Movie

This movie really didn't sit well with me at some parts. It painted a very different picture than what I read. First off, the whole telescope incident in the beginning really through me off. I knew he didn't invent the telescope, but the way the movie presented it he looked like a crook the way he took credit for it. i just didn't imagine Galileo doing something like that. However, the overall work seemed to be accurate enough. It just seemed to not go into the detail we are used to, and there were some inaccuracies, i.e. the daughter thing.

The one recurring part that confused me was the 3 choir kids. I just didn't get what was with them and why they were though. I know it was just part of the movie, but why 3 little kids singing. I don't know, it was just a really weird part of the movie.

Overall the whole thing seemed to work well, but many of the small or medium sized elements weren't so accurate. To us this matters because we have read a lot, but to others many would go unnoticed.

Rehabilitation.

I was a little surprised by what Sharratt had to say. There were a few things I didn't know, mainly concerned with Pope John Paul. It seems that Sharratt really likes Pope John Paul and most of what he did. However, the only part he didn't like was how "Pope John Paul's address eludes the crucial distinction between hypotheses as mere calculating devices and hypotheses as conjectures that could eventually be shown to be true." Other than that the, I would have to agree with Sharratt in saying that Pope John Paul was very good. Also, Sharratt seems to go so far as to say that he really is one of the few to realize what Galileo has done for the Church, and more people need to see that. Even though he wasn't a theologian, his contribution was great. I also like how Sharratt shared some information about the Galileo situation I didn't know about, like how the Inquistion didn't even look at his scientific case. That just amazed me.

Beginning of the Affair

Its amazing how much censorship was going on, and mainly over small things. Phrases that were "bad-sounding" were thrown out of books because they might hurt the Church. As I was reading I was stunned that the Church went through such measures.

One of the big focuses of the reading I feel was the fact that only somethings were condemned at first. The Copernican idea was fine with the Church it seemed. That wasn't were the issue was. The real problem was when people tried to say that it could go with the Scripture. It was like the Church allowed the belief to exist and talked about, but as soon as someone said its possible it was censored. It almost doesn't make sense to me why they only corrected parts that suggested it can work with the scripture, and yet didn't take up too much issue with the idea at first.

Also, I never heard about the three propositions by Galileo: "God is not a substance but an accident, that God is sensuous, and that the miracles of the Saints are not true miracles." It seems so irrelevant to everything it confused me. Like, how did that end up in Galileo's astronomy talk.

In regards to someone trying to get Galileo in trouble with the Church, I feel it wasn't so personal. It seems to me it was more of lets get the Church more powerful and flex our muscles. Obviously Galileo was targeted, but he was just an easy target and prime for a fight.

Galileo's Letter

I feel that the two main themes of Galileo's Letter are that scripture and observations can be rectified together and that scripture is not a factor in determining validity of science. These two points are intertwined together and go together very well.

Galileo is in firm agreement with Augustine in believing that the Bible pretty much concerns itself with matters of salvation and not of scientific inquiries. Augustine says that the Bible "did not want to teach men these things which are of no use to salvation." Obviously, whether or not the sun moved or the earth moved has nothing to do with reaching salvation, which most people acknowledge. So therefore, the bible shouldn't have a hold over whether or not Copernicus is right, since the Bible deals with something entirely different. A very witty line i like was that "the intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes." It really sums up how Augustine, Galileo, and many others felt about the interpretation and purpose of the Holy Scripture. Also, the Bible was written "to accommodate the belief of the people." It would just go along with what people would naturally think, not going out of its way to state the explicit truth when not necessary. Since perception seems to show that the earth is still, the Bible might just go along with that just for the sake that it is unnecessary to explain how you are wrong.

The second main theme of Galileo's letter is the fact that science and religion really don't contradict each other and go quite well together. "And so one must search for the correct meaning of Scripture with the help of demonstrated truth, rather than taking the literal meaning of the words." The demonstrated truths being observations. Basically, observations are made and those are truth. Then, the scripture must be read and interpreted in order to agree with the recordings. Since observations and scripture are both true, neither can contradict each other, so only the interpretations must be altered.

One part I feel I disagree with is the line "whoever is supporting the truth can have many sensory experiences and many necessary demonstrations on his side, whereas the opponent cannot use anything but deceptive presentations, paralogisms, and fallacies." In many cases, false theories have perfectly reasonable evidence on their side. For example, the belief that the earth is still has evidence that is perfectly reasonable. If its moving so fast, how do we not feel it and how are we not thrown because of the speed. Also, sometimes the truth seems to have deceptive methods. For example, Galileo's telescope was used to prove his ideas and some people were not too keen on the telescope in fear of being tricked. You would see nothing with just your eye, but yet the telescope showed another image. That can seem deceptive even though it is the truth.

Finocchiaro's Introduction

This post will be concerned with the anti-Catholic and anti-Galilean extremes section.

To be honest, I really don't get Finocchiaro. I understand what he is trying to say, but at the same time I don't. First off, he says "a balanced approach to the study of the Galileo affair must avoid the two opposite extremes." Well thank you Maurice, because otherwise I would have never known that when you study things you shouldn't look at the extremes. This is what you always have been taught and what you always do. It just seems to me that that is an obvious thing to do. Also, he seems to be blowing a lot of smoke about the whole extremes, but he doesn't really back it up. He talks about them, but nothing major.

Also, to me he contradicts himself in the beginning. First he acknowledges that "Galileo's visit on that particular occasion thus had the status of improsenment, a priveleged imprisonment to be sure, but a forced residence nonetheless." He then goes on to mention a column in the road that reads "it was here that Galileo was kept prisoner by the holy Office, being guilty of having seen that the earth moves around the sun." Finocchiaro says that this expresses the myth of the Galileo affair, but what myth is that? That he was held prisoner? That's not a myth. He just said that it was true a few sentences beforehand. If he is contesting the validity of the prisoner part, then he is infact one of the "extremes" which he despises because he holds that statement as truth beforehand.

If Finocchiaro doesn't like the part about being guilty because he saw that earth moves around the sun, tough luck. That's obviously why he was found guilty. If he didn't see the earth move, would he have gotten in trouble. No. Of course not. So it all goes back to Galileo seeing the earth move.

He also says that Galileo turned out to be right about how the Bible doesn't talk about natural science. Finocchiaro's reasoning is that the Church officially declared that to be true. The Church has declared a lot of things over the years, and that doesn't make them true. The Church declared the earth the center of the universe for goodness sake. Theres just something iffy to me about Finocchiaro.

I do like the point he makes about the difference between factual correctness and rational correctness. There is a major difference as noted by Finocchiaro. Just because a statement is true doesn't mean the rationale behind it is also true. For example the conclusion that we are in Hamilton,NY is a true statement, so it has factual correctness. If the reasoning however is that wherever you are in the world is Hamilton, New York is not true, so no rational correctness. Just because the conclusion is true, doesn't make the premises true. And the same goes vice versa.

Kepler

Koestler doesn't seem to love Kepler, but he doesn't dislike him as much as Copernicus. Its a much different tone than before. Also, I found it weird how Koestler was almost poking fun at the fact that Kepler was always sick and stuff. I mean, it's kind of unnecessary and doesn't really shed any new light on Kepler. Also, it was funny to read about how Kepler was all into astrology and the positions of stars. He made predictions depending on where the stars were when conception was made, and I just didn't expect that from him. When you think of scientist like him, you don;t usually associate it with astrology and arts of that form.

To end, here's a song inspired by Kepler and his writings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NszUiuooRs

Copernicus

I can't decide whether Koestler respects Copernicus or if he totally dislikes him. At some points, he talks about him being uncreative and not doing a lot of work. At the same time though, he points out that if it was so easy, why hadn't others done it. Also, he points out that many have not fully read his works, so many comments are unfounded possibly.

Koestler calls Copernicus unoriginal and basically he studied the ancients more than he did the stars, and his work was based on the past. Kepler summed it up in his quote that "Copernicus was interpreting Ptolemy rather than nature. It would seem that Copernicus should being doing a lot of nature studying, but rather the bulk of the work was already done. Koestler seems to back Copernicus up in the face of that form of scrutiny. "If it was really as simple as that, then the equally simple question arises why nobody before him had worked out a heliocentric system?" Its a very good question because people seem to hark on him for not doing a lot of work and such, but if it was so easy, how come so many people before him failed to do what he did. People criticize him, but yet not many could have done what he did.

I found it amazing that so many historians are incorrect on parts of Copernicus's beliefs. If people are to pass judgment, it would seem logical that they must have read Copernicus and understand it. Yet, many of them have clearly not, and that baffles me. It is just unfair to hold such negative thoughts and not even have read them. It humored me when Koestler said Copernicus's system "uses altogether forty-eight epicycles - if I counted them correctly."

Also, the fact that there is no summary really seemed to hurt Copernicus. I guess he wrote so ambiguously that people had a hard time determining what he meant. It is suggested that summary would have cleared so many things up, but it was left out. Koestler mentions that Copernicus said there would be a summary, but that it never came through.

