocentricity (they don't), his 
model had the planets moving in circles (Kepler had already shown the 
planets had to move in ellipses) and his model therefore contained the same 
epicycles that the older Ptolemaic system contained. All of his observations 
could be explained by Tycho, who argued that the sun revolved about the 
earth and all the planets except the earth moved about the sun. In short, 
his model was only a more mathematically efficient way of saving the 
appearances. It would not have hard evidence in support until the nineteenth 
century.
While Bellarmine recognized that the reality of the supernatural world could 
not be in contradiction to the truth of the natural world, he did not feel 
Galileo's proofs were sufficient to overthrow the entire Aristotelian system 
of knowledge then being taught in the universities, which it would surely do 
if it could be proven to be true. Consequently, while many priests who had 
been provoked by the secular professors and by Galileo's own imperious 
attitude inveighed mightily against him, Bellarmine refused to take most of 
it very seriously.
While many in the Church supported Galileo, the charges brought by the 
priests who had been goaded to act against him were serious. These men 
asserted that dreadful consequences must result to Christian theology were 
the heavenly bodies proved to revolve about the Sun and not about the Earth. 
Their most tremendous dogmatic engine was the statement that "his pretended 
discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation." Father Lecazre 
declared, "It casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation." Others 
declared, "It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the Earth is a planet, 
and only one among several planets, it can not be that any such great things 
have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there 
are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; 
but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How can they trace 
back their origin to Noah's ark? How can they have been redeemed by the 
Saviour?" Nor was this argument confined to the theologians of the Roman 
Church; Melanchthon, Protestant as he was, had already used it in his 
attacks on Copernicus and his school. (White, 1898; online text)
In 1616, the Inquisition warned Galileo not to hold or defend the hypothesis 
asserted in Copernicus's On the Revolutions, though it has been debated 
whether he was admonished not to "teach in any way" the heliocentric theory. 
Copernicus's book was not condemned, rather, it was just held pending the 
correction of a few sentences. When Galileo was tried in 1633, the 
Inquisition was proceeding on the premise that he had been ordered not to 
teach it at all, based on a paper in the records from 1616; but Galileo 
produced a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine that showed only the "hold or 
defend" order. The latter is in Bellarmine's own hand and of unquestioned 
authenticity; the former is an unsigned copy, violating the Inquisition's 
own rule that the record of such an admonition had to be signed by all 
parties and notarized. Leaving aside technical rules of evidence, what can 
one conclude as to the real events? There are two schools of thought. 
According to Stillman Drake, the order not to teach was delivered 
unofficially and improperly; Bellarmine would not allow a formal record to 
be made, and assured Galileo in writing that the only order in effect was 
not to "defend or hold". According to Giorgio di Santillana, however, the 
unsigned minute was simply a fabrication by the Inquisition.
In 1623 Pope Gregory XV died, and Galileo's close friend Maffeo Barberini 
became Pope Urban VIII. The new Pope gave Galileo vague permission to ignore 
the ban and write a book about his opinions, so long as he did not openly 
support his theory. Galileo consented, and set to work writing his 
masterpiece, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (often called 
simply the Dialogue). It involved an argument between two intellectuals, one 
geocentric, the other heliocentric, and a layman, neutral but interested. 
Although it presented the Church's point of view, the geocentrist was 
depicted foolishly, while the heliocentrist often dominated the argument and 
convinced the neutral member in the end.
The Dialogue was published in 1632 with the approval of Catholic censors. It 
was applauded by intellectuals but nevertheless aroused the Church's ire. 
Despite his continued insistence that his work in the area was purely 
theoretical, despite his strict following of the church protocol for 
publication of works (which required prior examination by church censors and 
subsequent permission), and despite his former friendship with the Pope (who 
presided throughout the ordeal), Galileo was summoned to trial before the 
Roman Inquisition in 1633.
The Inquisition had rejected earlier pleas by Galileo to postpone or 
relocate the trial because of his ill health. At a meeting presided by Pope 
Urban VIII, the Inquisition decided to notify Galileo that he either had to 
come to Rome or that he would be arrested and brought there in chains. 
