Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:44 am Post subject: Writing the first post is intimidating!!!
What is the role of experience and “authorities”?
First of all, Galileo is hilarious. The beginning of the second reading was not only very readable and interesting, but he sounded so sarcastic and clever about this guy Sarsi. It was really cool.
ANYWAY, back to things of substance, I think Galileo is pretty bold in his views on "authorities". He brought up two very legitimate points: 1) No one overpowers nature --- This leads me to think about what sort of separation of church/state there was and HOW the govt. was reacting to his ideas. I don't really remember, but I'm pretty sure the government wasn't that supportive of Galileo? I could totally be making that up though.
What made me wonder about that was on page 55 when he started talking about how he does not "want to be an ingrate towards Nature or towards God" because if he was, in fact, disagreeing with the government and the govt was still wrapped up in religion, I could see some people drawing those conclusions about him.
But, really, regardless of whether the government was connected to religion, we still see today how people of power in religion comment on different people and events, and if they disapprove of whatever, they claim God does too. Galileo talks a lot about not accepting things unless you experience them, not because some old guys said it a bunch of years ago.
And that notion sounds ( please excuse the TOTAL oversimplification I'm about to make) a little challenging to religion.
2) The other point he made was that a lot of (well known?) people saying they believe you isn't that much different from a smaller group of people saying they believe you... the point is, for some reason, someone believes it.
And to rely on the "good name" of someone to grant you validity is sort of a cop-out, because people should be able to see for themselves that you're right.
How are we able to know what we know?
Even though one of the footnotes said he wasn't thaaaat empiricist, I think this particular piece was written with frustration of a culture that believes everything it hears-- he heavily articulated that one doesn't know anything to be true until he or she has experienced it themselves. Knowledge comes from experience, not heresay.
so, unlike Olivia, I had a really difficult time trying to figure out what the reading was about. I understood the first bit about the man who loved birds, and thought that what he said about birds transforming "the very air they breathed into a variety of sweet songs," was a very beautiful way of saying that he liked the sounds birds made. After the excerpt on him though, Galileo started talking about "Sarsi." and maybe I just missed it, or didn't comprehend it when I got to it, but I didn't really understand who "Sarsi" was, so I looked it up, and apparently [skip rest of paragraph if you arn't confused as to who Sarsi was] he was an Italian mathematicion, astronomer,and archietect. The really cool thing about him was that Sarsi wasn't his real name. it was "Orazio Grassi," and Sarsi, or "Lotario Sarsi Sigenzano" was an pseudonym. He argued with Galileo about comets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orazio_Grassi
So the whole thought of "Who IS this Sarsi guy??" really distracted me the first time I read page 54. BUT after I figured out who this sarsi guy was, I appreciated the reading more the second time through, and yeah, Galileo was hilarious about the way he addressed Sarsi. Maybe a little patronizing, but still really funny. I wish I had read Sarsi's writings, too but judging by "You take your stand on the authority of many poets against our expiriments" I'm guessing that Sarsi is an idealist.
This whole agruement reminds me of this clip I watched where this guy (i forget his name) who is a very avid evolutionist is arguing with a creationist in that obviously Sarsi, (or Grassi, as it were) and Galileo had value conflicts, and where one person'e evidence is not regarded by the other, or is regarded and then dismissed.
Now to the questions of the posts:
To Galileo, experiance was extremely important, and he makes this clear when he asks how Sarsi can "prefer to believe things related by other men as having happened two thousand years ago in Babylon rather than present events which he himself experiences?" And as far as authorities go, I don't think that Galileo regards their opinion any differently than anyone else just because they are authoritative. In other ways, he sees them as only human, and he asks, "Why should I believe blindly and stupidly what I wish to believe, and subject the freedom of my intellect to someone else who is just as liable to error as I am?" I really like that question. basically to me it means, think for yourself. but on the other hand, it talks about how "Galileo was no philosophical empiricist."...so i don't really know where he stands if that's the case.
Galileo thought that it was very important to the learning process to experience stuff.
side note: John Locke's name seems super familiar to me, did we talk about him in USO?
How are we able to know what we know?
through our senses. our senses are what tell us things, not the outside world.
I think the quote at the very beginning of this reading sums up Galileo's point, "the less people know and understand about (matters requiring thought), the more positively they argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new". I didn't understand this section at all until I had finished the reading, but I think what Galileo was trying to get across was that people tend to believe what authority figures tell them is fact, even if they have little or no experience or direct knowledge explaining that fact. Not only do they believe these seemingly constructed truths, they will strongly defend the validity of those truths and have trouble disconnecting them from their ideals about reality. Galileo goes on to explain with the sequence about the shepherd boy and the music, that the individual accumulation of knowledge brings more awareness to the facts behind these pre-determined truths and more skepticism in believing those 'truths'.
"...as his wonder grew, his conviction proportionally diminished that he knew how sounds were produced". This quote, referring to the shepherd boy in his quest for the source of sound, points out that the boy's pre-conceived notion of the production of sound was shattered as he gained his own personal experience and saw for himself how the sounds were made.
