Hacker News Reader

> There is at least a decent case to be made that Galileo was executed

Where do you get that he was executed?

Also, regarding differences between Copernicus's treatment and Galileo's. Copernicus didn't publish a lot of his material, nor was it widely known, until late in life. Galileo basically stepped into the controversy that had developed after Copernicus died. Essentially, there was little controversy in Copernicus's time because it wasn't widely known, and those that did know his theory didn't have a reason (yet) to view it as controversial or "wrong".

This is my point. Galileo didn't advance knowledge by his acts, that was already done (within the scientific community if not within the wider world) (And granted, he did advance knowledge at other times on other subjects). He attempted to use it to change the state by agitating large portions of the population using that fact.

I would even say he was not so much looking to change the state, rather to destroy it, becoming a sort of dictator himself, without any thought to what that would do. This he did after a few years of sending out letter that made it very clear he would immediately execute half the nobility and clergy if he did come to power. It didn't help that he had pissed off all of his teachers and environment with those letters. This is what his trial was really about, and of course it mentioned his rallying cries.Those were not the essence of the trial though.

Think about it. Suppose you're an autocratic ruler in the middle ages, in Italy. Everybody's writing letters, a lot of them calling for your throat getting slit. One more of these lunatics starts writing letters. Disturbing letters, lots of them. You ignore him, at this point, there's 100 others like him. Then a few demonstrations happen, led by him, with hundreds of people calling for your throat getting slit on the street. This is unnerving, but happens regularly, most demonstration leaders are never seen again, so, again, you probably ignore this. But if he manages to make the demonstrations grow, you've got to react. That's what happened.

Regardless if you agree with the second paragraph, he was not attacked because he claimed the earth rotated around the sun.

Can you cite some sources on Galileo as instigator against the state? I've never heard of this before. Also, did you really mean, in your OP, to say that he was executed? That was the first I'd heard of that, and everything I checked (in an admittedly short search) indicated that he died of old age.

he doesn't know what he's talking aout

I figured as much. For a while I thought waps was going for an ironic, given the pg post that prompted this, posting. Now I think s/he is serious, but without citations there's no way to know for certain. Either way, I learned more about Copernicus and Galileo trying to figure out what waps was talking about.

Correct, Copernicus as "celebrated hero of the church" is unsupported, he mostly flew under the Church's radar

That Socrates thing is curious. His crime: "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."

Was that just a convenient law to hang his prosecution on? Why not "inciting others to treason" or some such direct accusion?

The key here is to find out what the relation is between his "corrupted young" (ie. his students) and the thirty tyrants.

Do you have any citations at all or is this just a theory of yours? (not being hostile, would love to see a citation as this is a new theory to me)

E.g. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socra...

Quote:

  The standing of Socrates among his fellow citizens suffered mightily during two periods
  in which Athenian democracy was temporarily overthrown, one four-month period in 411-410
  and another slightly longer period in 404-403.  *The prime movers in both of the anti-democratic
  movements were former pupils of Socrates, Alcibiades and Critias*. Athenians undoubtedly
  considered the teachings of Socrates--especially his expressions of disdain for the
  established constitution--partially responsible for the resulting death and suffering.
  Alcibiades, perhaps Socrates' favorite Athenian politician, masterminded the first
  overthrow.  (Alcibiades had other strikes against him: four years earlier, Alcibiades had
  fled to Sparta to avoid facing trial for mutilating religious pillars--statues of
  Hermes--and while in Sparta had proposed to that state's leaders that he help them defeat
  Athens.)  Critias, first among an oligarchy known as the "Thirty Tyrants," led the second
  bloody revolt against the restored Athenian democracy in 404.  The revolt sent many of
  Athen's leading democratic citizens (including Anytus, later the driving force behind
  the prosecution of Socrates) into exile, where they organized a resistance movement.

Not saying this is the case, but giving bogus reasons makes it impossible to mount a defense. If I say you have invisible murderers at your home, it would be hard to discredit me in front of a jury that believes in invisible people.

It's a less subtle attack than "have you stopped hitting your wife yet?"

Are you referring to the Thirty Tyrants? Because that's the only time I can think of that Socrates was involved with tyranny. But the only thing I know of that was that he explicitly refused to be complicit in their tyranny (by helping in capturing an innocent man). Furthermore, Socrates' death was a single event. There were no other people executed beside him, as far as I know.

"Kemal Ataturk, an early 20th century figure that a lot more genocidal than Hitler. He also ended the 1.5 millenia long war of muslims against the west and the east, and frankly without him we would not have a modern time."

Bit grandiose.

And he didn't even get his facts right. His atrocities were minor at best. Much of the killing had happened long before his time.

True enough. But then why does the modern Turkish state continue to deny what happened to the Ottoman Armenians? You think they'd have a field day showing how much the Empire sucked.

I might be wrong, but apart from Germany no one has owned up a genocide. I suspect Germans wouldn't have done it if it wasn't forced upon them during allied occupation of Germany. There's little reason for Turkish to break ground in this regard.

I was going to respond with Germany. Specifically, the East German state did not own up to it like the West despite it being great propaganda for the founding of a communist state.

A government does not gain from showing its society a proper mirror. It runs the risk of losing ground by having "insulted" the guilty older generation and national identity, and simultaneously plants the distrust for itself (it mostly is that older generation) to form a youth revolt (the RAF supposedly formed from this distrust in West Germany.)