Author Topic: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney  (Read 35146 times)

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« on: September 13, 2013, 01:55:30 PM »
Today, a danish court ruled against Niels Harrit in his lawsuit against a newspaper, which had mentioned him as "Harrit and the other conspiracy loonies". Harrit had sued the newspaper for 25.000 dKr (a little under 4.000 USDollars) because he didn't like being called a looney. He lost, and has to pay 15.000 dKr to the newspaper to cover their trial costs.

Edit:   http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article2095969.ece
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 02:12:26 PM by Allan F »
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Laurel

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2013, 04:42:41 PM »
That reminds me of how Bill Kaysing sued Jim Lovell for calling him wacky. The case was dismissed on First Amendment grounds. AFAIU, this sort of comment is not considered libel in the United States because it is stating an opinion, not making a factual allegation. Are the Danish libel laws similar? Is that why Harrit lost?

Personally, I find it amusing/annoying when conspiracy theorists feel that it is perfectly acceptable for them to make allegations of fraud or mass murder or whatever against people, but if someone says their ideas are crazy, oh no, that's completely wrong and deserving of legal action!
"Well, my feet they finally took root in the earth, but I got me a nice little place in the stars, and I swear I found the key to the universe in the engine of an old parked car..."
Bruce Springsteen

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2013, 05:47:42 PM »
This article contains his closing arguments (pale blue box starting with "Niels Harrits procedure")
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article2071338.ece

This article contains the exact wording used.

"'Skal vi have en planche med kreationistisk plattenslageri op at hænge på en af Danmarks fineste oplysningsinstitutioner? Hvorfor ikke bare invitere Niels Harrit og de andre tosser fra 9/11 skeptiker-miljøet ind, nu vi er i gang? Hvad med Holocaust-benægtermiljøet? "

Translates as :"Shall we have a board with creationist ("plattenslageri" is fraud/disinformation - snake oil peddling) up on the wall of one of Denmarks finest educational institutions? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other loons from the 911-skeptic community inside, while we're at it? And what about the Holocaust-denier community?"


This is the text he sued the newspaper over. I don't have the energy to translate his closing arguments, but a cursory read shows he's running all over the place, trying to prove his 911-allegations, instead of focusing on the libel.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline BazBear

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2013, 08:05:50 PM »
This article contains his closing arguments (pale blue box starting with "Niels Harrits procedure")
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article2071338.ece

This article contains the exact wording used.

"'Skal vi have en planche med kreationistisk plattenslageri op at hænge på en af Danmarks fineste oplysningsinstitutioner? Hvorfor ikke bare invitere Niels Harrit og de andre tosser fra 9/11 skeptiker-miljøet ind, nu vi er i gang? Hvad med Holocaust-benægtermiljøet? "

Translates as :"Shall we have a board with creationist ("plattenslageri" is fraud/disinformation - snake oil peddling) up on the wall of one of Denmarks finest educational institutions? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other loons from the 911-skeptic community inside, while we're at it? And what about the Holocaust-denier community?"


This is the text he sued the newspaper over. I don't have the energy to translate his closing arguments, but a cursory read shows he's running all over the place, trying to prove his 911-allegations, instead of focusing on the libel.
I'm not surprised by the underlined part. I have to wonder if he brought this suit because he really felt defamed, or if he just thought it was a good way to spout his nonsense in an official forum. Either way, I hope it was worth the 15.000 dKr to him  ;D
"It's true you know. In space, no one can hear you scream like a little girl." - Mark Watney, protagonist of The Martian by Andy Weir

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2013, 09:33:24 AM »
Are the Danish libel laws similar? Is that why Harrit lost?


Probably. And also Harrits own choice to not hire an attorney. Since his expertise (?) is chemistry, and his performance didn't revolve around the legal aspects of the case, he didn't stand much of a chance.

