"H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6dhqvnFq6u0U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:g503uh$ura$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:6df1htF297q3U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 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?
>>
>> You used it because you couldn't think of anything else.
>> Yes you didn't think that a point regarding Galileo should be followed
by
>> something about Galileo.
>
> It shouldn't be followed by something completely different about
Galileo,
It wasn't completely different or are you prepared to prove how different
you thought it was, didn;t think so.
But then yuo do seem top believe that a person can be accused of suspicion
of heresy if tehy call the Pope a girl or whatever your claim is.
> no. If you'll respond to the point that is actually being made, all well
> and good. If you respond to some point that hasn't been made, is in a
way
> which doesn't follow on, that's a non sequitur. This really isn't
complex,
> Dave; try harder.
>
>>> And? They hadn't been told not to do so.
>>
>> Why hadn't they been told not to do so ?
>
> Because they weren't doing so in a way which pissed people off.
Because it was in China, too far away to worry about them at the time.
But seeing how well you claim to understand what was happening at this
time,
explain how anyoe taking the piss out of teh Poep by calling him a monkey,
or poking their tongnue out at him or whatever your claim how and why
should that affect what the Jesuits priests were teaching.
Why is it that they(Jesuits) had to stop teaching the heliocentric
system
and revert
to teaching the geocentric system was it really because Galileo had
allegedly
pissed off the Pope ?
>>> That's right. But since they weren't claiming that it was correct,
that
>>> wasn't a problem.
>>
>> What di you mean by that, who wasn;t claiming it was correct.
>
> The Jesuits. They weren't saying "This is the way the Universe says, and
> anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong".
What were they saying about the solar system them, if they were teaching
that the
sun is in the centre, the Earth and sun can;t both be in the centre of the
solar system.
> Instead, they were saying "Here's a mathematical model which seems to
work
> quite well, so we may as well use it, even if it doesn't actually
reflect
> any deep truth."
and where's your evidence for this, of have you just made this up.
And this still doesn't change the FACT that the Jesuits were told not
tom teach what they were teaching after the Galileo incident.
>>> No it hadn't. There was some _sup****t_ for it, but it hadn't been
>>> proved, in any way.
>> yes it had as that was how the eclipse were more accurately predictable
>> than any previous system.
>
> That didn't prove it to be correct; that just added some sup****t. As
I've
> pointed out repeatedly, as a matter of fact, it _wasn't_ correct, it was
> just more correct than the previous theories.
yes more correct than thinking the Earth was the centre of the solar
system,
or that Mars was or Mercury, Venus or any other celestrial body was at the
centre.
So why go back on such a thing and start teaching that teh earth was
really
the centre of everything despite mathematical and observational evidence ?
Are you still claiming this was all done because G. had taken
the piss out of the Pope.
>>> 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.
>>
>> But the Jesuits could remember that.
>
> The Jesuits could remember what?
Sorry forgot the comma.
But the Jesuits could, remember that.
The Jesuits had been allowed to teach that the sun was at the centre
because they didn;t take the piss out of teh Pope or was it because they
didn;t say it was true but just taught it.
And then it change, how did whatevery G. said or din;t say change
what the Jesuits were allowed to teach, remmebr that they were 1000s miles
at the time, and I haven't seen any evidence that the Jesuits sup****ted G.
as a person.
>>>I've referred to a good source, which mentions it in passing.
>> Which did not prove what you have claimed
>
> Sure it did; it demonstrated that, as I said, the Jesuits were teaching
> heliocentrism.
teaching that the sun was at the centre of the solar system , which is
what
G. was to refute.
>> Where is the evidence of this piss take you keep talking, you've failed
>> to
>> show any
>
> It's in Galileo's book, asd I've repeatedly explained. If you want to
see
> it, read his book. If you don't, shut the **** up abotu it already.
Why do you believe this crap, if you're not capable of even typing what
was said you could at least say what page it appears on but you can't
I wonder why.
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> That they were very powerful,
>
> That answer doesn't make sense, Dave. If a question starts with "Why",
the
> answer really needs to begin with "because", not with "that". Try again.
Because they were very powerful.
>>> Why suppose any such thing? He _did_ write those words.
>> The prove it, and also state what those words were.
>
> How would you like me to prove it?
First I'd like to kn ow exactly what is claime dot have been said.
>Shall I hop in a time machine and get Galileo to come and tell you? Run a
>bit of hand-writing analysis? What sort of proof would you accept?
Just a cite to the page or section where the piss take occurs.
Or I could ask why YOU believe this piss take occured.
It could be that those claiming teh piss take are far more inteligent than
you
and that's why you believe them, that would not suprrise me.
>>>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.
>>
>> There';s no evidence of anything taking place regarding those words are
>> there.
>
> That doesn't make sense. Try again.
what evidence do you have, that is what I';m asking.
Is it the same evidence you have that a weather balloon crashed in
Roswell.
>>> No, Dave, that's a lie.
>> No I really want to see what Galileo said to make people believe he was
>> taking the piss.
>
> Then why won't you read the book?
Why should I read teh whole book, Prof R Pogge said he read it
and he didn;t see what you claim is there. I would have thought someone
that has
studied atraonmery and teaches would know more about it than you who
admits
to not have studied astronmy in any way. I've not studies it formly but
I've
listened
to 80 or so of his lectures.
Now when did you read this 'dialogue' ? or just tell me how you know
this piis take exists(ed)
>>>> Are you saying that they left this piss-take in ?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> How do you know that, can you actually quote the piss take and the page
>> it is on.
>
> I don't have a paper copy, and even if I did, page numbers would vary
with
> different editions, but from here;
> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/dialogue4.html
> "As to the discourses we have held, and especially this last one
> concerning the reasons for the ebbing and flowing of the ocean, I am
> really not entirely convinced; but from such feeble ideas of the matter
as
> I have formed, I admit that your thoughts seem to me more ingenious than
> many others I have heard. I do not therefore consider them true and
> conclusive; indeed, keeping always before my mind's eye a most solid
> doctrine that I once heard from a most eminent and learned person, and
> before which one must fall silent, I know that if asked whether God in
His
> infinite power and wisdom could have conferred upon the watery element
its
> observed reciprocating motion using some other means than moving its
> containing vessels, both of you would reply that He could have, and that
> He would have known how to do this in many ways which are unthinkable to
> our minds. From this I forthwith conclude that, this being so, it would
be
> excessive boldness for anyone to limit and restrict the Divine power and
> wisdom to some particular fancy of his own. "
>
> Ironically, in the discussion to which that refers, Simplicio puts
forward
> the theory that the tides are caused by the moon, and Salviati ridicules
> him for doing so.
So what's wrong with that, the tides are partly due to the moon.
So remind me which one the Pope was meant to see himself as ?
>> didn't think so, but then again Prof Pogge had read the book and being
a
>> professor of astronomy and teaching it, not just from today's POV but
>> teaching
>> the history of astronomy (course 161, not that you're interested, which
I
>> have listened to
>> it was almost like being in the lecture room) I'd says he knows more
>> about it than you do.
>
> Quite possibly, yes. And your point?
Why do you think you know more than he does ?
>>> 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.
>>
>> But according to the catholic faith at there time there was only ONE.
>
> Not really true; "The Catholic Faith" really wans't monolithic, even
then.
> You do remember, don't you, that both Copernicus and Galileo were
> Catholics?
Yes by birth as was an ex amercan flatmate that went to convent school
and ened up as a stripper in London taking methodone.
>>> That's right; no-one knew for sure. Do try and remember that.
>>
>> But there was increasing evidence to suggest that the geocentric system
>> was wrong.
>
> Well, there was _some_ evidence to suggest that the geocentric system
was
> wrong (although some of that, such as the tides, was misinterpreted, and
> didn't actually show what they thought it showed),
well we know that the tides are caused by gravity of the moon and the sun
moving.
> but since there were several possible alternatives (such as the
> geoheliocentric theories outlined earlier), none of that evidence
actually
> showed Galileo to be correct; in fact, he pointsd this out, in the
person
> of Simplicio, in the Dialogue; Simplicio says he believes that none of
the
> current theories are spot on. And he was right.
Is this the simplico that was meant to be the Pope ?
>>> 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?
>>
>> For the sun and the moon yes, but not so with the planets.
>> They did not follow the same patterns of movement the moon and sun had.
>> They more closely resembled the star in their movement but they still
>> didn't move in unison like the stars did. That is why they called them
>> wandering stars
>> they didn't orbit like the sun, moon and stars.
>
> No, but they still seems to move around the Earth, roughly speaking.
Back
> then, people took the evidence of their own senses over anything else.
Unless they were told not to, by a believe system that was always
seen to be correct.
>
>>> 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.
>> It was correct in the so called particulars in that the Earth did move
>> and so did the
>> sun although whether or not rotation on the axis is movement is another
>> point.
>
> Galileo certainly described rotation as movement.
Yes he did, but do others ?
> But yes, in those very broad particulars he was right, but those
> particulars were shared with various other theories.
I haven't seen any theories that required the rotation of the sun on it's
axis,
even Galileo's own theory didn't require that.
>>> For the same reason that Galileo didn't see it; they didn't have the
>>> technology.
>> So you can forgive both of them for not knowing that, as we can for not
>> knowing
>> about the other planets.
>
> It's hardly somehting that needs forgiveness, is it? But certainly it's
> entirely understandable that they should not have known something which
> was, at the time, unknowable.
