Aslan,

RE: The above 1964 was a publication date. The original work was is copyrighted, 1946. The quote is from his 1963 forward.

The tacit-explicit knowledge thing, was more pronounced in Polanyi's writings from about 1958. Polanyi does relate intuition to science in context with aspects of reality (Like the Einstein example). To paraphase Polanyi, intuition is said to direct interpretation. That is why we make a commitment to something we realy don't know. Hence, the "idea of exactitude has to be abandoned" (Polanyi,1963).

Just reverting back to the second last sentence of the above paragraph, even though we really don't know, "we know more than we can tell" (again, Polanyi, from memory).

It would nice to debate Abelard.

Oliver,

You said you would prosecute. What if the jury decided he was not guilty - according to their opinions?

I already responded to Abelard's skepticism. His view is nonsense because it is self-refuting. Science did not progress through incoherent reasoning. It progresses through cycles of observation, proposition, testing and interpretation.

Regarding Gallileo and heliocentrism - both you and Bosk made some inaccurate and untrue comments which I cannot let pass.

Bosk said: "at one point the Roman Catholic Church held that the sun went round the Earth. In Gallilleo's trial they even quoted scripture...now most christians would interpret verses that speak of the sun going round the Earth in a poetic manner."

You cited Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and said: "An example, of a paradigm shift was from the Christian Church’s belief in the Ptolemaic Geocentric universe to the heliocentric solar system in a larger universe. The Christians held their opinions. And pioneers of science held, alternative opinions."

Actually, it was the scientific establishment who held - not to the Ptolemaic system - but to Brahe's system. Kuhn points out in ch7 that the Ptolemaic view was in trouble before even Copernicus proposed his alternative. Remember that Copernicus was a bishop(!) who was reluctant to publish out of fear from scientists but did so with encouragement from other churchmen. BTW, the Ptolemaic view did come from the Bible - it came from Aristotelianism.

Galileo was not persecuted for his heliocentrism (the Jesuits were more Copernican than he was!) but for disobeying a papal order and personal and political reasons. See Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers.

BTW, the "Dark Ages" were anything but dark, the opinions of the Greeks (regarding science) were all wrong, and "The Enlightenment" should be called "The Endarkenment."

Oliver if that doesn’t make you understand that it is pointless agreeing with GB then nothing will. Remember the basic tenant of GB is that they are always right and everyone else is wrong. Their ability to reinvent history is second only to their ability to reinterpreted the bible.

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Martin Luther, Tischreden
As for Copernicus being a bishop, anyone wanting to study nature at that time who was not a member of the church was in serious risk of being called a witch.
The reason the bibles physics is the same as Aristotle physics is because they were being dream up at the same time.

The misquoted event in the life of Joshua is not what the text supports.
The text is 11 "The LORD cast down large hailstones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died. There were more who died from the hailstones than the children of Israel killed with the sword.
12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon;

And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
13

So the sun stood still,

And the moon stopped,

Till the people had revenge

Upon their enemies.
Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 14 And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the LORD heeded the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.
15 Then Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal.

In the poetry of Jasher recorded in the Biblical text it states Joshua actually commanded the sun and the moon themselves to cease their function. The function of these solar bodies is to give light. What Joshua had planned as his battle strategy was that they would rout the enemy in darkness, so he desired darkness to continue. YHWH answered his prayer, as 10: 14 says, “God harkened to the voice of a man”. Is the text suggesting that YHWH does not normally answer the prayers of man? Such a view is nonsense.

The sun and moon have two active observed motions, (1) to give light, (2) as the earth rotates to move. Assuming the sun and moon ceased movement for a period if 10 hours and God held them; such would have little affect on Joshua’s battle strategy. The periods of daylight are calibrated upon the rotation of the Earth so the suggestion that the Earth stopped rotating for 10 hours so that darkness continued (or sunlight as some believe) is absurd nonsense. What Joshua wanted was an extension of darkness not more sunlight and this was accomplished by the hailstorm and the continuance of heavy cloud. The sunlight period was shortened because the wish of Joshua was granted.

The Hebrew word “damam” (Strong 1826) means be silent, or cease your activity, or rest. What the sun and moon normally did they were not to do, i.e. give light. The Hebrew word “amad” (Strong 5975) is also used to define Joshua’s command to cease, remain or tarry. The word for middle (Strong 2677 Heb “chetsiy”) indicates that even though the sun was in the sky it ceased to give light ie did not shine almost the whole day.

_____________________________________________________________________

Kenny,

I love it when you post. It gives me another opportunity to expose your ignorance.

The quotation you cited (inaccurately) from Luther was a single off-the-cuff remark, during a “table talk” in 1539 - four years BEFORE the publication of Copernicus’s book!

The “Table Talk” was based on notes taken by Luther’s students, which were later compiled and published in 1566 – twenty years after Luther’s death. Furthermore, the verse Luther cited (Josh 10:12) in support of his apparent skepticism, was easily explained by Johannes Kepler using Luther’s own principles of Biblical interpretation, which took into account the language of appearance. Since this was Luther’s only recorded comment on the subject, it cannot be construed as part of a thoughtful and concerted attack on Copernicus or Copernicans.

Your other comments don't deserve a response.