He WAS a chemistry teacher the Copenhagen University, now retired.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2013, 11:20:58 AM »
For those interested. Here are his closing arguments - google translated. I'll try to correct the worst blunders by the GT.

Quote
Niels Harrit procedure - as was argued in court on 16 8
 
HIGH COURT x

In 1593 Galileo Galilei lived in the Italian city of Pisa. Among other things, he amused himself by throwing various objects from the Leaning Tower - throughout the city's attention.
 
These tests are considered as the starting point for science. It was the first quantitative, systematic experiments in science history and led to the establishment of Galileo's two falls laws describing bodies' free fall towards the ground.
 
Galileo's experiments were of great importance, and the results were the basis for Newton's famous Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in the 1687th
 
It contains Newton's three laws , the other of which is a mathematical direct derivation of Galileo 2 law of gravitation.
 
My lecture is about the collapse of the three skyscrapers in Manhattan, 11th September 2001.
 
I demonstrate here, based on figures, data and observations using the scientific method that the three skyscrapers in the World Trade Center did not collapse as a result of a collision with the two jets.
 
This conclusion is a direct consequence of Galileo's case laws of Newton's three laws of motion - and the law of conservation of energy.
 
In other words: The official explanation is inconsistent with the most basic laws of science.
 
Soren Villemoes ' article in the Weekend newspaper is headed


MADNESS IN THE BLACK DIAMOND !

The article is certainly not humorous, but offers terms such as "offensive nonsense","the mad frenzy","diplomatic and scientific mess", etc.
 
We got a picture of a veritable madhouse.

When Soren Villemoes should illustrate the madness which he believes has at the Royal Library, he wrote the following:
 
"Should we have a poster with creationist plattenslageri on the wall on one of the finest information institutions in Denmark? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other idiots from 9/11 skeptic environment now we're at it? What about the Holocaust denier environment? "
 
As explained, my scientific work rooted in science deepest reason. Juxtaposing it with "creationist plattenslageri" and "Holocaust denial" implies an unequivocal accusation of scientific misconduct and thus a charge .
 
Academic dishonesty is something University of Copenhagen does not like , which include seen in the case against Elena Penkova. (Note: Penkowa was a highly regarded brain researcher, until it was discovered she had fudged several experiments, falsified images and made lab notes up without doing the experiments. Grants were removed, she was fired and a court case is pending. - Allan F)
 
A charge must be documented.

But the defendant has not at all been able to document its accusations - yes, have even demonstrated complete ignorance of my scientific activities.
 
During the hearing of evidence, Soren Villemoes acknowledged

1) That he is completely without means to understand and criticize scientific problems,
 
2) That he has attended one of my lectures. This claim, however, appear as untrustworthy as Soren Villemoes could not remember where and when he was at this lecture. It is called selective memory. When questioned, he acknowledged that he had nothing to criticize the lecture. As can therefore be assumed that he could remember? It's hard to believe this explanation.
 
3) That he has read the scientific article that describes the content of dust from the World Trade Center and is authored by yours truly, along with eight other authors. Then he made accusations against our samples authenticity despite the "chain of custody" is thoroughly described in the article. Soren Villemoes accusing us undisguised of falsifying samples! It is a crystal clear allegations of scientific misconduct and thus a charge in the criminal sense.
 
4) The defendant's witnesses characterized him my activities as "pseudo science, revisionist theories" and that I was in violation of "consensus" , which was based "in science." Again, this undisguised accusations of scientific misconduct and therefore charges in the criminal sense.
 
The defamatory statements is set forth in the obvious intention to belittle and ridicule me, which is clearly revealed when Soren Villemoes user predicate "idiot". And it happens - as explained - in a context that is anything but playful.
 

LEGAL ISSUES

I am not a lawyer. So I looked up law texts, Posted 03/06/2002, last modified 18/08/2011 .
 
Under "libel "can also include read:

The Criminal Code defines two forms of defamation (§ 267) : First, " offensive words or actions " also called contempt utterances. First, "charges" , that is insulting accusations.
 