I would also just like to say that I really like how Koestler words things and relates different things. "He spent the rest of his life trying to fit into a medieval framework based on Aristotelian physics and Ptolemaic wheels. It was like trying to fit a turbo-prop engine on a ramshackle old stage-coach"

Koestler and Copernicus

There were so many things about Copernicus that I would have never known. The first that intrigued me was seeing that he worked with geography, when I always associate him with astronomy. Back then though, I feel people were much more multidisciplined than today.

Another interesting part was that it is not known whether he actually believed his system was truth. It seems odd that he could be able to write a book, and not whole-heartedly believe in what he wrote. Its also interesting to think that he didn't necessarily believe it was true, but rather it made more sense. That baffles me that you can support something that you don't think is true, but rather that it makes more sense.

Also, Copernicus didn't like observing. What!?!?!?! When you hear his name, you think astronomy, so obviously the logical conclusion would be he has to observe. It almost diminishes his reliability and your confidence in him.

It seems that Copernicus was very sly and secretive. He must have been in order to leave no trace during his ten year stay in Italy. That must have been hard to do, but he was able to do it. Supposedly he gave lectures, but once again no trace of that, so who knows what actually happened. Also, he didn't want to publish his book, but was eventually persuaded to , but after many many years.

"Rheticus wrote the narratio prima under th66e watchful eyes of Copernicus." I can imagine Copernicus sitting in a corner in the dark watching him write. Him being all secretive hiding from view but still watching. It just seems like something he would do.

The scandal. Olala. Copernicus may have thought the same as the preface, but to put it in there is stunning. He obviously didn't want that to be in there, and Koestler thinks that could have been a reason for his death. Reading that shcoked him so much, and it eventually killed him. I mean, pretty much his whole work was just told that it was nothing to be taken seriously.

Aristotle

It seems to be almost a total effort to dismantle Aristotle. His ideas were pretty much all that was round, and he had influence. But then, that all changed when his ideas were pretty much revolted against. There were 3 specific areas that were attacked; religion, politics, and medicine. It seemed almost like a methodical destruction of everything Aristotle. Machiavelli was able to take down his politics and put in place new ideas, his own ideas. In religion, Luther was very much on the opposite side of Aristotle, and came up with his own views. And finally in medicine Vaselius did his own research and found out that medicine was nothing like Aristotle's belief. Its almost like there was just a sudden turning on a man who had been dead for a while, but whose ideas were still around.

This is important because it shows a shift in thinking. People were moving away from Aristotle and were coming up with new ideas on subjects that were probably considered explained. For the church, this could affect them or it could not. For medicine, "theology and religious practice depended very little on Galenic medicine" which is what Vaselius recanted. "Vesalius was not a threat" so the Church didn't have to worry about his findings. However, the Church did have to worry about Luther because his ideas opposed that of the Church. The Church really only cares about itself, and it will allow new ideas, as long as they don't oppose its own beliefs. They only pass judgement on things which relate to themselves or they have direct opinions on. This is a lot of things though because the Church is expanding. Also, most of religion is up to interpretation so the Church's ideas are very widespread.

St. Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas refers to Aristotle as "the Philosopher" in his writings. Aquinas is predominately Aristotelian, but that was not his only influence. Aquinas drew from many different authors, not limiting himself to Aristotle, which is a very good thing. A multitude of influences gives you a wider perspective and not just a replica of Aristotle.

Augustine and Aquinas have a few similarities but they also have differences. First off, they both start with an A; freaky. Secondly, they both believe in God and his power as the supreme being. one of the main differences between these two men is that fact that Augustine relies very much on faith, whereas Aquinas dwells on human reasoning (a central theme to him).

Aquinas is also concerned with beginnings and ends. He reasons that something is predated by something else which causes it to be. But this can't go on backwards forever, so there must be a start, "therefore, there must be a first mover existing above all -- and this we call God." This goes along with human reason because when you think about it how can something go on infinitely back in time. Aquinas, focusing on human reason, must have obviously thought of that in his development of his personal theology.

Aquinas describes rationality as "the distinctive form that intelligence takes in human beings as animals." What separates people from other animals is that the actions of humans are rational. That is what I took it to mean, but then it is said that "reason does not distinguish us from animals; it distinguishes us as animals." At first I thought that my thought was totally wrong then, but then I read into it, and am thinking that it only means that we are still animals. Just because we are rational doesn't separate us from animals, but just other animals besides the animals that we are. Also, rationality is used to reach the end goal of God.

Another idea I found really interesting was imperfection. Whenever we hear about that word today, we automatically give it a bad connotation. But really, it doesn't have to mean that at all. "It can mean 'not as great' by comparison, as in the claim that human beings are imperfect with regard to the angels." It doesn't have to mean faulty or anything bad like that, but it is just saying it is not perfect, which is reserved for the divine.

Sleepwalkers

Reading "Sleepwalkers" was very interesting, and I was attracted to a few concepts. The first that caught my eye was Saint Lactantius and how he "set himself to demolish the notion of the rotundity of the earth." Its amazing that he got success, because his argument was based on the idea that "people can't walk with their feet above their heads, rain and snow can't fall upwards." At the time, that was all that was needed in order to convince the masses that the earth was flat. This is assuming that all objects are pulled directly down, so all objects have a different end point it is going towards, which is directly below them. Since its flat, and all objects drop directly downwards, they must all be going towards different points, and not one common point.

Today, we realize that all objects on earth are going towards one point, the center of the earth. If the earth was flat, then objects near the edge when dropped would fall on a diagonal, and only objects directly in the middle would go downward.

Later on, the English monk Bede accepted the sphereality of the earth, but still clung to old notions. He said that yes, there were land on the antipodal regions, so it was a sphere, but "denied that there were people living in the antipodal regions." This was said because the ocean that separated the lands was too large, and couldn't be crossed, so descendents of Adam can not be there. It really makes no sense. If the earth is a sphere, then if u carry on a straight line, you will come back to where you started. So by saying that the ocean is too large to cross, you're denying that the Earth is round.

There were always other religions besides Christianity when it was around. Bede is saying that because there is no possibility that people of the antipodal regions believe in Christ, they therefore do not exist. What is Bede to say to those of another faith right in front of him. You do not believe in Christ, so ou don't exist? It just doesn't seem logical to me.

Another really interesting part was about the chain and how everything is continuous and lines are blurred. Between plants and animals there are practically half animal-half plant mixes. It is all a continous chain and everything is attached. I also liked the part about inanimate vs animate objects. If a rock was observed along with a plant, it is clearly seen that the rock is inanimate and the plant is animate. If a plant and an animal are observed however, the plant is clearly the inanimate one and the animal the animate. I've never really thought of it like that before, but it really goes to show that perspectives and viewpoints are very key. If we only see rocks and plants, we would only categorize animated objects as those of movement like plants. We would not know of how the animals are so much more animated and have so much more movement.

This reading of "Sleepwalkers" dwelled on the fact that science was at a standstill for many centuies and during the medieval ages. But, why did this happen? What was the reason for it stoppage? Koestler blames it on the fact that people started to believe things contrary to what the experienced; what they have seen. They had "a complete disregard for reality," which obviously makes advancement hard. Earlier ages have tried to explain what they saw, maybe not correctly, but accepted it and tried. In this age though, the people didn't even try to explain it, just threw out the observations and reality.

Finally, the arab philosophers. Koestler clearly doesn't like them and seems to blame them for the standstill. It reminds me of the saying "evil prevails when good men do nothing". The arabs had all the information from the earlier ages at their fingertips, yet they did NOTHING in the eyes of Koestler. They could have carried on the torch of theoretical science, but they did seem to make advancement in practical science, but Koestler doesn't pay much attention to that. He belittles them, putting everything on their shoulders. "During the centuries when they were the sole keepers of the treasure, they did little to put it to use." They were just the "go-betweens", carrying the knowledge for centuries and passing it on, but not advancing it.

All About Augustine

Augustine as a man interested me, no, rather he fascinated me. From his early past, to his waning years, he never ceased to amaze me. There were some parts of this passage that really captured my eye, and i would like to share these eye thieves to everyone. Numero uno: "above all, by the hope in their doctrine a scientific explanation of natural and its most mysterious phenomena." He was looking for an explanation to whats around him and such, and this explanation was scientific, not some theological belief, which later he turns to. But first, we must go to to the root of the explanation(scientific)-searching, namely the Manichæans. They claimed to have all the answers, having them served on a silver plate, by Faustus, the all knowing doctor. You just had to ask him a question, and poof, you'll get the answers. Well, Augustine was highly disappointed when he finally met Faustus, and broke away from the Manichæans doctrine.

Augustine returned to his quest of explanation, and finally reached faith. Ah, the word faith. How often it is sought by one, despised by others. The backbone of the masses, but the scourge of others. Augustine found Ambrose in 383, and finally he had found his truth. He becomes acquainted with the doctrines and beliefs. In doing so, he started to attack the old theories, tearing them down brick by brick. "They destroy everything, and build up nothing." In my eyes, his pure hatred stemmed from their failures for him; their lack of giving him the knowledge he oh so sought. He went on a KO streak, one by one going after his past explanations. It really goes to show the power an opposing opinion has on a person or idea. He was way more influenced by falsifying the past theories that confirming his new found faith. I feel that this is in many cases, and that does not include Galileo and the Church.

