Muffed it...

That should have read...

But does that really mean he has an IQ of over 120?

I mean, obviously I don't and yet I cracked it very quickly!! (:>)

Pericles,
Your 'cut’n’ paste’ presumption in this instance is wrong. An implied presumption, that in order to have ‘tacit knowledge’ you need to be religious or mystical is also incorrect. Also, Galileo’s explanations were based on his tacit knowledge; they weren’t, per se, tacit knowledge – there is a difference.

The book, ‘From Galileo to Gell-Mann - The wonder that inspired the greatest scientists of all time’ (Templeton Press)I believe is a worthy read. To cut’n’paste: “The mistakes made in the distant past continue to have a negative influence on many of those who dedicate themselves to scientific research, nurturing the conviction that to make progress it is necessary to refute completely, or even to ridicule, any notion that comes from faith or philosophical research. It should be added that often our scientists show a good deal of intellectual arrogance and, believing that they have “understood” how the universe was made and how it evolved, they think that they can “demonstrate” that there is no need for God to give life to our universe and ourselves.”

I see Feynman as non-religious, an atheist and a scientific genius – he also mentions beauty and hope; my strong inference was that some here appear to ignore both from what I see. In 1956 he wrote on the two great heritages of Western Civilization: One being the scientific spirit of adventure and two, the other “great heritage is Christian ethics – the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual – the humility of the spirit.” He was critical of a modern Church where he asks is it “a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God - more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts?” A fair enough criticism, for me.

If you have the time, watch the BBC’s “Illusion of Reality”: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7136440703094429927#docid=-1406370011028154810
The final insights given on QM in this program are interesting regarding the ‘measurement problem’, metaphysical speculation and the return of inquisitional dogmatism to science.

Don't read stuff that isn't there, relda.

>>An implied presumption, that in order to have ‘tacit knowledge’ you need to be religious or mystical<<

Your inference, not mine.

>>Galileo’s explanations were based on his tacit knowledge; they weren’t, per se, tacit knowledge – there is a difference<<

Nor did I suggest otherwise.

I simply wanted to know how on what grounds his process of deduction-from-observation allowed the Church to conclude that "Galileo had no proof that Earth moves through space, i.e. he had ‘tacit knowledge’", as you claimed. Still waiting on that one.

An interesting choice of supporting evidence.

>>The book, ‘From Galileo to Gell-Mann'...I believe is a worthy read.<<

Here's the reaction of one reviewer:

"Marco Bersanelli and Mario Gargantini in their work From Galileo to Gell-Mann... have transmuted the gold of exceptional achievement into the base metal of inanity... there is the point, sidled up to again and again as a sort of stealth agenda: Religion, in particular Christianity, provided the inspiration for great science and great scientists. As the authors state, 'Science, as we have noted, had its historical roots in Christian soil.'"

http://calitreview.com/4604

You really should broaden your horizons, relda. Simply reading stuff that feeds your vanity is no challenge.

And a quote:

"...nurturing the conviction that to make progress it is necessary to refute completely, or even to ridicule, any notion that comes from faith or philosophical research."

This makes the assumption that scientific "notions" can in fact be born of faith or philosophical research.

Could you give an example, perhaps, of just one such "notion"?

Oh, goody, here comes the straw-man. Right on time:

"our scientists show a good deal of intellectual arrogance... believing that they have 'understood' how the universe was made and how it evolved"

No scientist claims "understanding". They still deal in theories, refutable hypotheses, doubt and uncertainty.

Feynman agrees.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/richard_feynman_tells_it_like.php

>>...he also mentions beauty and hope; my strong inference was that some here appear to ignore both<<

Not ignore. But you may see occasional observations that beauty and hope are not the exclusive preserve of Christians.

Pericles,
Glad we’re perhaps agreed on what “tacit knowledge’ isn’t.

You stated (in your previous post), “…Galileo's explanations were "tacit knowledge” – I didn’t.

At the time of Galileo the Church, the recognized scientific authority of its time and soil from which modern Western science grew, could not see beyond its dogma. Today we have similar dogma but now draped in secular authority – the point of Galileo lay in his refusal to rely on authority for scientific truth. There is no ‘authority’, however, that can really ever explain the mystery or ‘illusion of reality’. Only via the abstract can we attempt to even come close – poetry, theology, philosophy, art…..

So you cite the reaction of one reviewer… Here’s another, “This is an inspirational anthology of the thoughts and vision of scientists through the ages. A much needed antidote to the current dehumanizing of scientific discovery. A book which questions the very basis on which modern science is conducted and to take us back to the values and vision of why we investigate and try to explain the world in which we live”.
John Wood, Principal of the Faculty of Engineering, Imperial College, London

“..you may see occasional observations that beauty and hope are not the exclusive preserve of Christians” – Have I said otherwise, it is your inference and not mine that it is even incidental to what I’ve said. Your ‘straw man’ – not mine.

>>...he also mentions beauty and hope; my strong inference was that some here appear to ignore both

who? i suspect pericles got it wrong: it's not a straw man, it's an invisible man.

>> So you cite the reaction of one reviewer… Here’s another, ...
>> John Wood, Principal of the Faculty of Engineering, Imperial College, London

christians praising special pleading for religion. who woulda thunk it?

This is getting just a little weird, relda.

>>You stated (in your previous post), “…Galileo's explanations were "tacit knowledge” – I didn’t.<<

If you have now decided that Galileo's explanations were not "tacit knowledge", how do you explain this earlier statement of yours?

>>The ambiguity of history is illustrated by the fact that the church was scientifically correct in saying that Galileo had no proof that Earth moves through space, i.e. he had ‘tacit knowledge’.<<

Perhaps you could reconstruct the sentence to make it clearer.

Where we seem to be having problems is the part where the church is deciding on what basis they should reject Galileo's position.

>>Galileo had no proof that Earth moves through space, i.e. he had ‘tacit knowledge’<<

The inference here is that the reason the church was correct about Galileo's lack of proof was that his "tacit knowledge" somehow invalidated his conclusions.

In other words, had he not been in possession of "tacit knowledge", they would have been able to accept his findings.

Is this what you meant to say?

As I said, it would help a great deal if you could explain this a little more clearly.

Or withdraw your claim that the church was "scientifically correct".

Which is the part I took exception to in the first place.

Incidentally, your John Wood quote came from the publisher's promotional blurb.

>>So you cite the reaction of one reviewer… Here’s another...<<

It was not a review, relda.

He was selected for the quote because of his Christian views, not because he had read the book with an open mind. Or even read the book at all, come to that. He is a busy man, after all.

You can gauge how impartial he might be from his "new covenant" presentation at the "Christians in Science" conference last October.

http://cis.org.uk/assets/files/Conferences/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Conference%202009,%20abstracts.pdf

"Without a spiritual basis which is robust and is centred on wonder and awe of all that creation offers we start to create a god who is man made in our image"

Hardly an objective stance, wouldn't you agree?