The old formulations of the Criminal Code must be interpreted in accordance with the Human Rights Court. The distinction between value judgments and accusations (same as charges ) . '
 
The value judgments that includes opinions and ratings shall not special requirements for documentation . Value judgments can not be proved or disproved , and there may be a requirement that assessments have some factual basis.
 
But accusations (equivalent to " charges " in the Danish Criminal Code) , appears as facts , and here required documentation.
 
The specific context determines whether an utterance most emerging as a fact or most similar to an opinion or judgment.
 
Human Rights Court has in recent decades been important in the Danish courts . It is emphasized that the subject has " public interest " or " public interest " and is dismissed if information is based on research that meets the standards of good journalism. "
 

MATERIAL COLLECTION FROM SØREN JUUL

Lawyer Søren Juul sent the day before yesterday ( d.14/8-2013 ) a collection of material to highlight the importance of Danish case law on Article 10 of the European Menneskeretttighedskonvention .
 
The distinction

One consequence , as we read in Schaumburg -Müller's article ,

P. 8: "The problem with this simple theoretical distinction ( ie between accusation and defamatory utterances / NH) is that it is not particularly useful in practice. "
 
P.9 : " Often it will not be necessary to use the distinction ."

P.9 : " The distinction can not form the basis of ( criminal ) court judgment. "
 
In truth proof ( Schaumburg- Müller continued)


P.9 : " .... it was in breach of Article 10 to require proof of the truth " value judgments " when they also were based on correct facts. "
 
P.9 : " There is no truth required evidence of value judgments when they are based on anything factual . "
 
P.9 : " In my judgment can not therefore deprive truth of proof in libel cases , at least not if the case is just some public interest. "
 
P.11 : " Danish practice, however, examples of the limits of press freedom , the more stringent requirements for the information content in the case of individuals. "
 
P.15 : " ... the practice of EMD does not accept punishment for assessments made ​​on the basis of facts. "
 

NH: Which all means that assessments are not made ​​on the basis of facts , shall be liable to punishment.
 
Oluf Jørgensen Article


Page 19: " An accusation is permissible only if the journalist or other writer in the publication has a reasonably sound basis for believing in the accuracy . "
 
Page 20: " There can be no requirement of proof of an opinion or judgment. But it may not be completely without factual basis . "
 

NH CONCLUSION : Although value judgments must have a minimum of factual basis .

Supreme Court Decision in Case of Kjaersgaard

Karen Sund was convicted of libel in the High Court.

But she will be acquitted by the Supreme Court .

In the Supreme Court premises writes , p 39:

" The European Convention on Human distinguish whether there is a value judgment ( " value judgment " ) or an opinion on a fact ( " statement of fact " ) . May be required indeed evidence of a statement of fact , but not a value judgment , which should not be excessive ( " excessive " ) and below must not entirely lack a factual basis . "
 
Supreme Court acquits her because:

Page 41 : "The use of the word ( racist ) ..... have had sufficient basis in Pia Kjærsgaards opinions on the Danish People's Party's annual meeting. "
 
CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court's decision implies therefore that the acquittal of making defamatory statements requires - even for value judgments - that there must be a factual basis .
 


END OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS

Primary: Alleged criminal charges

As a summary and conclusions of the review of these legal references must begin by finding that the Danish Criminal Code is not written on . Criminal Code defamation clause no 267 - and particularly the aggravating circumstances in paragraph 3 if the insults disseminated to a wider circle - is still Danish law.
 
In law it operates with the notion of " the specific context " that determines whether a defamatory utterance is a charge or a value judgment .
 
This " specific context " includes today's hearing and Soren Villemoes 's testimony , where he has characterized my activities as pseudoscience .
 
In his article in the Weekend newspaper has Søren Villemoes demonstrated that his placement of my scientific work in the category of " creationist plattenslageri " and " Holocaust denial" - the specific context - clearly implies an allegation of scientific misconduct .
 