Galileo arrived in Rome for his trial before the Inquisition on February 13, 
1633. After two weeks in quarantine, Galileo was detained at the comfortable 
residence of the Tuscan ambassador, as a favor to the influential Grand Duke 
Ferdinand II de' Medici. When the ambassador reported Galileo's arrival and 
asked how long the proceedings would be, the Pope replied that the Holy 
Office proceeded slowly, and was still in the process of preparing for the 
formal proceedings. In the event, having responded to the urgent demands of 
the Inquisition that he must report to Rome immediately, Galileo was left to 
wait for two months before proceedings would begin.
On April 12, 1633, Galileo was brought to trial, and the formal 
interrogation by the Inquisition began. During this interrogation Galileo 
stated that he did not defend the Copernican theory, and cited a letter of 
Cardinal Bellarmine from 1615 to support this contention. The Inquisition 
questioned him on whether he had been ordered in 1616 not to teach 
Copernican ideas in any way (see above); he denied remembering any such 
order, and produced a letter from Bellarmine saying only that he was not to 
hold or defend those doctrines.
He was then detained for eighteen days in a room in the offices of the 
Inquisition (not in a dungeon cell). During this time the Commissary General 
of the Inquisition, Vincenzo (later Cardinal) Maculano, visited him for what 
amounted to plea bargaining, persuading Galileo to confess to having gone 
too far in writing the book. In a second hearing on April 30, Galileo 
confessed to having erred in the writing of the book, through vain ambition, 
ignorance, and inadvertence. He was then allowed to return to the home of 
the Tuscan ambassador. On May 10, he submitted his written defense, in which 
he defended himself against the charge of disobeying the Church's order, 
confessed to having erred through pride in writing the book, and asked for 
mercy in light of his age and ill health.
A month later (June 21), by order of the Pope, he was given an examination 
of intention, a formal process that involved showing the accused the 
instruments of torture. At this proceeding, he said, "I am here to obey, and 
have not held this [Copernican] opinion after the determination made, as I 
said."
On June 22, 1633, the Inquisition held the final hearing on Galileo, who was 
then 69 years old and pleaded for mercy, pointing to his "regrettable state 
of physical unwellness". Threatening him with torture, imprisonment, and 
death on the stake, the show trial forced Galileo to "abjure, curse and 
detest" his work and to promise to denounce others who held his prior 
viewpoint. Galileo did everything the church requested him to do, following 
(insofar as there is any evidence) the plea bargain of two months earlier. 
He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Although ten Cardinal Inquisitors had heard the case, the sentence carried 
out on June 22 bears the signature of only seven; one of the three missing 
was Cardinal Barberini, the Pope's nephew. It is generally held that this 
indicates a refusal to endorse the sentence. The seven who signed, however, 
were those who were present at that day's proceedings; Cardinals Barberini 
and Borgia in particular, were attending an audience with the Pope on that 
day. Analysis of the Inquisition's records has shown that the presence of 
only seven of ten Cardinals was not exceptional; hence the inference that 
Barberini was protesting the decision may be doubted.
That the threat of torture and death Galileo was facing was a real one is 
widely, though not universally, accepted. Many point to the earlier 
Inquisitional trial against Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 
1600 ostensibly for holding a naturalistic view of the Universe. However, 
Bruno denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation and the 
immortality of the soul, among other heresies. He partially recanted his 
heretical beliefs during the investigation of his works, but returned to 
them before the investigation was completed. Heretics were never burned 
unless they recanted and subsequently returned to their heresies. Galileo 
was never convicted of heresy; even in the second trial, he was only 
'vehemently suspected of heresy.' Instead, he was punished at the second 
trial for having disobeyed what was believed to be a valid injunction not to 
discuss Copernicanism. Such disobedience was not punishable by death. Thus, 
there is no substantial correspondence between Galileo's case and Bruno's. 
Whether such fine legal distinctions entered into Galileo's assessment of 
the situation while the Inquisition was threatening him with torture and 
death is, of course, beyond the scope of this article.
The tale that Galileo, rising from his knees after recanting, said "E pur si 
muove!" 1 (But it does move!) cannot be accepted as true: the penalty for 
going back on a confession before the Inquisition was to be burned at the 
stake (famously, in the case of Giordano Bruno and Jacques de Molay), and 
such a defiance would have been a ticket to follow Bruno to the stake. But 
