undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointssuperb-owl3y ago0 comments

This is a false equivalence. Galileo was concerned with physical fact, whereas this professor's controversial opinions are sociological and fairly subjective--they boil down to a value judgement.

That's not to condemn (or defend) the professor. This just isn't a fair characterization of the debate.

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

foobarian3y ago· 3 in thread

I'm not so sure, even the helio/geocentrism is a matter of opinion due to relativity of motion.

superb-owlOP3y ago

Hah this is a really good point. IIRC the Catholic Church was actually OK with using heliocentric mathematical models, just not with interpreting them as factual.

foobarian3y ago

I wonder what really happened. I'm guessing Galileo was one of those vocal people that just can't help poking the bear.

Edit: reading up a bit more it seems Galileo had a bit of a Linus T. streak, with gratuitous insults and ad hominems against authority. Makes me want to read the source documents now :-)

aydyn3y ago

This isn't true, because one frame is an inertial frame and the other is not (i.e. not real).

AbrahamParangi3y ago· 2 in thread

A fact not yet widely verified and an opinion cannot, in general, be distinguished

superb-owlOP3y ago

I disagree. We can judge the falsifiability of statements without knowing whether or not they're false.

E.g. "red is a better color than blue" is obviously a subjective opinion, where as "ʻOumuamua is made of frozen nitrogen" is obviously a falsifiable statement.

AbrahamParangi3y ago

Right, there are specific instances of opinions which cannot be verifiable facts, but the verifiability of a fact is not, in general, itself verifiable!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse