Posted by Pat on October 23, 1999 at 18:39:50:
In Reply to: Christian Platonism posted by Tom on October 22, 1999 at 22:59:52:
: Pat: In fact, Sagan's epitath for Kepler was;"He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions." Again, the evidence shows precisely the opposite of what you have assumed.
: Tom: I'm not contesting that Kepler was a great scientist. The two 17th-century scientists most influenced by Plato, Kepler and Galileo, were not Platonists in the classical sense. They were Christian Platonists. Christians thinkers of this stripe tended to reject the extreme dualism of the older Platonism, without rejecting its rationalistic foundations. So you could have someone like Galileo who conceptualized the theoretical work of science in a very Platonic fashion while still championing careful observation and measurement. Sagan tries to insinuate that Kepler was the first scientists to adopt serious scruples about being faithful to the data.
Pat:
That doesn't show up. In fact, in Cosmos, Sagan specifically mentions the Ionian Greek Eratosthenes as being dedicated to truth through careful observation. I see nothing in Sagan's description of Kepler to suggest what you assert. In fact, Sagan points out that Tycho, Kepler's rival/collaborator, was much more inclined to collect data without doing much with it.
Tom:
That is utterly false. Do read up on the history of medieval science as it is discussed by reliable scholarly authors–I would recommend Alexandre Koyre, Edward Grant, or Pierre Duhem. You'll see quite clearly that the facts are on my side not Sagan's.
Pat:
In fact, I debate from time to time with a PhD in the history of science. He doesn't see it your way at all.
Pat:A rather large and elaborate headdress to put on such a small head. As you've seen, you have completely misread what Sagan had to say about Kepler. Trying to expand that error to include Platonism in generaly is beyond silly.
Tom: Your syntax is somewhat incoherent here. The metaphor escapes me. By "elaborate headdress" do you mean Platonism? And by the small head Christianity?
Pat:
No.
Tom:
By repeatedly stating that I've misread Sagan, you're not making an argument. It's an argument from authority–yours.
Pat: Your claim is false, because I can show that Sagan said what you said he did not.
Actually, as in the case of Kepler and Eratosthenes, it's a refutation by counter-example.
Tom:
I've explained how I interpret the patterns in Sagan's writing and would be happy to elaborate. If you mean this merely to insult, I'm sorry, that doesn't make you very credible witness.
Pat:
I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but patterns are less persuasive than an outright fact showing what you denied.