the widespread belief that the whole incident is an 18th century invention 
is also false. (Drake, 1978, pp. 356-357). A Spanish painting, dated 1643 or 
possibly 1645, shows Galileo writing the phrase on the wall of a dungeon 
cell. Here we have a second version of the story, which also cannot be true, 
because Galileo was never imprisoned in a dungeon; but the painting shows 
that some story of "Eppur si muove"1 was circulating in Galileo's time. In 
the months immediately after his condemnation, Galileo resided with 
Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini of Siena, a learned man and a sympathetic 
host; the fact that Piccolomini's brother was a military attaché in Madrid, 
where the painting was made some years later, suggests that Galileo may have 
made the remark to the Archbishop, who then wrote to his family concerning 
the event, which later became garbled in re-telling.
Galileo was sentenced to prison, but because of his advanced age (and/or 
Church politics) the sentence was commuted to house arrest at his villas in 
Arcetri and Florence 2. Because of a painful hernia, he requested permission 
to consult physicians in Florence, which was denied by Rome, which warned 
that further such requests would lead to imprisonment. Under arrest, he was 
forced to recite penitentiary psalms regularly, but his daughter, who was a 
nun at a nearby convent, successfully petitioned Rome to be allowed to say 
the psalms in his place. He was not supposed to have house guests, but this 
rule was not always strictly enforced. He was allowed to continue his less 
controversial research.
Publication was another matter. His Dialogue had been put on the Index 
Librorum Prohibitorum, the official black list of banned books, where it 
stayed until 1822 (Hellman, 1998). The banning of specific works was not an 
uncommon or necessarily punitive occurrence; Bellarmine himself had had some 
of his own work placed on the index. However, the prohibition did not stop 
at the one book. Though the sentence announced against Galileo mentioned no 
other works, Galileo found out two years later that publication of anything 
he might ever write had been quietly banned. The ban was effective in 
France, Poland, and German states, but not in the Netherlands.
Placed under house-arrest, Galileo would, in 1638, be allowed to move to his 
home near Florence. Though by then totally blind, he continued to teach and 
write. After more than 8 years under arrest, he died at his villa in 
Arcetri, just north of Florence, in 1642.
According to Andrew Dickson White, in A History of the Warfare of Science 
with Theology in Christendom (III.iii), 1896, Galileo's experiences 
demonstrate a classic case of a scholar forced to recant a scientific 
insight because it offended powerful, conservative forces in society: for 
the church at the time, it was not the scientific method that should be used 
to find truth-especially in certain areas- but the doctrine as interpreted 
and defined by church scholars, and White documented how this doctrine was 
defended by the Church with torture, murder, deprivation of freedom, and 
censorship. In a less polemical frame, this has remained the mainstream view 
among the historians of science. However, this elides much of the underlying 
complexity of the trials and their context within Church and secular 
academic politics, as well as the weaknesses of some of Galileo's specific 
arguments, in light of the imprecise observations available at the time. 
Even Thomas Huxley, the man who invented the term agnostic and whose 
nickname was "Darwin's bulldog", said of the Galileo affair, "The Church had 
the best of it." [1]
The viewpoints of White and similar-minded colleagues were never accepted by 
the Catholic community, partially because White's final analysis depicted 
Christianity as a destructive force. A fierce expression of this critical 
attitude can also be seen in Bertolt Brecht's play about Galileo, a source 
for popular ideas about the scientist. This is, of course, unfortunate. 
Brecht, a Marxist, was not interested in hewing to the historical facts so 
much as he was in making a case against theism and for atheism. Moreover, 
deeper examination of the primary sources for Galileo and his trial shows 
that claims of deprivation were likely exaggerated. Dava Sobel's biography 
Galileo's Daughter offers a different set of insights into Galileo and his 
world, in large part through the private correspondence of Maria Celeste, 
the daughter of the title, and her father.
In 1992, 359 years after the Galileo trial and 340 years after his death, 
Pope John Paul II established a commission that ultimately issued an 
apology, lifting the edict of Inquisition against Galileo: "Galileo sensed 
in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the 
depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his 
intuitions." After the release of this report, the Pope said further that 
"... Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in 
this regard [the relation of scientific and Biblical truths] than the 
theologians who opposed him."
--
Xelloss

