7:37
"HOST: Did you read the 911 investigation...?
GUEST: No
HOST:But you think it was adequate enough?
GUEST:I think so."
I think that exchange just about says it all. What we are up against here is faith based belief against which, scientific, evidence based conclusions will always triumph. The question is when, not if.
Brilliant video, and a point well made.
Thank you.
The host who asked Duncan Hunter "Did you read the 911 investigation by the committees?" was Greta Wodele. It was a gutsy question for her to ask, but highly appropriate, given his somewhat arrogant comment about every investigation having determined it was the planes and terrorists that were to blame for taking down the buildings, especially since the question by the caller was about Building 7, which everyone knows was not hit by a plane.
Greta seems to be one of the fairest if not the fairest among the Washington Journal hosts.
I support the basic point of the video, but there are some historical errors. (I teach history and philosophy of science, BTW.)
For example, the opposition to Galileo was primarily on scientific or philosophical rather than religious grounds. The church was willing to modify its traditional interpretation of scripture, if Galileo could prove the earth's motion (which he could not). Bruno was burned for various theological heresies, not for Copernicanism, although he was a Copernican. The centre of the universe for Aristotle and Aquinas wasn't an exalted place, but more like the bottom of a pit, where all the densest and least spiritual matter accumulates. (Some writers placed Hell at the earth's centre, hence the centre of the universe.)
Tycho Brahe is shown as a heliocentrist in the video, but he actually rejected the earth's motion (for scientific reasons) and proposed his own compromise model, in which the orbiting sun was the centre of each planet's epicycle (apart from the moon). After Galileo's observation of Venus's phases, Ptolemy's model was refuted, so Tycho's model became the alternative to heliocentric views. Tycho's model was eventually rejected in the late 17th century, since it was inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics.
I think nevertheless that the comparison between heliocentrism and "conspiracy theories" of 9/11 is very interesting. The arguments for heliocentrism were based on small details in the data, as you say, that the traditional model could only explain by "ad hoc" devices. The idea that the earth moved was strongly contrary to common sense, yet turned out to be right. It's also interesting that there were many questions that the heliocentrists couldn't answer adequately, such as what force could be causing such a heavy body as the earth to move, why the stars appear as discs if they're so far away, etc. The heliocentrists had good evidence, but didn't have anything like a complete story to tell.
.....and I noticed the differences while doing my research. But although the theme is about the importance of detail, I could not go into detail and had to generalize both the history and the evidence of 9/11, or the video would be too long for most.
As it is, I overran my goal of keeping the length equivalent to Ludwig's adagio un poco mosso eclipsing it by several minutes, but dared not weed out more for fear of not getting my points across.
Just a few days ago I was watching a video lecture series called "The Inexplicable Universe" by Neil deGrasse Tyson. In the first episode, he briefly discusses this very topic stating that due to fear of drastic repercussions, Copernicus waited until his deathbed to release his heliocentric views. Definitely worth viewing in relation to this topic and certainly worth viewing overall as they are informative and entertaining. I couldn't find any open video sources to post so you will have to view the lecture series on Netflix to watch the heliocentric topic. Here is a Netflix link to the video. The entire series is very entertaining and informative and enjoyable to watch if you care to. Thanks for all your contribution Jon.
The comparison of 9/11 with heliocentrism is good. Obviously in both cases, people hold an "acceptable" explanation and refuse to alter that viewpoint, even when contradictory evidence is presented.
Am no historian, but these articles suggest Galileo faced opposition from both astronomers *and* the Church:
which contains this quote: "In the Copernican system the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, while in the Ptolemaic system everything in the Universe circles around the Earth. The Dialogue was published in Florence under a formal license from the Inquisition. In 1633, Galileo was convicted of 'grave suspicion of heresy' based on the book, which was then placed on the Index of Forbidden Books...."
(And this more general article which mentions the astronomers):
"Vain ambition and other vicious motives were charged by the sacred congregation upon Galileo, as the causes of his hypothesis concerning the motion of the earth, and charged so often with so many terms, as to render the old man at last suspicious, if not satisfied, that the charge was true, though he had been led to this hypothesis by the light of a great genius and deep researches into astronomy.
Sedition, rebellion, pedantry, desire for fame, turbulence, and malice, were always reproached to the great reformers, who delivered us from the worst chains that were ever forged by monks or devils for the human mind."
Letters of John Adams
Being castigated for promoting heterodox ideas is par for the course. We just need to continue to weather the storm until the truth emerges.
Well Done
Very well done, Jon. Thanks.
point well made...
7:37
"HOST: Did you read the 911 investigation...?
GUEST: No
HOST:But you think it was adequate enough?
GUEST:I think so."
I think that exchange just about says it all. What we are up against here is faith based belief against which, scientific, evidence based conclusions will always triumph. The question is when, not if.