So why say Galileo was wrong because he didn't know that the planets moved
in an elliptical orbit. I'm not blaming G. for not knowing that there were
more than 6 planets, I'm not even blaming the Pope although having such
a 'hot-line" to God the alleged creator might have mentioned it just in
passing.
But perhaps God never told him because he didn;t want anyone to know.
>>> Because they didn't have big powerful telescopes like we do now,
>>> obviously.
>> So what made them think they knew it all regarding the idea that the
>> Earth
>> didn't move and was at the centre of the universe.
>
> They didn't think they knew it all; that's why they were doing research.
And after this reaserch still claiming that the Earth was stationary.
I'm not really sure how much 'research' you can do inside a church.
>>> 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?
>>
>> if you were having an affair with one that could cloud yours or anyone
>> elses judgement.
>
> Which is one reason why I woudln't have an affair with one of my
students.
You might not but others do, one of ours had a brother that was doing the
course,
another did have a 'relation****p', one even told me the time and location
of
where
he used to **** her on the stairs outside my lab in the evenings.
But that was in the days before research studetns maked coursework.
>
> Or if you needed to raise yuo're class marks an easy way
>> of doing this would be to ignore certain things.
>
> Why would I need to raise my class's marks?
If we find that ourr studetns are gettign low marks we I believ try to
find
out why.
There has to be some reason.
A/ Crap students
B/ Crap lecturer
C/ mixture of both
D/ Work for to advanced for their abilities.
Please feel free to add your own
> And how would re****ting one of them for plagiarism raise their marks?
It wouldn't, so why re****t them why not let them get 80 or 90%
who's going to notice if you're the one checking for plagiarism.
What if you think they have plagiarised text/graphic/sound/object
from their siblings re****t from another uni from 2 years ago ?
What would you do about it ?
You do know that plagiarism isn;t just copying text from the person
in your own class.
>>>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?
>>
>> If you chose not to re****t a student for possible plagiarism, then it
>> wouldn;t get investigated would it.
>
> You weren't talking abotu _not_ re****ting plagiairism; you were talking
> about making spurious re****ts of plagiairism where no plagiarism had
> occurred. DOn't change the subject; answer the question which was
actually
> asked.
In answered the question, but you're not clever enough to see that.
If someone told you not to look form plagerism would that concern you
in any way or do you just do exactly what you're told without any
quesions.
>
>>> Right, so that's an entirely different issue from the one which we
were
>>> discussing, which was _compulsory_ use of Turnitin.
>>
>> Who said anything about compulsory_ use of Turnitin.
>
> You did.
No you got that wrong once again.
>> As far as I know we use it to check for plagiarism
>
> So they don't have to submit things to Turnitin, but you _do_ submit
> _their_ work to Turnitin? Or have I misunderstood?
That is correct, i.e you have not this time at least 'misunderstood'.
>>> I'm not disputing that; what I'm saying is that _you_ are not aware of
>>> the problems that plagiarism software can raise.
>>
>> Yes I am,
>
> No Dave, you're not; you _said_ that you weren't. I pointed them out,
and
> you actually specifically said that you weren't aware of the problems.
I am aware of the problems claimed but I am not aware of any actual
real problems in the majority of cases.
Do you understand that ?
>
> I can understand why some would be reluctant to use anything
>> that could possibly be used as evidence to lower students marks.
>>
>> There are many universities that use such systems and as yet I haven't
>> heard
>> of any real world problems regarding a students work being plagiarised
>> by the company receiving their work.
>
> See, you've just said it again; "I haven't heard of any real world
> problems". Well, I have.
Such as what.
Perhaps someone taking the piss ?
If a students get low marks, it becomes difficult to get them through
the course let alone give them anyhting more than a pass mark.
Those students on low marks could well be tempted to plagiarise
more than a 'cleverer' student. Having a high failure rate doesn't
encourage studetns the following year and may also make it look as though
the lecturer/TA Department/school/university or college aren't good
at teaching that subject.
>
>>> I deleted it because it didn't actually address the issue.
>>
>> If Oxford university can use it then why can't others.
>> If there's one place in the UK where good original work might come from
>> I'd say Oxford is a good possibility so why are they risking their
>> students work
>> from whatever you have claimed the problem is.
>
> It depends on exactly how they're using it, and in which departments.
True, but if treh psychology dept. in Oxford thinks it's OK to use
such a system and your current one doesn't whose right ?
It coudl be that your institiotion is so worried that it';s studetns will
be found to be plagerising that say 50% might be found guilty
if 50% of your class fail is that a good thing to put in next years
prospectus ?
>> So why don;t you tell me what you think the problem ethical or
otherwise
>> as I don;t see the problems you do.
>
> I ahave already expained various potential issues,a few posts back. I'm
> not going to repeat what I said; you can just go back and re-read it.
Yes of course you have and of course you fully agree with them
it's your job isn't it.
|