 pubblicare.
Dieci anni dopo, invece, Ferrante Pallavicino, fu sfigurato dalle 
torture, incatenato "a guisa di crocifisso" alla parete della sua cella 
e quindi mandato al patibolo. Nel "Divorzio celeste" aveva immaginato un 
Cristo che chiede al Padre di divorziare dalla Chiesa.
a.

 pisano?" pochi saprebbero rispondere:
Capisco che a un talebano di ciň non possa fregar
nulla e di conseguenza non sappia rispondere - ma ciň
che segue č esattamente quello che  rende famoso in
Italia e nel mondo Galileo Galilei, definizione del
metodo sperimentale in primis.
Non č Galileo ad essere famoso per la condanna della
chiesa, ma la condanna ad essere una delle macchie
piů visibili sulla falsa coscienza dei preti.
Quanto al resto, da perfetto estremista invasato, il
povero mentecatto che ha scritto queste righe vuol
essere piů realista del re: il Papa ha chiesto SCUSA
al mondo per quell'episodio.
Fallo anche tu, che se no la madonnina s'incazza e
piange.

 --
Wikipedia...


 Wikipedia...
Si Wikipedia, ma con dei riferimenti bibliografici ben precisi!

 l'esistenza del metodo scientifico
Esprimiti in italiano di senso compiuto, che è meglio.
Sul fatto che Galilei abbia poi dimostrato alcunché di nuovo sul metodo 
scientifico, la questione è assai più complessa. Lui stesso fece in realtà 
pochi esperimenti e se ne servì soprattutto come arma dialettica. Spiegò 
anche di non aver mai detto nulla di più di ciò che già Archimede Euclide 
Apollonio e Aristarco già sapevano 2000 anni prima (e più o meno è vero). 
Galilei va considerato un importante uomo di scienza e di pensiero, 
contribuì alla riscoperta del metodo scientifico greco-ellenistico (perduto 
dai romani in poi), più che uno scopritore in senso stretto.

 piange.
è indecente parlare in questi termini a una persona manifestando odio per il 
solo fatto che essa viene supposta aderire a un movimento religioso. Se FF68 
fosse stato musulmano, saresti diventato automaticamente razzista e 
sacrilego e fascista, ma sui cattolici invece è lecito spalar la merda a 
piacimento, vero?
FF68 ha sottolineato alcuni fatti che non sono campati per aria, ossia che 
spesso l'opionione pubblica conosce Galilei in quanto scienziato 
perseguitato dalla chiesa, senza sapere né come e perché avvenne la 
persecuzione, né come e perché Galilei sia stato uno scienziato importante. 
Non è una questione banalmente clericale, ma ha significato culturale.
Per esempio: qualcuno sa spiegarmi come e perché Leonardo da Vinci abbia 
finito per essere ricordato come grande scienziato, quando i suoi contributi 
scientifici sono in realtà modesti e poco influenti, sicuramente secondari 
rispetto ad altri uomini del suo tempo, e quando Leonardo non riuscì mai a 
capir nulla di matematica, tentando inutilmente (per lunghi anni) di leggere 
e comprendere gli scritti di Archimede? E vogliamo parlare della macchietta 
che a tuttora si è fatta della gigantesca figura di Archimede medesimo?
La percezione popolare della storia, e l'immagine stessa della storia, si 
popolano di opinioni radicate che spesso traggono radicamento solo da se 
medesime, e quando se ne cerca il fondamento nei fatti, ci si trova spesso 
davanti a una nebbiolina sfuggente.