A decent sized portion of The City of God Book V was devoted to the whole twin thing. How the ends of twins are not the same, but different because of the positions of the constellations. But the positions are hardly changed, only but a few minuted past. But yet such a small change in the stars means a drastic change in a life. Bologna he cries. Hogwash. What makes these changes in twins due to the stars, and not some other reasons.

This reminds me of the "God of Gaps" Today, we "know" that these changes are from genetics, rather than some change in the sky. Genetics were not known, so differences needed an explanation, so the positions of stars were fitted to explain the differences in twins, and all other things. It was invented to fit an job opening, due only to necessity and not based on qualifications.

Cicero to me seems almost to be a downer. If there is such a thing of fate, then there is no free will, which is a scary thought. Not being able to have control of your future and having it already predetermined is a belief that people do not generally like. How can one like to think that you have no control. No ability to change your surroundings, gives me the chills. But yet, what about the idea that their is fate, but it already knows how you will choose, thereby not robbing you of free will. I can see it as saying that we have already chose, and that destiny knows our choice. Its not predetermined in the sense that we have no choice, but rather it was predetermined by us. Henceforth, fate can coincide the free will, but only if the order is rectified in you ideas.

Aristotle's Universe and Philosohpy

Aristotle's universe has one central concept, and that is natural movement. The idea that everything has a natural order and a natural process. Rocks and stones fall, while fire rises. It was just their nature that this occurred, and not an outside force. It is possible to alter the natural way. You can hold a stone up, or throw it in the air. But once that is done, the stone goes back to its natural movement and will go downwards. Besides movement in forms like this, "every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."



This is basically saying that actions also have a natural movement. Everything is aimed at reaching an end; " the end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victor, that of economics wealth." The end is the goal, but it is not always met.



Aristotle seems to think that wealth is not and end because it is "merely useful and for the sake of something else." He believes that for this reason wealth is not the good we are seeking, and therefore not the end, but still in the middle. For wealth is then used to buy things or for status, making them the ends. However, Aristotle lets this topic go because he says it is worthless fighting over. Saying there have been many arguments and he can't do anything about it.



One of the main differences between Plato and Aristotle is their methods. Plato is mathematical; almost more theoretical than practical. Aristotle is out there more, seeing and experiencing his sciences, like dissections for biology. This was key to Aristotle because it helped for his 4 elements and the four opposites (wet and dry).

An interesting note about Aristotle was that movement is marked by time, so if there is no movement there is no time. For Plato, he believes in the creation of the universe. If their two thoughts are combined, this would mean that time didn't exist before since there was no movement.

Viz Lab

The Viz Lab was such a cool experience. At first I wasn't quite grasping exactly what I was seeing, but by the end I think it really sunk in. It was amazing to be able to speed up time and view what would normally take months or years in only a few minutes. As opposed to sitting out 1 night, or going out multiple days in a row, the movement was clear in the Viz Lab. It was obvious what was moving and how it was moving. Obviously this is also possible by viewing outside day in and day out, but for a novice like me this was much clearer. My favorite part was definitely seeing the other planets orbits traced out around the sun. That's something I would have never seen otherwise so that was awesome. Also, the fact that at the pole you get 6 straight months of sun, the 6 months of darkness is totally rad.

I would definitely want another session in the lab since I only started to grasp what I was seeing by the end. Going again would clear a lot of things up and really develop my understanding of the stars and planets and motion. The Viz Lab is such a great tool for learning and I think it can do wonders. It was gnarley.

Sundials, Paths, and Eclipses

The sundial has always amazed me and I've never quite understood them. Its stunning to think that people were able to develop these instruments such a long time ago. The information that was totally new to me involved shadow sticks. It would seem like they would work, but people were able to realize that they weren't. This was due to the fact that the sun's position changed based on the time of the year, so they weren't reliable. To combat that, the sundial was made to "have a gnomon which points to the celestial pole" and the "gnomon's upper edge is parallel to the rotation axis of the Earth." This allowed the sundial to be reliable at any point of the year, unlike the shadow stick.



I also never knew about solar time verse clock time. I knew that sundials were not totally correct, but didn't know the reason why. I knew that the earth's speed around the sun wasn't constant, but I didn't put two and two together to realize the error of solar time. The earth rotates faster in January because "the Earth is closer to the Sun in January than July so its orbital speed is higher." We try to keep everything constant, so "the equation of time converts this to local mean time – based on the imaginary mean Sun that moves eastwards along the ecliptic at a constant rate." It really is amazing to know that people were able to realize this, and shows just how far we have come. From shadow sticks, to sundials, to clocks. The progression has come such a long way and is so precise nowadays.