And it is a charge that requires clear evidence to prevail .

We have not seen truth evidence today. Yes we have not even lifted us from the starting line.
 
Thus , the defendant has not had a single witness who could substantiate their charges .
 
They can not .

That's because I'm right.

Alternative opinions are " value judgments "

Should it - contrary to expectations - be that the court finds that Sean Villemoes ' statements are value judgments made ​​there - even in the Human Rights Court - the requirement that assessments have some factual basis.
 
From Soren Juul Material Collection I have enumerated many examples from case law and literature that a factual basis is an absolute condition to impunity can be obtained for a defamatory utterance.
 
For press this minimum requirement is fulfilled only if the defamatory statements are based on " research that meets the standards of good journalism ... " .
 
I need not emphasize that SV 's article does not meet this requirement and hence the requirement of impunity.
 
So - in this case it really matter whether one adopts the Danish Criminal Code distinction between criminal charges and contemptuous expression , or accept the concept of the convergence of Clause 10 of the ECHR and the subsequent case .
 
The defendant has demonstrated that he can under no circumstances provide a factual basis , this minimum, there must be , that he can achieve impunity for making defamatory statements - whether charges or value judgments .
 
Therefore I maintain the claim - that the defendants ar sentected partly for libel , and partly for the spread of such .
 

CLEARANCE

Until seven years ago , I thought that the World Trade Center consisted of two twin towers and they collapsed due to collision with the two jets.
 
Then I happen to be a video showing the collapse of World Trade Center 7
 
I immediately had two problems.

If what I saw really was the World Trade Center , there was an obvious discrepancy between the number of airplanes and skyscrapers . There were two jets , but three skyscrapers.
 
Which - still the first - meant that the people who control the media information in Denmark , had decided that the collapse of Building 7 was an event that I should not know about.
 
Secondly , I could not understand why this building would collapse for no apparent reason.
 
I have lived a long life in science after I received a thorough education at the University 50 years ago .
 
I have taught at all levels of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. I have published more than 60 scientific papers in the best journals . I have lost count of the number of masters - and Ph.D. is I've trained. I belong to a generation where we did not keep records of the kind .
 
Scientists have an instinctive , analytical relation to our physical surroundings. We I would like to understand how it works.
 
In all modesty , so it goes pretty well most of the time .

But at the sight of Building 7 's collapse , I was confronted with an inexplicable riddle : How on earth could this skyscraper - three times Rigshospitalet - collapse on the way ?
 
Symmetrical , I could see .

With free fall acceleration - I had to later admit.

Without any apparent reason ?

It took me several weeks to understand that this event was the most important event in my time and that I had to look at it.
 
Which led me - and thousands of peers across the globe - to the conclusion that there was an obvious contradiction between the official story on the one hand and the elementary laws of nature on the other.
 
The official story is simply contrary to Galileo and Newton .

At that moment , it was "pay -back time" for me.

I got my ( excellent ) education of society in his time. And society has paid my salary in the over forty years that I have taught and researched at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.
 
My inner voice - Kant 's categorical imperative - said that now it was time to bring this scientific insight back - into the public debate.
 
I was naive enough to believe that if only we stood on a soap box and told the truth, then ran it all by itself .
 
Nix .

My idea of ​​the Danish press and integrity of the persons who control it, was naive .
 
Therefore this lawsuit basically not about me .

The act effectively on the information I have tried to give the Danish public, and - most importantly - it is about an influential representative of the Danish press, a prominent newspaper , which is widely respected for its high journalistic standard.
 
But in this case Weekend newspaper tried to discredit the messenger rather than listen to what he says .
 
Yes , the truth hurts.

But the lie is killing us !

Lawyer Juul likely in a moment rely on the press right to use a certain freedom of speech on matters of public interest. But journalists who speak out about Bruno Kreitsky whether Haider - which are the examples Søren Juul has brought in his collection of materials - allocated a certain space , I can not see is relevant to this case.
 