 Wikipedia...
Oh sě, il maligno č tra noi...
--
Xelloss 

 come grande scienziato
A me risulta che Da Vinci sia ricordato per essere
un grande artista (il quadro più famoso del genere
- icona stessa della pittura - è il suo) e come
un grandissimo genio del suo tempo: non come
scienziato.
Quanto alla nebbiolina sfuggente immagino che sia
quella che ti scende davanti agli occhi quando senti
parlare di relatività galileiana e di metodo scientifico,
che nulla hanno a che fare con la percezione popolare
della storia.

 Wikipedia...
Fa parte del grande piano massonico anche quella?
Hai qualcosa che smentisca i riferimenti che cita?

 Hai qualcosa che smentisca i riferimenti che cita?
Tra l'altro mi sembra ben fatto e molto obiettivo. Include anche, ad
esempio,  le posizioni che ha assunto Thomas Lessl nella New Oxford Review e
che sostiene (con gran felicità dei vari FF68) che molto di ciò che leggiamo
credendo che si tratti di storia vera, sebbene contenga una parte di verità,
è stato adattato per includere  cose insensate riguardo alla Chiesa
Cattolica. Ovviamente cio' ha dato luogo a usa serie di articoli che lo
smentiscono.

 cattolici invece è lecito spalar la merda a piacimento, vero?
No, l'unica cosa indecente qua è che un talebano nostrano tenti, 
PENOSAMENTE in verità, di sovvertire le realtà storiche al solo scopo 
di dimostrare una *sua* verità.
Tutto questo dimostra *NON* solo poca intelligenza, ma che una 
discreta dose di malafede; tutto questo questo a patto che il 
sopracitato mentecatto talebano abbia in regola, almeno, il conto dei 
cormosomi.
Anche perche risulta, ed è storicamente provato, che Mastro Titta sia 
una realtà piuttosto recente, in termini storiografici.
Saluti
Il GecKo
-- 
Quanto più è priva di chiaroscuri la sua visione e quanto più netti 
sono i suoi giudizi - e quanto più se li conferma in base a ciò che 
vede in altri popoli ed altre religioni - tanto più quella cultura è 
esterna a se stessa e immersa nel sonno.
J.Hillman
Un terribile amore per la guerra
Un fulgido esempio di giornalismo peracottaro
http://www.senato.it/notizie/RassUffStampa/030515/4et0b.tif

 fondamento nei fatti, ci si trova spesso davanti a una nebbiolina
sfuggente.
Sono disposta a concordare con te (non su Galileo, ) se pero' adesso
ci racconti di San Gennaro la cui leggenda come sai e' basata su una
nebbiolina sfuggente.
Quanto alla teoria di FF68, solo a un invasato integralista in cerca
di motivi per sentirsi virtuoso e martire puo' venire in mente quella
roba. La gente normale quando sente nominare Galileo per prima cosa
pensa alla torre di Pisa; se si nomina Leonardo, alla Gioconda. POI al
resto.
-- 
Jolly

 metodo scientifico, la questione č assai piů complessa
Coso, č questo sarebbe il *tuo* italiano di "senso compiuto" ?
Ma che c'hai, na vanga in bocca ???
Le costruzioni grammaticali e logiche delle tue frasi farebbero 
impallidire Stravinsky...
:-/////
Saluti
Il GecKo
-- 
Quanto piů č priva di chiaroscuri la sua visione e quanto piů netti 
sono i suoi giudizi - e quanto piů se li conferma in base a ciň che 
vede in altri popoli ed altre religioni - tanto piů quella cultura č 


Wikipedia...
E cosa ci sarebbe di male nella wikipedia? 
E' comunista?
E' massonica?
E' musulmana?
E' omosessuale?  
saluti
Lisa

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:430e25f7...@twister2.libero.it...

