astine

This is not really true. While there is some truth to the claim that Galileo placed an argument made by Urban VIII in the mouth of Simplicio and that Urban took offense at this, the trial documents, especially Galileo's sentence, make it very clear that Galileo was being punished for heresy and the heresy he was being punished for was the notion that Sun did not move and that the Earth did. From the sentence:

> We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the abovementioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not moved from east to west, and the earth moved and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend has probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.

Note that the term "vehemently suspect" is technical term. The Roman Inquisition in the 17th century didn't generally deliver straight up and down guilty or not-guilty verdicts and rather organized convictions according to degrees of suspicion. "Vehement suspicion" indicated that there was at least some (but not much) degree of plausible deniability that Galileo didn't believe what he had written, and that was only because Galileo denied it to the court.

"That pope literally gave him permission to publish his claim that the earth orbited the sun, a claim which Galileo did not make based on science, but instead made because he felt the resulting (incorrect and based on outdated observations) mathematical model for the orbits of planets was more "elegant"."

No, Galileo was given permission to publish a book that presented a neutral comparison of the Copernican and Ptolemaic models on mathematical grounds with the intention of proving that the Church was justified in its suppression of Copernicanism. Galileo's book was not neutral--it argued heavily in favor of Copernicanism--and that's why he got in to trouble. Urban VIII had been his friend prior to this episode so it's likely that had Galileo not placed Urban's argument in Simplicio's mouth at the end that Urban would have protected him rather than punished him, but the reason that Simplicio was given that argument was because that argument was intended to be the end of the book. After four days of continuously losing the debate, Simplicio finally raises Urban's argument about the omnipotence of God and his opponents are forced to agree with him. The idea being that Galileo could stick to the letter of his remit, while still arguing what he wanted. Unfortunately he argued too well and readers realized where is real sympathies lay. Urban VIII was accused of protecting heretics (not just Galileo, but also but supporting the French against the Hapsburgs in the 30 years war,) and so he made an example of Galileo.

Galileo's arguments were not simply mathematical. In fact, if they were, he would never have been punished because it was already permissible to treat Copernicanism as a purely mathematical hypothesis; the 1616 prohibition of Copernicanism explicitly carved out that exception. But Galileo used a wide variety of arguments, including physical arguments. Galileo after all, was primarily what we would call a physicist rather than an astronomer. It was Galileo's insistence that Copernicanism must be physically true and not just a better mathematical model that made him a heretic in the eyes of the Sacred Congregation.

It's important to note that the quality of Galileo's scientific arguments were never a subject of his trial. It was only his conclusions that the Sacred Congregation took issue with. Galileo's chief (but not only) argument, from the tides is now considered to have been spectacularly wrong, but at no point did that come up in the trial. Galileo's arguments could have been 100% perfect and unassailable (and scientific arguments rarely are) and he would have still been punished.

"If the church truly wanted to punish him, they would not have sentenced him to literally stay at home in a beautiful villa and write books all day."

He was sentenced to life imprisonment. That was commuted to house arrest on account of his old age and not at his own house at first. He was prohibited from receiving medical attention late in life. All books by him were placed on the index and he was prohibited from taking visitors. He did manage to continue his work, but that was by publishing in the Netherlands which was a Protestant country and hence outside the reach of the Church. He had first tried to publish in Venice which was a hotbed of anti-clericalism and usually Inquisitorial orders, but even they would publish him.

"His official charge was that lay people are not allowed to interpret the scripture, which he did a bit in his book."

That was not the official charge. I quoted the official charge above. Galileo's interpretation of scripture happened much earlier and preceded the 1616 prohibition of Copernicanism. There Galileo gave counter argument as to why Copernicanism didn't contradict scripture and that served as the catalyst for the investigation that led to the prohibition. Galileo ultimately was not censured for writing on scripture and his argument was even well received to a degree (he had checked it with a cardinal before publishing it,) but the Sacred Congregation decided that it was more concerned about undermining the authority of the Church Fathers, many of whom took the famous passage from Joshua literally, than it was about accidentally hooking scripture to a provably false view of the world. If you read Cardinal Bellarmine's response to Foscarini regarding Galileo's letter, you'll see him very clearly cite the authority of the Church Fathers as his primary consideration. Bellarmine controlled the Sacred Congregation at the time so his opinion on the matter was the Church's opinion.

"The church did not care if you made mathematical or scientific arguments about how the world worked.T hey only cared that you leave theology to the priests. "

The decree from the Index of Forbidden Books banning Copernicanism:

> This Holy Congregagtion has also leaned about the spreading and acceptance many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture, that the moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus' On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres and by Dieage de Zuniga's On Job. This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite Father, whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, on the Pythagorean and Copernican opinion of the Earth's Motion and the Sun's Rest and on the new Pythagorean World System in which the said Father tries to show that the abovementioned doctrine of the sun's rest at the center of the world and of the earth's motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not advance any further to the prejudice of the Catholic truth, the Congregation had decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus and by Diego de Zuniga be suspended until corrected; but of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether the present decree it prohibits, condemns and suspends them respectively.

Note that Diego de Zuniga and Paolo Foscarini are both priests. This wasn't about keeping theology to the priests, it was about prohibiting certain theology that would undermine the authority of the Church. The correction applied to Copernicus's book is that it be changed to suggest that his system was not intended as a literal interpretation but only as a mathematical model. As I mentioned earlier, an allowance for treating with Copernicanism as a pure mathematical contrivance for the convenience of astronomers was made but treating it as literally true was declared "error", and later upgraded to "heresy" during Galileo's 1633 trial.

Sorry for the essay, but this subject is a pet-peeve of mine.

Some good books on the subject: 1. Behind the Scenes at Galileo's Trial - Richard J, Blackwell 2. The Essential Galileo - Maurice A. Finocchiaro 3. Galileo Heretic - Pietro Redondi

Well this isn't true. Russia could just give up without negotiating a settlement. Or it could declare victory and leave. Or Ukraine really could destroy, not Russia as a state, but the ability of the Russia to keep an offensive army in the field. Russia isn't supposed to be sending conscripts to the front and so far it mostly isn't. It can't maintain some of the fictions it's been preaching about the war so far if it did so. That severely limits the amount of troops it has available for the war. Yes, Ukraine is not going to be able to march on Moscow and end the Russian state, but that doesn't mean that they won't be able to keep fighting and force Russia to end the war on more favorable terms.

Chomsky is trying to frame this in such a way that the best possible outcome is for Ukraine is they capitulate in some way in order to appease Putin. That's a false framing and ignores most of the subtleties of the conflict.

> We can, however, look at the United States and we can see that our explicit policy — explicit — is rejection of any form of negotiations.

It is not the United States' place to negotiate on behalf of Ukraine. It would be both unjust and impossible for the United States to force Ukraine to quite this conflict for its convenience. Ukraine has been negotiating with Russia since nearly the beginning of the war and so far both have been unwilling to budge. Any agreement that the Unites States would come to with Russia would just result in the US ceasing aid and leaving Ukraine on its own. The US could not guarantee that Russia would not violate its side of the agreement and in fact would leave Ukraine much more vulnerable if Russia did decide to violate its agreement. That would be a repeat of the Munich Agreement.

> Well, something has to be done about Donbas, the proper reaction, which maybe the Russians would accept, would be a referendum, an internationally supervised referendum to see what the people of the region want. One possibility, which was available before the invasion, was implementation of the Minsk II agreements, which provided for some form of autonomy in the region within a broader Ukrainian Federation, something like maybe Switzerland or Belgium or other places where there are federal structures — conflict, but confined within federal structures.

The problem with this approach is that it would give Russia veto power on Ukraine's foreign policy, in other words, a total capitulation. Russia administers the the breakaway region in the Donbas and unless that treaty would force Russia to leave, which it wouldn't do, Russia would be able to directly control Ukraine's foreign policy. Add that it would force Ukraine to forswear any military assistance from other countries, it would make Ukraine vulnerable to Russian invasion, all the while providing no guarantees that Russia would have to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Chomsky wants to frame this a reasonable compromise, but in fact it's not a compromise, it's a trap disguised as a compromise drafted by Russia, and Ukraine recognizes this. Minsk II was rejected by Ukraine, not the US.

> A rather astounding statement. Selective pressure should result a ratio appropriate for a given species of plant or animal. It’s not my field, but I haven’t seen any literature suggesting any such thing, nor do I know of any country full of sultans.

This is not actually true. The math works out that there is usually an even ratio between males and females, and that this is even the case in tournament species (where one male is able to mate with multiple females.) The thing to understand is that in this hypothetical, it wouldn't be a country full of sultans, but a country full of would-be sultans. A very different proposition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle

You mean for concrete matters of national chauvanism? It's amazing to still see people spreading this misinformation even after Russia accidentally broadcast its real motives to the world: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240

> Mr Akopov justifies the "virtual civil war" as "Russia restoring its historical fullness, gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together".

The defeat of Nazi Germany wasn't good? The fuck?

Also, his explanation of the divisions in Ukraine are out of date. Look at the map of the most recent elections. It doesn't follow the usual east-west divide the Mearsheimer suggested. The current government is genuinely popular amongst a wide swath of the population. That was a pro-EU candidate.

Another issue with Mearsheimer's analysis is that Putin's policies in the Donbas doesn't align with the idea that Putin wants a neutral Ukraine (or just wants to "reck" it.) His demands were that Ukraine give the rebel areas autonomy which would give him direct influence in Ukrainian politics.

But all of that is sort of irrelevant because the only reason to discuss Mearsheimer's theory now is to give Russia cover for its current invasion. An invasion which clearly had different motives based on Putin's own justifications ("de-nazification" among others). And, of course, none of this great power politics discussion takes into account what the Ukrainians themselves want. It's not the US's right to tell Ukraine to be a neutral border state and they can't make them a neutral border state if they want. Ukraine has a long history of being a border state--the word "Ukraine" literally means borderland--but that history is one of repeated subjugation by more powerful neighbors. The idea that Russia has more right to security than Ukraine is wild to me and the idea that we even can make Ukraine act according to Mearsheimer's neat little scheme is wrong.

Putin's government legalize spousal abuse.[1] It's hard to get more evil than that. Any government that managed to achieve a degree of stability could have had as much success as Putin's, he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success. Nevermind that many Russians still live in poverty and corruption and crime are still endemic so it's not like he's actually solved the problem. Putin's success has been mostly a propaganda victory where instead of of a strong economy and the rule of law, he's promised Russians a sense of recovered strength and importance on the world stage. That's not to be commended but many Westerners seem to have fallen for Putin's nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

"Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no "

Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence. It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened. Like leaving a battered spouse in the hands of an abuser so that he doesn't feel like his patrimony is threatened. Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire.

"Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. "

The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis and the Monroe doctrine opposed European colonialism and did not prohibit Latin American countries from voluntarily entering agreements with European powers.

[1] https://cepa.org/russias-domestic-violence-epidemic/

Ukraine's attempts to prepare against invasion do not justify said invasion.

Well I have been there and I can tell you that Ukrainian patriotism is much broader than just the far right. Some of the people in the US are hardcore neo-Nazis but nobody assumes that they drive American foreign policy.

According the grand strategy of the cold war, those missiles were defensive. Their presence was requested by Turkey and when they were removed there was a diplomatic stink about it because the Turks argued that this was the US no honouring their agreement. There was nothing "quiet" about their removal.

This isn't comparable to Ukraine however. The US isn't trying to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine (and there aren't NATO nukes in any other former SSR either.) And it wouldn't matter if they were, because the range of ICBMs has increased since 1962. Russia isn't invading Ukraine to prevent nuclear weapons from being deployed on its doorstep; it's doing so to reestablish its control over its former empire.

>When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed."

And this gives Russia permission to invade a sovereign nation? Ukraine's independence is not just a matter of the Budapest Memorandum, it's a matter of the wishes of the Ukrainian people who have wanted independence from Russia for centuries, something many Russians don't want to acknowledge.

So far, NATO has not invaded Russia or violated its territorial sovereignty but Russia has violated the borders of multiple boarder states, so it's a bit rich for Putin to complain about NATO when he's clearly just trying to reincorporate border states that were conquered by the Tzars.

That's a complicated question that I'm not qualified to answer (Congo maybe?), but I'd point out that even in the ancient near east, trade and contact with foreigners preceded the development of civilization in those regions and European civilization especially owes a lot of its success to contact with outside civilizations. So the fact the most well-known African civilizations had regular trade contacts with Eurasia should not do much to diminish the accomplishments of those civilizations as such.

For example, it's possible that iron smelting began in the Sahel in Africa, and from there spread to the Near East/Mediterranean rather than the other way around which would mean that Africa entered the iron age well before the rest of the world. [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_metallurgy_in_Africa

You could also add the Swahili coast to this list.

The term "civilization" has a technical meaning in archaeology which includes things such as permanent settlement and a hierarchical social order. Walls and drainage are absolutely treated as evidence of civilization when discussing other ancient civilizations such as the Sumerians and the Maya.

The fact that Great Zimbabwe is not as sophisticated as other civilizations of the same time-period is a moot point because the thing that is interesting about it isn't how it stacks up to contemporary Eurasian society but the fact that it apparently is an entirely home-grown civilization in southern Africa.

1 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg...

His main criticism is of Harari's "shared fiction" concept and it seems to me that he misses the point of the concept. Harari is pointing out a category of thing that really does exist in the real world, but only exists because people agree on some level to recognize its existence. Corporations (to use Harari's example) are indeed real, but they exist only because people agree they exist. If people refused to believe in IBM, for example, it would cease to exist.

I don't know if Harari is correct that this ability to embrace social realities actually constitutes a "cognitive revolution" that allowed homo sapiens to surpass other human species in a dramatic way, but I do think that it is certainly different from our ability create a word for "rock" and thereby reify rocks into existence. There's a difference between being able to create arbitrary categories for material objects in the world and being able to recognize a new category of thing through shared acceptance. I don't think that the latter is simply a consequence of our ability to use language.

Also, it's important to note that that critique is being offered by a historian but the core of the critique is philosophical (or maybe linguistic) not historical. I think the best criticism I've seen of Sapiens is that the author is a historian trying to write anthropology, but this critique of that anthropology book is also by an historian so it has the same weakness.