Brilliant video, and a point well made.
Thank you.
Undoubtedly
You can rest assured that host hasn't read it either.
At least she asked.
She wasn't required to do so, but she did and it made him look like an idiot. Good enough.
agreed
gotta take what scraps you can. :)
The CSPAN Washington Journal host was fair
The host who asked Duncan Hunter "Did you read the 911 investigation by the committees?" was Greta Wodele. It was a gutsy question for her to ask, but highly appropriate, given his somewhat arrogant comment about every investigation having determined it was the planes and terrorists that were to blame for taking down the buildings, especially since the question by the caller was about Building 7, which everyone knows was not hit by a plane.
Greta seems to be one of the fairest if not the fairest among the Washington Journal hosts.
historical errors
I support the basic point of the video, but there are some historical errors. (I teach history and philosophy of science, BTW.)
For example, the opposition to Galileo was primarily on scientific or philosophical rather than religious grounds. The church was willing to modify its traditional interpretation of scripture, if Galileo could prove the earth's motion (which he could not). Bruno was burned for various theological heresies, not for Copernicanism, although he was a Copernican. The centre of the universe for Aristotle and Aquinas wasn't an exalted place, but more like the bottom of a pit, where all the densest and least spiritual matter accumulates. (Some writers placed Hell at the earth's centre, hence the centre of the universe.)
Tycho Brahe is shown as a heliocentrist in the video, but he actually rejected the earth's motion (for scientific reasons) and proposed his own compromise model, in which the orbiting sun was the centre of each planet's epicycle (apart from the moon). After Galileo's observation of Venus's phases, Ptolemy's model was refuted, so Tycho's model became the alternative to heliocentric views. Tycho's model was eventually rejected in the late 17th century, since it was inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics.
I think nevertheless that the comparison between heliocentrism and "conspiracy theories" of 9/11 is very interesting. The arguments for heliocentrism were based on small details in the data, as you say, that the traditional model could only explain by "ad hoc" devices. The idea that the earth moved was strongly contrary to common sense, yet turned out to be right. It's also interesting that there were many questions that the heliocentrists couldn't answer adequately, such as what force could be causing such a heavy body as the earth to move, why the stars appear as discs if they're so far away, etc. The heliocentrists had good evidence, but didn't have anything like a complete story to tell.
Correct....
.....and I noticed the differences while doing my research. But although the theme is about the importance of detail, I could not go into detail and had to generalize both the history and the evidence of 9/11, or the video would be too long for most.
As it is, I overran my goal of keeping the length equivalent to Ludwig's adagio un poco mosso eclipsing it by several minutes, but dared not weed out more for fear of not getting my points across.
Interestingly..
Just a few days ago I was watching a video lecture series called "The Inexplicable Universe" by Neil deGrasse Tyson. In the first episode, he briefly discusses this very topic stating that due to fear of drastic repercussions, Copernicus waited until his deathbed to release his heliocentric views. Definitely worth viewing in relation to this topic and certainly worth viewing overall as they are informative and entertaining. I couldn't find any open video sources to post so you will have to view the lecture series on Netflix to watch the heliocentric topic. Here is a Netflix link to the video. The entire series is very entertaining and informative and enjoyable to watch if you care to. Thanks for all your contribution Jon.
http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Inexplicable_Universe_with_Neil_deGrasse_Tyson/70305069?trkid=13462100
peace everyone.
dan
The comparison of 9/11 with heliocentrism
The comparison of 9/11 with heliocentrism is good. Obviously in both cases, people hold an "acceptable" explanation and refuse to alter that viewpoint, even when contradictory evidence is presented.
Am no historian, but these articles suggest Galileo faced opposition from both astronomers *and* the Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
which contains this quote: "In the Copernican system the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, while in the Ptolemaic system everything in the Universe circles around the Earth. The Dialogue was published in Florence under a formal license from the Inquisition. In 1633, Galileo was convicted of 'grave suspicion of heresy' based on the book, which was then placed on the Index of Forbidden Books...."
(And this more general article which mentions the astronomers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_galilei
To Jon Cole: am a longtime fan of your 9/11 work and videos. The thermitic ones especially--but others too.
John Adams on Galileo
"Vain ambition and other vicious motives were charged by the sacred congregation upon Galileo, as the causes of his hypothesis concerning the motion of the earth, and charged so often with so many terms, as to render the old man at last suspicious, if not satisfied, that the charge was true, though he had been led to this hypothesis by the light of a great genius and deep researches into astronomy.
Sedition, rebellion, pedantry, desire for fame, turbulence, and malice, were always reproached to the great reformers, who delivered us from the worst chains that were ever forged by monks or devils for the human mind."
Letters of John Adams
Being castigated for promoting heterodox ideas is par for the course. We just need to continue to weather the storm until the truth emerges.