This makes me think about how many lessons we are taught by authority members in our lives including teachers, parents, and governmental figures, that we are expected to believe and abide to, but that we are not able to back up in any way with personal experience. We are taught information in textbooks, about science and history and many subject matters, and we are expected to believe that they are true because some authoritative figure wrote them who is specialized in that area. However, we have no real way of proving that the facts that we learn and believe are really true, because in most cases we have no first-hand experience of those concepts.
First of all, I absolutely adored the reading. Galileo’s prose was engaging, his critiques were scathing, and he used allegories where he wanted to make sure his readers were keeping up…. This dude can really write.
His points seemed pretty straightforward:
-Don’t believe what you hear just because someone you trust tells it to you.
-We “know” things by sensing them or through logical reasoning. But, we should only “know” things to be the truth once we have proved them or seen them proven. Experiments that can be replicated easily are the best way of proving something to the public.
-Sensory experience is subjective; experimentation, and empirical proofs are objective; “logic” can go either way depending on how sound it is.
-“The less people know and understand about [a subject], the more positively they attempt to argue them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new.”
Or, to borrow some rhetoric from our friend Donny Rumsfeld, “the more you know, the more you know you don’t know, and the less you know”.
That last bit makes me appreciate progressive experiential learning at CSW a whole lot more. It’s a compelling argument for trusting no one but yourself, and it’s amazing how many facts we take for granted as “true”.
Skip everything from here on through my post if you’re in a rush. Incidentally: My father, who’s written a book on Galileo’s work, told me that Galileo indeed thought very little of “Sarsi” (Horazio Grassi) and enjoyed exchanging bits of nasty repartee with him. Certainly, Galileo is pretty condescending towards his opponents in The Assayer.
I was a little thrown by Galileo’s analysis of the egg-frying Babylonians. His logic- “and since nothing is lacking to us except being Babylonians, then being Babylonians is the cause of the hardening of eggs, and not friction of the air”. Perhaps I’m just missing a Stephen-Colbert-ian ironic joke, but it seems like Galileo was serious about this- and it’s awfully shaky inductive reasoning.
I was, however, pretty amazed by his quasi-atomic theory, especially his theory on how we smell things. How new was that?
I wondered what Aristotle would have thought of Galileo’s take on heat as a nonessential and temporary quality, transmitted as energy. It seems in line with Aristotle’s idea of form vs. matter, and of individuals relating to other individuals rather than transcendent “eternal qualities”.
I'm having a bit of trouble trying to articulate my response for the first question- so I'd like to skip that one and see if writing my second response helps me out.
We are able to know what we know through experiences. Galileo reminded me very much of Aristotle in this reading, since both believe that Science needs to reflect the "natural world" (or experience, in Galileo's case.) Also, curiosity plays a major role in experiences. Once someone loses their curiosity, it will lead them to have less experiences, which mean they learn less.
The role of experience is to learn about the world and pick up on patterns reflected in the world (this loops back to my response to #2). And I think Will hit the bit about authorities on the head in his post.
I didn’t relate and engage with this reading quite as much as a lot of people did, but one quote I found particularly compelling was “The less people know and understand about, the more positively they attempt to argue them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new.” I always find myself arguing with total certainty on a subject I know very little about. I didn’t realize this was a pattern many people fall into. So that’s just a little light bulb moment…
Galileo’s view on authority: He very firmly believes that each individual’s views on life should be learned through their own personal experience-and not through authorities figures. “But it is news to me that any man would actually put the testimony of writers ahead of what experience shows him…but so far as authority is concerned your alone is as effective as an army’s in rendering the events true or false.” He believes that these authorities figures (such as writers and poets) would change their views if they could see his experiments. He feels people have to stand up to authority in order for everyone to ultimately gain more knowledge.
A good wrap up quote to that= “why should I believe blindly and stupidly what I wish to believe, and subject the freedom of my intellect to someone else who is just as liable to error as I am.
As to how we learn stuff…I agree with Sasha that people older and with more life experience do influence us a lot. However, each person is unique in what they learn through their personal experiences.
I am not sure if I am interpreting either question correctly, but I will take a stab at it anyway.
People are very eager to accept what Authorities claim to be fact as the truth. They are more content to agree with someone instead of experiencing the event for themselves and deciding whether or not it is fact from their own findings. Authorities play an important role in bringing ideas into people’s minds; however they need to have the experiences for themselves to decide what is right and what is wrong to them personally.
Our senses allow us to know what we know. Without our senses we would be clueless to the world around us. “Without the senses as our guides, reason or imagination unaided would probably never arrive at qualities like these. Hence I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the object in which we place them is concerned, and that they reside only in the consciousness.” (Page 56)
This rang true to me because it is absolutely impossible to imagine what a brand new color would look like, or what a brand new smell would smell like.
Like William, I was also confused by the quote “and since nothing is lacking to us except being Babylonians, then being Babylonians is the cause of the hardening of eggs, and not friction of the air” I wanted to think that it was sarcasm, but it did not really seem like it.
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:43 am Post subject: Galileo
From the first parargrpah of the story that was given at the beggining I could pretty much see where this article was going to head and what bias it was going to take. The artictle was going to focus on experience as the stronger form of learning and of proving a point. Galileo talks about the strength of experience versus the strength of Sarsi's "authorities" in a really awesome sarcastic derisive funny way (I think this is the best reading so far by the way) especially when he says "you may see for yourself whether citing your authorities to them (archers adn catapultists) can strengthen their arms to such an extent that the arrows they shoot and the lead balls they hurl will take fire." I think he sees experience as the only way to learn and the only way to prove a theory; so when he continues to destroy Sarsi with words he continues to go back to how what one sees cannot lie to you while what merely hears is more likely and so any deduction made from information gathered from secondary sources is completely beneath experimentation. Galileo's arguments not only destroy Sarsi's sources, but Galileo made the point that "instead of strengthening his conclusion he merely ennobles our (galileo's) case by showing that we have outreasoned many kmen of great reputation."
Another point in Galileo's writing that caught my attention a lot was he discussion on sense and on the senses themselves, which were really surprisingly advanced it seemed for his time (the 1500's I beleive). I don't know if any scientist before him had the idea that eyes receive or even reflect light, but that seems like a pretty big step. He also used a lot of Aristotle's ideas like the four elements, relating them all back to a sense to determine how they work.
I personally had some amount of difficulty trying to figure out both passages. But this is what I've got, and I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong:
He heavily emphasizes the importance of experiences as a way of knowledge. Similar to Aristotle in the sense that in gaining experience you acquire knowledge.
Regarding authority, he says that "but so far as authority is concerned yours alone is as effective as an army's in rendering the events true or false" (54). He considers it insignificant and not something that should affect anyone. It's along the lines of what Olivia said about church and state. He defies the Catholic Church to say that it can't tell him what to believe in and what to and what not to write about. His views seem relatively rebellious.
I was unable to finish the reading in more detail so I'm unable to really answer the second question. Hopefully, I figure it out sooner or later.
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: the funny man who scoffs at the other "geniuses" o
reading the two sections on galileo we were assigned tonight, i grinned from ear to ear for two reasons. one, it was only 7 or so pages. 2, galileo was hysterically funny, but more importantly, he was funny while making incredibly sensible points. but now lets get down to buisness:
what is the role of experience and "authorities":
the experience, in galileo's mind, was everything. you cannot believe something and concede that it is the truth until you have experienced it for yourself. its like assuming all rap music is shit just because someone told you it was. if this sarsi guy wants to believe all that nonsense about flaming arrows and whatnot just because other people have told him so, well good for him, the idiot. and, just as gailieo said, he left himself a backdoor in his argument by saying "whatever else." you can make up any number of circumstances just through those two goddamn words. the most poignant part of the reading, to me, was the bit where galileo talked about heat and colors and tastes were all just examples of these "authorities" that give us reasons to believe things. i thought about heat and colors, and realized that the only reason i know what these words mean is because they are simply accepted as a higher authority. it reminded me of a scene from A Wrinkle in Time, where Meg, the main character, had to explain to a blind person what light means, and what colors mean. she realized she couldnt do it because it was just something shed accepted. so experience is the key to being the true authority over your own beliefs.
how do we know what we know: the simple answer is we really DONT know what we know. but i believe certain things, and my brain believes certain things that are unchangeable. i know running makes you tired because when i run i get tired! i know certain foods are delicious because ive EATEN them and my taste buds hae told my brain that these foods are delicious. but as for the great mysteries of our time, like space and time, we only state facts because they allow us to believe we know things about them. the more we learn about the brain, the more we realize how much we DONT KNOW. galileo conceded that he knew so little about how comets are formed that he would not attempt to find out why, he would just ask questions and create theories based on what he sees with his own two eyes, FROM HIS EXPERIENCE.
all in all great reading, and i cant WAIT for the discusssion tomorrow. i wouldve rambled longer, but we're cutting this thing way too close. 10:53. WHEW!
Most of this reading seemed to me self evident and at times overstated, that is until i came to the understanding that he Galileo was using certain philosophical logic to establish a methodology for making scientific deduction. That is to say, of course it would seem a no brainer that, all ideological objections aside, certain things are perceived and thus subjective and certain things are more concrete. But when i started to see that he was using this philosophy to deduce for instance the specifics of heat and its significance on an atomic or particle level, then i began to realize the bridge he was making between two stylistically different disciplines of logic.
Before i noted that there are ideological objections to his divisions of the five senses based on objectivity. They can most simply be summed in the expression "if a tree falls..." I think its quite evident that Galileo would say no, but obviously this is a heavily controversial question on which the majority of the population seems to be split. Thusly it might prove dangerous to make scientific analyses of these senses based on his own philosophical perspective.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
