"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g4tfn0$38a$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:6d4g3kFr1l4U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I expect so; as it happens, I didn't refer to Wikipedia, or anywhere
>> else, for that definition. I know you find it hard to comprehend, but
>> when I use words or phrases, I do so _because I already uderstand what
>> they mean_. If I hadn't already known what "non sequitur" meant, i
>> wouldn't have used it.
>
> But have still not explained why you did use it.
Becuse you responded to something I said with something that did not
follow;
that is, a non sequitur. I _did_ explain that; I guess you were jjust too
stupid to understand?
>> Knowing a very common phrase like "non sequitur" doesn't make anyone
look
>> clever.
>
> You thought it did.
No Dave, I really didn't. I used the term because it was appropriate.
Unlike
you, I don't sit around wondering how I can make people think I'm clever;
I
don't need to.
>> _Not_ knowing what it means does make you look kind of stupid though.
You
>> really should use the dictionary now and then.
>
>
> But I did, what I coudln;t work out is why you used it.
If you couldn't understand why I used the term, then you didn't understand
the term.
>> Because they didn't make any statements about "the truth"; they offered
a
>> mathematical model, just as Galileo was told to do.
>
> You're unbelivedly dense aren;t you.
>
> Don;t you remember that Galileo was told NOT to hold or defend
Copernican
> theory
> either orally or in writing. But the Jesuits used Copernican theory and
> not just
> to teach it as a mathermatical model but to teach it as fact in China.
And? They hadn't been told not to do so.
> The only proof at the time of the heliicentric system was the math of
the
> Copernican
> theory, without it you couldn't prove the heliocentric system.
That's right. But since they weren't claiming that it was correct, that
wasn't a problem.
>> Do you actually know any of "the math" that he used? Bits of his theory
>> were correct; other bits weren't. Similarly, bits of other theories
were
>> correct, and other bits weren't.
> Yes but the Copernican theory had been proved mathematically,
No it hadn't. There was some _sup****t_ for it, but it hadn't been proved,
in
any way.
even the
> Jesuits
> taught it while allowed to. You can't prove the heliocentric solar
system
> as a
> mathematical model without the Copernican math, which Galileo was told
> he couldn't use.
He wasn't told he couldn't use the maths; he was told he couldn't teach
that
the sun was the centre of the Universe.
>>> I already knew,
>>
>> Then why ask?
> I'm wondering what makes you think you are qualified to discuss
> astronomer as it has little to do with any subject you have claimed
> to have studied.
I'm not actually discussing Chinese astronomy; I've referred to a good
source, which mentions it in passing. But if that's a concern of yours,
presumably you're going to stop discussing anything you haven't studied?
Which would be, erm, pretty much everything, yes?
>> Saying something that goes against Catholic doctrine and/or the
>> Scriptures is, technically, heresy.
>
> Which is what I said in the beginning, in that saying anything against
the
> religious beliefs
> of teh time meant you were wrong,
No, Dave, not "wrong"; "heresy". Do you understand that there's a
difference?
>>> The law was whatever they said it was at the time.
>>
>> Yes, that's right, pretty much.
>
> And teh production of false evidence against any wasn't a problem
> was it.
It wasn't _necessary_.And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that
anyone faked any evidence.
That's something you've made up, and which you know to be entirely
unsup****ted, so there's simply not point discussing it. Please don't bring
it up again unless you can actually provide some _evidence_ that evidence
was faked. And we both know you can't, so leave it alone.
>> That's all very well, but it wasn't God who prosecuted him; it was the
>> Vatican,
> Which is another problem isn;t it.
No, it isn't. Why would it be?
>>and that's almost certainly because he pissed off the people who were in
>>power.
>
> And just suppose that he didn't actually write the words that pissed
> off whoever it pissed off.
Why suppose any such thing? He _did_ write those words. We know he did
write
tose words. the _only_ reason to suppose he didn't is because you _want_
it
to be the case that he didn't,a nd frankly, that's a ****ing stupid reason
to suppose anything. Leave it; there is no evidence that anything was
faked.
>>> Only if it can be proved, I want to see real proof of this so called
>>> piss take,
>>> not some rumour but actual evidence.
>>
>> What sort of evidence would you accept?
>
> Show the actual words of this piss take or even a translation.
No, Dave, that's a lie. You don't want to see the exact words, or a
translation of them. I know this, because I've told you exactly where to
find them, and you've repeatedly refused to read them. So **** off, do.
> I'd want it explained why the piss take wasn;t seen before.
Before what?
>> I've suggested that you read the book itself, but you've refused to do
>> so.
>
> Are you saying that they left this piss-take in ?
Yes.
>
>> That being the case, the only evidence there can possibly be is other
>> people saying "In his book, Galileo took the piss out the Pope", and
>> you've rejected that.
>> So are you expecting me to dig Galileo up and ask him, or what?
>
> if Galieo had taken the piss I'd expect it to be shown somewhere that
> he had taken the piss and exactly how he took the piss.
What does that even mean? Where would you expect it to be shown, and how?
>> You don't actually read the stuff you quote, do you?
>> In this post;
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gothic/msg/1b8983f2c63c40cf
>> you quote the wiki article on the phases of Venus, which lists several
>> different models; "This observation essentially ruled out the
>> Ptolemaic system, and was compatible only with the Copernican system
and
>> the
>> Tychonic system and other geoheliocentric models such as the Capellan
and
>> Riccioli's."
>>
>> So that's five different models there; the Ptolemaic (which was
>> geocentric), the Copernican (heliocentric), the Tychonic (geocentric
but
>> with Copernican maths), the Capellan, and Riccioli's model.
>
> The Earth of the Sun were the two possibilities for being at the centre
> of the solar system.
Yes; as I said, the various theories divided roughly into heliocentric and
geocentric (well, actually, you've also got the geoheliocentric models
too).
But noneheless, there were many different models as to how it all actually
worked.
>> No, Dave, there wasn't. There just wasn't. Galileo believed that the
Sun
>> was the centre of the Universe, and he turned out to be right, but he
>> didn't actually have proof, and indeed much of what he believed turned
>> out to be wrong, _because_ he didn't have enough evidence to formulate
an
>> accurate model.
>
> he did not know it down to the nearest millimetre but nether did the
> church or anyone
> else
That's right; no-one knew for sure. Do try and remember that.
so how did they 'known' the earth was at the centre, that's the
> im****tant point.
Because it _looks_ like it is. Look up at the sky,a nd keep watch for a
while. It looks as though the sun and the moon and the stars and the
planets
go round the earth. That's why they thought they go round the Earth. Is
that
really so very hard to understand?
> because Galileo had shown using the telescope, the phases of Venus
> and the fact that he could observe moons going around Jupiter.
> Considering how clever you seem to think you are could you prove that
> the sun is the centre of the solar system or universe ?
No, I couldn't; I don't have the knowledge required. What's your point?
>> Yes, but that doesn't mean it was a complete model. It wasn't.
> It was far more complete than any other model,
Dave, think carefully about this. Why do you say that?
The reason you say that is because, with the benefit of several hundred
years' hindsight, you now know that Galileo's model was, in some
particulars, correct.
But that doesn't mean it was the "most complete"; that really doesn't even
mean anything.
and therefore disproved
> the only other theory which was that the Earth at the centre.
As you've said, there were several theories, not just two. And Galileo's
model didn't disprove any of the geocentric models outright.
>>> The ellipse is very small and is mostly insignificant as being less
than
>>> 2%
>>> IIRC.
>>
>> 2% of a planetary orbit is pretty ****ing huge, and certainly
significant
>> to any astronomer.
>
> But not really measurable at the time. But it seems strange that if
there
> was so
> "****ing huge" then how come a renaissance man like the Pope didn't see
> it.
For the same reason that Galileo didn't see it; they didn't have the
technology.
> You're the one who's been claiming the Vatican had observatories,
> why couldn;t they see this ?
Because they didn't have big powerful telescopes like we do now,
obviously.
>> One way to detect plagiarism is to notice a change in the overall
>> standard or writing style of a piece of work. Just as, if you hear a
new
>> song by a singer whoe work you're familiar with, you can often
recognise
>> their voice and writing style, it's similar with written work; people
>> have distinctive styles.
>
> And these styles can';t change I suppose, a student can;t improve,
Improvement is not the same as a total change in style.
> but still not exactly a reliable system, and open to fraud, when all
> anyone has to do is claim they know the student.
That makes no sense. Are you suggesting I might re****t a student for
plagiarism just ona whim, and back my claim up with nothing more than
pretending to know them? Why would I do that? And what on earth makes you
think no-one would check, particularly given the fact that I've already
explaine to you that all re****ts of plagiarism are investigated and
require
evidence?
>> I would be absolutely astonished to find a UK institution claiming full
>> rights to students' work.
>
> The question isn't about claiming full owner****p, so why should a
student
> be worried about such a thing. Surly if they are the original author
then
> submitting such a thing in your own name could be used as proof that
> you have actually submitted it and if they are the students own words
then
> there's the proof.
Try again in a way that makes sense. Read what you've written before
hitting
"send", to make sure it's coherent, if you can manage that.
>> So am I; everything I've said above applies to undergraduate work.
>
> Not very convincing then a student doing ground breaking work.
You were the one who suggested it in the first place; have you forgotten
that?
>>> We tell our students that we use "turn it in " and suggest they use it
>>> to check their
>>> own work before submitting, so they can do a self check.
>>
>> You suggest it,
> I don't suggest it, it's in the handbook.
By "you" I mean "your institution".
>
>> but don't insist upon it?
> No why should we, it's up to them,
Right, so that's an entirely different issue from the one which we were
discussing, which was _compulsory_ use of Turnitin.
>> You told me how you _think_ they do it; you've also pointed out,
>> repeatedly, that you don't really know about the issues; you don't know
>> whether students retain the intellectual rights to their work, you're
not
>> aware of the ethical issues, you haven't heard of any problems.
>
> Any problems are dealt with on an individual basis.
I'm not disputing that; what I'm saying is that _you_ are not aware of the
problems that plagiarism software can raise.
>> Davem, why are you lying? Of course I knew of it last year. I _teach_,
>> Dave. I know my job, really quite well.
>
> That's your claim.
Yes, it is. And it's an informed claim. Your claim, on the other hand, is
fresh out of your arse with no evidence or sup****t or backup or even
reason,
beyond the fact that you're an unpleasant piece of ****.
>> I'm not assuming any such thing; you've brought up US law in a very
vague
>> way, but I haven't actually made any reference to US laws. I'm talking
>> about UK law throughout.
>
> Which is why you deleted the link listing how different universities in
> the UK
> do have different policies.
I deleted it because it didn't actually address the issue. If you have
something specific to say about it, feel free to repost it, and quote the
relevant parts, as you've asked me to do.
H
|
