> Sure, the mob refraining from killing and attacking scientists is good.
What? Are your reading what I'm posting? There was no mob, there was an all-powerful Church. It was the Church, not the public, who objected to what Galileo had to say and who put him on trial.
> But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man ...
You completely missed the point of this history lesson. The reason Galileo didn't share Bruno's fate wasn't Galileo, it was the common man. Times and perceptions had changed. Galileo and the common man both benefited. Everyone moved ahead except the Church.
The Church wasn't reluctant to burn Galileo at the stake because of his discoveries. Quite the contrary -- he was prosecuted for precisely those insights and the degree to which they contradicted Church dogma. But they could only go so far, because of public relations and changing times.
> IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse.
Since I did no such thing, I don't have to defend it.
It's clear from what you're posting that you have no clue about this historical period, so ...
You were the one who made a wildly unsubstantiated claim that the common man's attitude about science has more effect on the human race than the insights of actual scientists. None of what you've said since then has justified this wild claim of yours and you can't because it's just patently absurd.
What's clear is that you haven't actually provided enough evidence to support your claim, that your original attack on me is pure hypocrisy, and that you now wish to cover your tracks by pretending that I just don't understand you.
> You were the one who made a wildly unsubstantiated claim that the common man's attitude about science has more effect on the human race than the insights of actual scientists.
"Wildly unsubstantiated"? Do you go outdoors much? It is a fact on the ground -- a dramatic reduction in religious persecution, indeed of religion altogether, a decline in the acceptance of superstitious beliefs, an increase in intellectual freedom demanded by the common man, and a thousand other examples. And the assumption that an idea with no supporting evidence is assumed to be false, by itself the most important evidence for public acceptance of the scientific outlook.
The true revolution in science is not the existence of scientific specialists (as important as that is), it is the fact that the public is willing to pay for the science, because they know it works, both as public policy and as an intellectual model for everyman.
Science is not about "actual scientists" as you put it. Science is about reality testing instead of blind belief. That's what distinguishes modern times from 500 years ago, a time when superstition ruled. Science cannot survive without public support, and public support requires public comprehension. The existence of working scientists is an effect, not a cause.
Look, I'm not going to bring you up to date on the last 500 years of human history, you're responsible for your own ignorance. Solve the problem st its source -- start now:
Look, I get it. If you don't know why you believe it, it's a "fact on the ground." If you don't know why I believe it, then I have a burden of substantiating it for you.
I know it went over your head, but the dispute here isn't about the basic facts of history, it's about your grandiose misinterpretation of those facts and your inability to distinguish a "fact" from an extremely broad generalization.
What? Are your reading what I'm posting? There was no mob, there was an all-powerful Church. It was the Church, not the public, who objected to what Galileo had to say and who put him on trial.
> But the credit still goes to Galileo for his insight, not the common man ...
You completely missed the point of this history lesson. The reason Galileo didn't share Bruno's fate wasn't Galileo, it was the common man. Times and perceptions had changed. Galileo and the common man both benefited. Everyone moved ahead except the Church.
The Church wasn't reluctant to burn Galileo at the stake because of his discoveries. Quite the contrary -- he was prosecuted for precisely those insights and the degree to which they contradicted Church dogma. But they could only go so far, because of public relations and changing times.
> IOW, who you have decided to credit is morally perverse.
Since I did no such thing, I don't have to defend it.
It's clear from what you're posting that you have no clue about this historical period, so ...
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galile...