Eclipses are amazing natural occurrences, especially the total eclipses due to their rarity. I would love to be able to see one in my life, but I'll cross that bridge at another point. What I found interesting was that they are so rare, but also that there are different types of eclipses. To be able to see a total eclipse is almost magical because of its rarity, and also because of its small window of opportunity. It only occurs for a small area, and only for a few minutes, but during that time it must be amazing. I found it pretty cool how they have already predicted were the eclipses will occur for many years to come. When I read that the only thing I could think about is that if one of them is incorrect, and what the ensuing uproar would be like.

Plato: Cave and the Universe

I found the cave allegory to be very interesting. People living in a cave wouldn't be able to see the actual images, but just the shadow of those images. By doing so, the images are distorted and they have a totally different view than those who don't live in the cave. To me, this parallels to a lot of different things in society. The cave can be a lack of knowledge that is changing you, or it can be the lack of a tool/instrument you need. Whatever it may be, the cave is altering reality for those people, and by doing so, it has become their reality and the truth to them. Then, when they are released from the cave, the see everything from the sun and all is different. They now see the images that they saw the shadows of, but it doesn't look the same. It is not what they know. They reject what is new because they believe what they saw in the past is the truth. It also happens vice versa, those going from light images to shadows.

One of Plato's general themes in that change is bad, and that is shown in the cave allegory. When the people are subjected to new images beyond shadows, they do not like it and don't accept it. Change is bad to the people in the cave and they'd much rather have the shadows back. This translates to people of our society. They can live in the dark for a while without a certain knowledge, for example that the earth is flat. This becomes truth to them and it is their reality, no matter what actually may be the case. Then, these same people are subjected to the evidence that the world is a sphere. This is so different than their reality, they can't accept it. People would much rather go back to their own self-truths, just like the humans of the cave.

Plato's universe is a very interesting one, and for much of his ideas he gives backing to. The first is that the world is actually a "living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God." He makes the world an actual being, and Plato gives reasoning as to why it is a simple sphere, with no other markings of a living creature. It doesn't need eyes because there is nothing else for the world to see, no ears because there's nothing else for him to hear, and there are other reasons for no limbs and organs.

Plato also says that the whole world is made up of 4 elements; earth, wind, fire, and water. All though we do not agree with that today, there is a little agreement in the form of elements. Although we believe there are many more elements than 4, we do believe that the elements make up everything, just as Plato's elements did. We also agree with Plato on the idea of self-sustainability. He says that the "Creator conceived that a being which was self-sufficient would be far more excellent than one which lacked anything." Today, that is definitely agreed upon, as shown by Colgate's sustainability initiative. People are always striving to become more self-sufficient as that is a common goal, among countries as well. Plato's notion that self-sustainability is definitely a concept we agree with today.

One idea that is definitely not the same today is the view that "he made the world one whole, having every part entire, and being therefore perfect and not liable to old age and disease." So to Plato, the world was everlasting because it is perfect and therefore will never change. However, that is very contrary to popular belief. Our view is that the world will definitely reach the end of the road and fall victim to "old age or disease." The causes for this are unknown yet, but many people will probably point to global warming, or just deterioration of its lifetime. No matter what the reason, the earth will probably not stay "perfect", but will eventually have its downfall.

Sleepwalkers: Chapters 3 &4

The third chapter of Sleepwalkers for me showed that progress was being made. In the first section, it talks about how "Herodotus mentions a rumour that there exist people far up in the north who sleep six months of the year - which shows that some of the implications of the earth's roundness (such as the polar night) had already been grasped." This showed that people were starting to think of Earth as a floating sphere, which is a step in the right direction. Although Herodotus wasn't totally correct, its the thought that counts. Another good step was the "half-way house" of Herakleides, merging the geocentric and heliocentric views. It is not known whether Herakleides made the full step to the heliocentric idea, but Aristarchus was soon to follow and he did. Finally, the heliocentric model had made its way to the minds of people. Finally, there will be opposition to the geocentric model. However, this all suddenly ended after Aristarchus. "But here the development comes to an abrupt end. Aristarchus had no disciples and found no followers. For nearly two millennia the heliocentric system was forgotten - or, shall one say, repressed from consciousness?" Its amazing to think that an idea, correct (by our knowledge today), was forgotten for such a long time. The reasons behind this I doubt we will ever know.

