Michal J A Paszkiewicz

oh, and in the source materials that I work on translating

What I wrote here I read in secular journals and history books.

It's rather sad that you like something that is historically illiterate.

Natural science was taught from Greek, Roman, and later Arabic sources, such as: Aristotle, Plato, Ptolemy, Discorides, Galen, and later Avicenna, Averroes, Alhazen.

And you miss the point entirely.

Any serf could join, or aid a monastery as a lay helper, just as well as any noble, and receive exactly the same quarters and an education.

There were of course later issues with corruption, paid positions, and state interference.

I directly addressed historical errors in your post. You decided to change subject.

That's not how medieval education worked.

You had to study the natural sciences, law and the arts, and only once you had studied those could you study philosophy, and only those who mastered philosophy could study Theology.

So most of the education had little to do with the Bible.

Indeed.

How is the invention by James Franklin that such a topic was discussed relevant to your historical errors being corrected?

Did the Pope Apologise to Galileo? - History for Atheists It is often claimed the Catholic Church only accepted heliocentrism in 1992 when the Pope apologised to Galileo. But is this true? %

No, there was no apology in 1992
historyforatheists.com/2025/03/gali...

Heliocenttism was acknowledged by the Roman Inquisition in 1758.

What, by providing the world's first free education, the first education system that transcended class, and building the university system?

Did the Pope Apologise to Galileo? - History for Atheists It is often claimed the Catholic Church only accepted heliocentrism in 1992 when the Pope apologised to Galileo. But is this true? %

1. There was no apology to Galileo in 1992. The speech was only novel in being the 1st time a Popebstated Galileo had been mistreated.
historyforatheists.com/2025/03/gali...
2. The Roman Inquisition acknowledged heliocentrism in 1758 when they dropped the generic entry from the index.

No, the Roman Inquisition acknowledged heliocentrism in 1758.

The other Inquisitions never pursued the subject.

I'd be interested in researching Baliani more. Riccioli worked with him a bit, and Riccioli included in the AN a reference to a conversation with Baliani where Baliani had suggested a Lunacentric model

Alberto A Martinez, Science Secrets, Chapter 1

You're not convinced by Coresio or Renieri? :)

A list of experiments purportedly perforned with dropping balls from towers. It is unlikely Galileo ever dropped balls from a tower.

Who actually dropped balls from towers?

Who dropped them best?

Can anyone recommend me a good, accurate, scholarly, book on the history of telephones?

The Roman Inquisition sided with the scientific consensus of the time in 1616, after consultation with astronomers, as Galileo clearly states in his letter to Ingoli.

In fact, an AI trained on texts before Newton would still argue for geocentrism and the Tychonic model.

Finocchiaro's "Retrying Galileo" dates the first mention of the Simplicio analogy at 1635. See page 62.

... was problematic at the time, or made years later.

Simplicius was a philosopher who had heavily debated Aristotelian ideas, so was a fitting character for the Dialogue.

We don't have any sources that suggest that there was an understanding of Simplicio meaning "Simpleton" from before or during the trial, and the Pope and censor knew this name would be used from before publication, as it was included in checked sections.

So we can't be sure if this analogy...

Well, he was a dick to the Pope BY breaking a court order requiring him to hold heliocentrism as a hypothesis, without telling the Pope he had such a court order, and letting the Pope sponsor his work and implicating him in the whole issue.

They've built observatories for over a thousand years

The Catholic Church doesn't oppose stem cell research, it opposes unethical sourcing of stem cells, which isn't necessary for the research.

... happy with, in context, for Bruno and Galileo, we should be able to construct a better approach to issues wrt freedom of speech today.

Well, we also can't be sure of the converse - if these various critics hadn't been killed, could they have started further schisms that resulted in bloodshed across Europe like previous schisms had?

I don't mind speculating, and I think it is certainly worthwhile - of we can find solutions we are..

I mean, ideally you wouldn't kill anyone!

Can anyone recommend me a good, accurate, scholarly, book on the history of telephones?

... wrt Galileo, I wonder if she was confused by the fact there are numerous texts that point to the fact that Galileo's house arrest was not as bad as *most people* think it was.

It was still an unfair imprisonment and a severe change to his lifestyle that brought him a lot of stress.