E' democratica, ai sinistri la democrazia fa paura, il popolo, la plebaglia, 
deve fare quel che dicono loro, gli eletti, la gente è contro la società 
multietnica? sono solo ignoranti, togliamogli il voto, chi vorrà votare 
dovrà superare un esame, la commissione sarà fatta tutta da sinistri 
ovviamente. 

 a.
Avete più paura voi dei miei libri che io delle vostre torture.
Giordano Bruno, filosofo, martirizzato in Campo de' fiori. 

 E' democratica, ai sinistri la democrazia fa paura
Hai capito tutto.
--
Xelloss 

 E' democratica, ai sinistri
[ ] Siamo contenti che tu almeno tu ne convenga, visto che
    il tuo camerata FF68 - appartenente all'estrema destra
    cattolica - era convinto del contrario.
[ ] Hai perso l'ennesima occasione per star zitto e evitare
    una figura da coglione
Metti una "X" nell'opzione che preferisci.

ovviamente. 
Certo che questo è un genio.
Quasi quasi me lo metto nella signature.
Per scambiare FF68 per uno di sinistra, che ce l'ha con la wikipedia
perché è troppo populista, bisogna veramente avere doti paranormali
strepitose.
Lisa

 scientifiche,inadeguate alla teologia.Dapprima lui acconsentì,poi
Per chi è interessato al dialogo con il cardinale Bellarmino o ad alcune
scene di vita può guardarsi i filmati all'indirizzo:
http://www.frizzo.info/video/
il film intero lo trovate all'indirizzo:
http://www.malignani.it/video/
Il film è stato prodotto nell'ambito dell'area di progetto 2004/2005
dall'ITI "A. Malignani" di UDINE
consigliata la linea ADSL
Filippo

E' omosessuale?  
tutto questo e anche di piu', infatti
E' geneticamente modificata
E' clonata
E' libera
E' trasparente
in pratica l'apocalisse, infatti se operi una trasformazione
alfa-cazzo-numerica vedi che in realta' il nome rappresenta il numero
666 :P


 
Sì; a questo proposito, c'è un libro bellissimo di Russo
http://www.feltrinelli.it/SchedaLibro?id_volume=1370411
Seguesù
-- 
"It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing 
more"
Albus Silente in _Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince_
http://www.servidellagleba.it/~mmanca/blog/


http://www.feltrinelli.it/SchedaLibro?id_volume=1370411
l'ho giusto comprato qualche giorno fa :)
spero di riuscire a leggerlo presto (e' subito passato in testa alla
mia pila di "da leggere quanto prima" :)


davanti a una nebbiolina sfuggente.
Perche' "popolare"? Da sempre la storia si basa su documenti e/o voci
che possono benissimo essere falsi o male interpretati: Vari storici
inventano (o copiano cose inventate in passato), varie cose non
possono essere controllate per mancanza di dati. Le "teorie generali"
dipendono  dalla disponibilita' di cattedre.
Significativo che e' stato dichiarato che si puo' leggere la "vulgata"
come se fosse una traduzione perfettamente fedele. Ricorda anche i
famosi "vecchi credenti", che credevano in una versione della bibbia
piena di riconosciuti errori di traduzione e di copiatura e hanno
messo in atto una specie di guerra civile contro quelli che si
basavano su una versione piu' corretta.
E stanno a discutere sui libri di storia. Ma...


http://www.frizzo.info/video/
Questa la documentazione storica?