Where Chapter 3 was more about how science was advancing in the right direction, chapter 4 is quite the opposite. In the opening lines, it mentions how "natural science begins to fall in disrepute and decay." This is where Plato and Aristotle started to rise. It seems to me that they were philosophers/theologians and astronomer as an afterthought. "Plato's contribution to astronomy - which insofar as concrete advances are concerned, is nil; for he understood little of astronomy, and was evidently bored by it. The few passages where he feels moved to broach the subject are so muddled, ambiguous, or self-contradictory, that all scholarly efforts have failed to explain their meaning." What he did develop in astronomy however, had a long lasting effect. He said that "the shape of the world must be a perfect sphere, and that all motion must be in perfect circles at uniform speed." He said that this must be true, and so it was then passed on to mathematicians to prove his idea, which "kept them busy for the next two thousand years." The failure of nerve is all about science's downfall, just when it was looking in the right direction.

The Greeks in no way convinced me that knowledge increases linear. At every point, science is not advancing at a constant rate. At some points there is a little spike with new findings, and at other points there are lulls, when nothing is found. To say that knowledge is always increasing linearly just doesn't make sense to me. It is also possible for knowledge to lower itself. "The Ionians had prised the world-oyster open, the Pythagoreans had set the earth-ball adrift in it, the Atomists dissolved its boundaries in the infinite. Aristotle closed the lid again with a bang, shoved the earth back into the world's centre, and deprived it of motion." Obviously, knowledge didn't increase at that point, but either slowed, or actually decreased. Also, it seems to me impossible to measure knowledge, so knowing how it grows would be impossible.

Pythagoras

After reading about Pythagoras, I realized that the history you learn plays a larger role than the actual history itself. What I mean by that is if I have never read what I just did, I would have never known the real history of Pythagoras. All I would have "known" is that he invented the Pythagorean Theorem. That would be the only history I know and it would be truth to me, even not if actual truth, and everything is relative. It was just stunning to see a whole side I have never seen about a person you though was just basic. It opened my eyes to a Pythagoras that is more than just a mathematician.

What struck me most was that he had a cult or brotherhood around him. I thought he was just a mathematician, but he was much more. It was practically a religion he had made and many people instantly believed him. He "possessed such power over men, that after his first sermon to the Krotonians, six hundred joined the communal life of the brotherhood without even going home to bid their families farewell." Its stunning to think that Pythagoras had that much power, and many people probably never knew that.

What's so interesting about Pythagoras to me is the music aspect. I never knew that side and how he developed fifths and such. It was amazing how he used math in order to make music and saw that it was necessary for good music. When math was not used and a good ratio was not there, the "plucked notes did not sound well." Obviously, this only added to his belief that all is number.

Pythagoras is much different than the scientists of today. First off, most scientists don't really have such of a cult following that I know of. I don't think scientists of today have that much pull as Pythagoras did when he was at his height. Also, many scientists may have a philosophy that they go by, but not many have created a religion. For Pythagoras, his religion was more than science and math because it involved music and vegetarianism. Finally, in today's world many scientists try to disprove things I feel, rather than prove them. In the news, the headlines are usually something was found faulty or untrue, rather than something has received more evidence. He actually killed in order to suppress information, or as punishment for leaking the truth, which is such a drastic measure.

Franklin Institue Trip

Overall, I think the trip was a success. Some of the items throughout the exhibit went over my head, but I was able to get a sense of most of it. What I enjoyed most however was seeing what we had talked about in class or read in our readings. Examples of that would be seeing the telescope Galileo used, the helioscope, and Siderius Nuncias. It was really great to see those things and put what I've heard about to an actual thing.

The exhibit in general showed some very interesting facts. One recurring theme throughout was the Medici family. There were paintings all over of them and there were dedications to them all over. Also, I found it interesting how so many of the items on display were used for military purposes, like surveying land and directions among other things. This reminded me of a show called "Tactical to Practical". It was all about the duality of the uses of items that were used for both military and civilian purposes. To me, this was shown a fair amount in the exhibit. I saw some compasses and devices for measuring distances, and they were used for science or other regular functions, but also were a necessity and an advantage for the military.

One of my favorite parts of the whole museum was this little t.v. that showed a room. I can not remember whose room it was, but it was just incredible. Along all the walls was a huge terrestrial map, and under them were various pictures of animals and plants i believe. Over the whole ceiling spanned a celestial map, and it was going to have an opening roof. Then a terrestrial globe could come down along with a celestial globe. I am pretty sure that was never finished though, which is a shame. I watched this t.v. in amazement seeing all the different parts. I would have loved to see that room with my own eyes. To just stand in the middle and look all around would be crazy.

Seeing all the different tools they had back then was truly amazing, and to think what they accomplished with them. The tool for sines and cosines was insane. It looked like a circular blade, and had all these different markings on the side which told the sine or cosine. Its hard to think that to find the answer to a question requiring sine or cosine, that tool had to be used. If someone had bad eyesight, it must have been hard for them in that age.

Creation Myths

Pretty much every civilization or groups of people have come up with some idea on how the world was formed. It is such an essential question that is always asked and creation myths are made in response. Most cultures do not share the same story, but there are similarities between many creation myths. In the case of the Babylonian myth and the Genesis myth, a few parallels can be drawn, not only in content but also in structure. First, I will tackle the structural similarities. In the Babylonian myth, it was originally written on 7 tablets, each containing roughly 150 lines. In Genesis, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Genesis could have had more days for the world to be built or less days, but it went with 7, the same number as the amount of tablets. Maybe its coincidence, maybe its the supernatural, or maybe its theft. Another similarity between the two stories is that certain parts are repeated throughout at different points. In the case of Genesis, the line "God saw how good it was" is written in all but one of the days, the second. Also, at the end of each day the line "Evening came, and morning followed" precedes the writing of the number of the day. As you can see, repetition was prominent and noticeable in Genesis, and it was also there in the Babylonian story. The repetition here is much longer than that in Genesis, so I won't post the whole thing. This quote though is part of the much longer repetition.

"She has made the Worm
the Dragon
the Female Monster
the Great Lion
the Mad Dog
the Man Scorpion
the Howling Storm
Kulili
Kusariqu "

The full repeating verse is seen in the story three times, and not too far from each other, and it occurs while Tiamat is still living.

The other similarities between the two myths are from the content. In Genesis, God is the sole creator of the world, and nobody else. In the Babylonian"s myth, Marduk is the creator of the world. Even though there were other gods, Marduk was the strongest and he was responsible for the creation of the world. Another parallel is the creation of man. In the Babylonian version, man was created from the blood of Kingu. So in a sense, man holds relation to Kingu. In Genesis God said "Let us make man in our image"(I am guessing the plural infers the Holy Trinity), so man is also alike to God. Therefore, in both stories man is somehow in connection to the gods, whether it be from their blood or their image. There is another similarity withing a difference. In Genesis, its just starts off by saying the creator was there and doesnt go into background of how that creator came to be."In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,. For the Babylonians, they tell how Marduk, the creator, came to be from other gods. However, they fail to tell how those gods came to be. So in both myths, there is just something there to start with, but neither explain how that came to be.

What I find more interesting than the similarities are the differences. The two major differences are that the Babylonians had multiple Gods and violence was a central theme throughout the myth. For the Babylonians, Marduk thought "what to create from the dead carcass" and decided on creating the world. These differences could just be differences just based on how things happened. Or, perhaps they could be lessons learned. Genesis was written well after the Babylonian creation myth was written. Perhaps writers pick and chose what aspect the wanted to keep and what they wanted new. They kept subtleties like repetiton, the number 7, and other basic concept. However, many aspects were changed, like polytheistic to monotheistic and violence to peace. The change to monotheism could have been in order to simplify things in order to gain more backing. Also, peace could be used to promote the religion over violent stories and get away from savageness.

Starry Messenger and Lucretius

With the use of his "spyglass", Galileo was able to observe things that no other man before him had saw. He was able to see the surface of the moon, fixed stars, and also saw four new planets that revolve around Jupiter. These are so important because they were new to everyone and challenged age old beliefs. He saw the moon's surface and discovered that it was rough, not smooth like originally thought. Galileo believes that the most important thing he discovered was the four planets revolving around Jupiter. By closely observing them, Galileo was able to conclude that they were in orbit around Jupiter, which in turn was in orbit around the Sun. Galileo realized the importance of his discoveries, as shown by him always toting the fact that they were never seen before. He also knew that his new "spyglass" was very important because he went into great detail about it. Obviously, it was essential for all of his findings.

Personally, I have never observed what Galileo saw the way that he saw it. Obviously, the images and textbooks I have seen the moon's surface or other planets, but never for myself. Viewing them for myself would be truly amazing, and would definitely enhance the observations. However, I don't think it would change my perspective, but only give me a deeper understanding.

Lucretius's work dealt a lot about perception and the senses. He talks about how things may not be truly how they appear, like optical illusions. This definitely put a stranglehold over new discoveries. New ideas and discoveries were opposed and disliked because why were people to believe them to be true. Therefore, people might have not even looked through the telescope, because there was no way to be sure that they were viewing reality. This mindset was not beneficial to Galileo and other advancements. The people hold some fault for this, but I can not blame them fully. Surely the views come from the era they lived in and other factors such as leaders and religion.

Here is a link to a song. Personally, one of my favorites:
http://www.garageband.com/mp3player?|pe1|S8LTM0LdsaSnZleya24
Here is a link to the lyrics if you want to read them. Don't try and listen to the song from this site
http://www.songsforteaching.com/jptaylor/galileo.htm