Italian response

The empirical fiction machine has always presented the Italians as a
sullen and backward people in dealing with Galileo however the Italian
Pope was addressing a valid point that has come full circle this
week.Far from the usual nonsense of Christianity being afraid of a
moving Earth,the original objection was the limitations of
observations to prove a heliocentric perspective as opposed to the
predictive power which determines the position of celestial objects to
each other,the moon's cycles,solar and lunar eclipses,when a planet or
star rises and sets and so on.

I am not the first to point this out however the emergence of the
equatorial coordinate system through Flamsteed and specifically his
call on modeling the Earth's motions on that framework brings
historical and technical perspectives together dramtically -

"Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini
(the future Pope), while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to
treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But
‘hypothesis’ meant two very different things. On the one hand,
astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts
of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed
to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for
calculation and prediction, a view that is often called
‘instrumentalism’. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be
understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to
eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist’ position. Galileo thought
that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as
a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he
discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not
correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held
by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus’ system
was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced
that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole
Galileo Affair."

http://www.unav.es/cryf/english/newlightistanbul.html

I have not considered up to now that people may not be capable of
handling the complexities out of unfamiliarity as opposed to those who
merely follow something as vacuous as unbridled predictions/modeling
but I would hope they could.It involves only knowing the limitations
of Ra/Dec over the 24 hour AM/PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long
system and placing interpretation as a primary function of astronomy
rather than putting 'predictions' in the driving seat.

The issue is so important that I come here as a private person for the
last 12 years and point out as many historical and technical points as
possible in order to restore a stable astronomical narrative and gain
no satisfaction from seeing people thrown in jail for following the
vicious strain of empiricism based on predictions.This can be fixed
but it must be done in astronomy first as the problem originated in
that discipline.

Den onsdag den 24. oktober 2012 Squirrel exceeded his allotted 7 billion repeats of the same post:

that discipline.

Que?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20026938

Just keeping it intelligent.

I guess it hasn’t sunk home what the Italian verdict means for
predictive sciences that lack any interpretative basis but I am
certain a lightbulb will go off in somebody’s head

Scientists can’t defend the convicted ‘experts’ as it would mean
admitting that ‘predictive’ sciences,up to including global warming,
are not certain when they have been promoting their predictions as
certain and that society must act on that certainty.

You can’t make this stuff up !!!!.