It had dressed Søren Juul if he had instead pointed to libel law , where scientists had been wrongly accused of dishonesty and where the infringer had been acquitted .
 
Apparently he did not find any .

It's not because scientists have not been subjected to sanctions from society because of their work.
 
I therefore conclude by telling you about the most famous of all these cases.

Galileo Galilei was commissioned by the Catholic Church to write a book about the workings of the world. But based on his observations - and the earlier work of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler - he wrote that the sun was the center of the world , and that the earth revolved around outside .
 
The church did not like that.

So in 1633 was Galilei before the Inquisition. We do not know how he was treated in the four months he spent in detention before trial. He had his seventieth birthday along the way. But we know that during the trial itself was established instruments of torture in a corner of the room , presumably to ensure - as it did - that the old man in the bar shirt, got down on his knees for there to swear that the earth stood still in the center of the universe .
 
Galileo's book came on the church's list of banned books and was for 1838.

Our civilization has made great progress since Galileo's time. And although the torture has come into fashion again at other latitudes in the wake of 11 September has still liberalism Grundtvig Denmark , where scientists can provide information about natural law , their consequences without being accused of dishonesty and exposed to other insults .
 
I expect the court with its decision today confirms this state.

Thank you.







« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 11:53:22 AM by Allan F »
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2013, 01:17:16 AM »
Wow, he starts right off with the Galileo comparison.

This certainly does seem to be a remarkably reliable flag for crackpottery.

Offline Noldi400

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2013, 10:31:03 PM »
Wow, he starts right off with the Galileo comparison.

This certainly does seem to be a remarkably reliable flag for crackpottery.
Especially since the Galileo episode basically seems to have been a pissing contest between G.G. and the Pope, while the rest of the world went right along developing and refining the heliocentric model.
"The sane understand that human beings are incapable of sustaining conspiracies on a grand scale, because some of our most defining qualities as a species are... a tendency to panic, and an inability to keep our mouths shut." - Dean Koontz

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2013, 08:01:38 AM »
Tell me more. History isn't my strong point, but it would be useful to know the full story here.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2013, 10:56:09 AM »
The whole business about Galileo's arrest and persecution could have been averted if only Galileo hadn't been such an arrogant sod.

Galileo had a history of acting as if his knowledge and observations of the world and skies set him up waaaay above his peers. He was often denigrating and insulting of those who did not understand or disagreed with his arguments and, rather like a certain person who recently returned to this forum, dismissed everyone who suggested he might be wrong as idiots best ignored. Unlike Heiwa, he was actually a remarkable scientist, and his arguments do indeed form the basis of a lot of modern science. He explained the ideas of relative motion centuries before Einstein formalised them with calculations, for example.

What he is best remembered for now is, of course, his conflict with the Catholic Church. He agreed with the Copernican idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Unlike Copernicus, who had simply hypothesised and drawn up new models, he had the tools to make better observations that supported some of the ideas. The phases of Venus, for example, or the discovery of the four largest moons of Jupiter which are still to this day known as the Galilean satellites. Here for the first time were observational proofs that not everything revolved first and foremost around the Earth. Jupiter's moons were clearly revolving around Jupiter, whatever Jupiter itself was revolving around. Venus's phases were only possible if Venus revolved around the Sun. Galileo presented these observations to many people and argued in favour of the heliocentric system. The church in fact had nothing against his promotion of this idea.

What is often not mentioned by the people who want to use Galileo's persecution as some kind of defence for their arguments is that Galileo was not just some random scientist whose book caught the eye of the church officials and ticked off the Pope. Galileo was a personal freind of the Pope at that time and had many a face to face conversation with him about the studies he had made of the heavens. He requested, and was granted, permission to publish his ideas about the heliocentric model directly from the pope, under the condition that he include a disclaimer to the effect that since God is omnipotent he could easily have made the system appear to fit a heliocentric model while still having the Earth fixed in the centre. After all, He can do anything. Galileo agreed.

He then shot himself in the foot, because his arrogant nature couldn't let him pass up the opportunity to snidely show what he thought of these arguments. He wrote the treatise as a dialogue between three people: The scientist, who represented his own arguments; the 'man in the street', who was basically the intelligent but ill-informed man who provided the questions to be answered; and the religious person who held to the belief of a geocentric world. It's a brilliant piece of work, but for two things: First, his scientist has all the same arrogance and dismissveness of Galileo, and is frankly obnoxious, several times going off on long rants about how idiotic some of the arguments against his conclusions are and what fools people must be to hold to them. Second, the religious character was given the name Simplicio which, as it sounds, means loosely 'simpleton'. He put all the geocentric arguments and the disclaimer insisted upon by the Pope in the mouth of this simple person he'd been ridiculing throughout the work! Oddly enough, the Pope and his cardinals were not overly impressed by this, and hence the whole house arrest and trial occurred. Galileo had been given a chance to publish his arguments but couldn't resist ticking off the highest authority in the land, and paid the consequences for it.

He was never persecuted simply because he believed in a heliocentric system, though this is often what the crackpots believe (or want us to believe), but rather he suffered because of the way he presented it.

I can strongly recommend reading the work, Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems. It is a brilliant read if you can get past the rudeness of the main protagonist, and shows just how intelligent Galileo actually was.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2013, 12:07:49 PM by Jason Thompson »
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2013, 11:33:51 AM »
Oh, yeah.  No, if Galileo hadn't been so arrogant and obnoxious, the world might look very different today.  Makes you wonder who crackpots would choose as their primary comparison, though, doesn't it?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2013, 02:49:54 PM »
So what was Galileo forced to recant?

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2013, 03:03:40 PM »
Well, it became obvious to anyone who'd read the book which system he favoured.  That, you'll forgive the reference, he wasn't "just asking questions." 
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2013, 05:43:01 PM »
So what was Galileo forced to recant?

He was forced to recant his belief in the heliocentric world system. Up until that point the Church had never had much of a problem with the model, on the understanding that it was just that: a model that could be used more simply to predict the movements of the celestial objects. As long as Galileo did not claim that the world system was actually heliocentric and presented it is a true debate on the relative merits of the two models he would have been fine. And he had been told as much by the Pope, for heaven's sake! But his arrogance wouldn't let him do that and he not only presented it in such a way as to heavily favour the heliocentric model, he put the position of the Church in the character of a simple idiot. He essentially provoked them, and got his just desserts for doing so.

Yes, these days we know he was right, but the situation is not as the crackpots present it: that he published a theory that the Church disagreed with and they punished him unjustly for it. He was given a golden opportunity to publish his work without upsetting anyone, despite the controversial nature of the argument, but couldn't manage to do it because he was such a git.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Niels Harrit - legal to call him a looney
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2013, 05:48:19 PM »
No, if Galileo hadn't been so arrogant and obnoxious, the world might look very different today.

Indeed. Had he stuck to the guidelines and presented it as a purely academic work as he had been asked to, then quite possibly the heliocentric theory would have simply chugged along gaining more and more momentum with every new discovery and eventually the Church may have been persuaded by the evidence. Let's not forget that in that time scientists and members of the clergy were frequently one and the same. Copernicus was a monk, after all. There was none of this 'religion versus science' stuff that is so prevalent these days.

Instead, Galileo's arrogance resulted in a massive division that lasted for centuries. It was only in this century that an official statement from the pope was made admitting that Galileo was right!

Quote
Makes you wonder who crackpots would choose as their primary comparison, though, doesn't it?

Indeed. If ever time travel is invented I'd love to bring Galileo back to talk to some of these people who are using him to defend their crackpottery and watch him dismantle them in style....
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain