a Christian says, "come & see what I believe"...

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

We are all responsible for maintaining our own beliefs.

Of course. That is what you have to do when what you "beleive" is not real. Because reality doesn't care what you "believe".

But so far all you have been able to do in regards to your "beliefs" is say that they should be considered simply because you "believe" them. So what? Join the crowd.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yes, we are all responsible for maintaining our own beliefs.

I've jot to check the joints on mine. Soon.

[Doohickie]

Originally Posted by yguy

On the one hand I'm talking about scientific discoveries which have led to such technologies as you mentioned to begin with. On the other, I'm talking about evolutionary theory.

So, you're saying that evolution cannot be proven? It can be readily demonstrated in the lab and is scalable to complex organisms. Also, there are plenty of other scientific indications that the earth and the universe are much older than a few thousand years. I'm Christian, but I can't see any sense in creationism except in an allegorical/mythological sense. It is a story given to early man that basically says, 1. There is a God; 2. God created the universe in a systematic manner; 3. God created humanity as beings with whom he can interact on an intellectual level. Whether it took 6000 years or several billion years is not really the point of the story. In fact, a God that designed a natural random number generator that would eventually produce us is more impressive to me than a guy that calls things into existence with the snap of his fingers.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Maybe sometime you will look into the history behind that story. It is much more interesting and instructive then the trite little tale that passes for common knowledge.

This is a general criticism of the way certain people on this board interact. You hint at an alternative view, n.a, but you do not explain your hint. If you want people who are unfamiliar with "the history behind that story", a brief explanation or a link to said explanation would be helpful. For those of us who don't make a living in or have a degree in philosophy, the "set pieces" of your arguments are not readily apparent. If you want to counter an assertion about the history of a given situation, don't merely say there are other ways to look at it; tell the forum what other way *you* look at it.

I suppose the counter-argument someone may offer is that if I'm not thoroughly briefed in philosophy I have no business posting here. Perhaps, but short of taking a university degree, how am I supposed to understand what you're talking about if you only refer to and hint at things?

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I understand that. But you of all people should be aware of another common usage, "I believe in god". Now of course some may claim that when they use the word in that context they use it in the way you have presented. But you also very well know that it is used as often or more often in a way more in line with wishful thinking. More like "If I say it is so often enough then *poof* it will be so".

Because of the prevalence of this more wishful use of the word I try not to use it. There are plenty of other words that carry less extraneous baggage. But you are free to use any words you like. You may find that I pester you to make your meaning clear.

Although some people maintain there is a special meaning to "believe" when used in the context of Christianity, I don't agree. The way I see it, there is no difference logically in the statements, "I believe it will rain tomorrow," and "I believe my soul will go to God when I die." Both refer to my firm expectation that a given event will occur. And unlike most other Christians, I've even willing to acknowledge that, just as it might *not* rain tomorrow, so also might I *not* have an immortal soul. However, even if that is the case, I see a life devoted to Christ to be a worthy enough endeavor that the life itself is its own reward even if there is no afterlife. Perhaps I am a secular Christian? (Or, referring to my earlier thread, a Christian freethinker?)

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So, how does one know that the theory of evolution is true? And why doesn't everyone automatically assume this is true, before the teachers begin "preaching" about it?

Because it can be demonstrated in the lab with bacteria. Complex functions can be genetically removed from bacteria, and they can adapt and evolve new mechanisms using different genes to replace the function of the genes that were removed.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

In science as opposed to religion the way you go about it is to compare the predictive power of explanations to predict things you have not found before and then go look for them. The one that does the best job is the preferred explanation. So the big bang predicted the ratio of H to He to Li before the fact. It predicted the microwave background radiation before it was discovered. Explanations that make additions and refinements to the big bang explanation such as inflation are being tested by the predictions they make regarding the patterns of distribution of galaxies and variations in the microwave background radiation. That is how science does it. The same sort of thing goes on in biology as well. They have moved well beyond Darwin and there are changes and additions being made to ToE all the time as more is learned and discovered. And ToE is used to make predictions all the time. The field of ecology would not exist without ToE. There is just no other way to do it.

From a scientific perspective I do not care if the explanations that result from scientific investigation do not please the wishes of people who are so stuck up on their existence that they insist that all of nature must revolve around them. They are free to "believe" in any fantasy that makes them feel special in the overall scheme of things. Just don't confuse it with science. Because creationism lost that battle a long time ago.

That's another reason I believe in evolution and not in some contrived creationism or intelligent design. The basic assumptions of evolution can be demonstrated and repeated. God does his work perfectly capably in the petri dish. Why would he suspend perfectly serviceable natural laws in the case of humanity when evolution can do the trick?

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

Actually it is supposed to have only one meaning as far as the biblical context goes. Whenever the word belief or believe is used it’s associated in the form of action. It’s never meant to describe mental assent to something, it’s never meant to describe speech giving, belief is described in the form of action. That’s why it’s wise to tune out those who talk and be more observant of what they do.

Where the heck do you get that from? I have no idea what you're babbling about. Belief is belief, whether we're talking about tomorrow's weather or whether my soul will go to God when I die. It doesn't have multiple meanings; the singular, common meaning works which is why it is used in the Bible.

[Doohickie]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I've jot to check the joints on mine. Soon.

Let me know if they're getting loose; I know a good shop for that sort of thing.

[Listener]

Curates egg Doohickie.

If you're at all interested I agree with much of what you've said.

There's no need though to 'go for' Miss Shelby.

"Believe" IS used slightly differently in the New Testament. I would have loved to have shot the good lady down in flames but a good 90% (as a guess) of the incidence of the word in the NT is about commitment rather than intellectual assent. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" has a different slant from " I believe I'll go to God when I die".

As far as I'm concerned, what I posted stands 'cos I wasn't talking about the New Testament as much as ordinary perceptions of what we mean by believe and what MS posted stands 'cos it's largely true of the New Testament. Win/win - no need for defensiveness on either side.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

Let me know if they're getting loose; I know a good shop for that sort of thing.

Thanks, but I've got one already.

The flying spaghetti monster looks even better with good joints.

[Doohickie]

Fair enough.... You know how that works: You read the thread after being away for a bit, Multi-Quote several posts to respond to, then try to remember what it was I wanted to say. I wasn't necessarily trying to 'go for' Miss Shelby, but I guess it ended up sounding that way.

[Listener]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

Fair enough.... You know how that works: You read the thread after being away for a bit, Multi-Quote several posts to respond to, then try to remember what it was I wanted to say. I wasn't necessarily trying to 'go for' Miss Shelby, but I guess it ended up sounding that way.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

This is a general criticism of the way certain people on this board interact. You hint at an alternative view, n.a, but you do not explain your hint. If you want people who are unfamiliar with "the history behind that story", a brief explanation or a link to said explanation would be helpful. For those of us who don't make a living in or have a degree in philosophy, the "set pieces" of your arguments are not readily apparent. If you want to counter an assertion about the history of a given situation, don't merely say there are other ways to look at it; tell the forum what other way *you* look at it.

There is no argument. There are no set pieces. There is simply the observation that actual history is usually a lot more informative of what actually went on than the trite stories that are passed around as common knowledge. But like any knowledge worth knowing you are going to have to work at it. Look for it yourself.

I suppose the counter-argument someone may offer is that if I'm not thoroughly briefed in philosophy I have no business posting here. Perhaps, but short of taking a university degree, how am I supposed to understand what you're talking about if you only refer to and hint at things?

That is just silly. What would you do if you wanted to learn something? Not talk to others, not look around at different points of view? Besides, I am the last person you will find on earth that would defend the sanctity or worth of philosophy as a tradition.

But like anything, if you have a genuine interest to know then go and look. In this day and age there are far, far, many more easily accessible sources than existed when I was young. There really is no excuse to not go look for yourself. By all means, do not "believe" me, find out for yourself. Besides I have always found the journey to be far more interesting than the destination.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

Although some people maintain there is a special meaning to "believe" when used in the context of Christianity, I don't agree. The way I see it, there is no difference logically in the statements, "I believe it will rain tomorrow," and "I believe my soul will go to God when I die." Both refer to my firm expectation that a given event will occur. And unlike most other Christians, I've even willing to acknowledge that, just as it might *not* rain tomorrow, so also might I *not* have an immortal soul. However, even if that is the case, I see a life devoted to Christ to be a worthy enough endeavor that the life itself is its own reward even if there is no afterlife. Perhaps I am a secular Christian? (Or, referring to my earlier thread, a Christian freethinker?)

Thanks for making clear what you mean when you use the word "believe". You are not trying to tell me that others that call themselves Christian do not use it in the way I am referring to?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

So, you're saying that evolution cannot be proven? It can be readily demonstrated in the lab

No, it can't. All that can be demonstrated is adaptation. The only way they can demonstrate macroevolution is to demonstrate microevolution and then call it macroevolution.

Incidentally, here you'll find purported examples of observed speciation. What you will not find is any example of a single-celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism. If macroevolution has been so conclusively demonstrated, how is it that this obvious leap has not been achieved?

and is scalable to complex organisms.

Similarly, my ability to build a footbridge across a brook is "scalable" to my ability to build a bridge from CA to Hawaii.

Also, there are plenty of other scientific indications that the earth and the universe are much older than a few thousand years.

To be sure; and not one of them is any more verifiable than the biblical account.

Whether it took 6000 years or several billion years is not really the point of the story.

Neither is it relevant to anything I've said. My problem with evolution as it relates to Homo Sapiens is that history and current events are positively bloated with evidence to the effect that the default progression for the human species devolutionary.

In fact, a God that designed a natural random number generator that would eventually produce us is more impressive to me than a guy that calls things into existence with the snap of his fingers.

You're lying.

[Listener]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

There is no argument. There are no set pieces. There is simply the observation that actual history is usually a lot more informative of what actually went on than the trite stories that are passed around as common knowledge. But like any knowledge worth knowing you are going to have to work at it. Look for it yourself.

NA - I have no axe to grind about your outlook - I suppose I'm a naturalist atheist myself - but why take such an attitude to Doohickie on this occasion?

This began here:_

If Doohickie doesn't know "the history behind that story", why are you not going to tell him?

I don't understand what you mean by the expression either ....

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Listener

NA - I have no axe to grind about your outlook - I suppose I'm a naturalist atheist myself - but why take such an attitude to Doohickie on this occasion?

This began here:_

If Doohickie doesn't know "the history behind that story", why are you not going to tell him?

I don't understand what you mean by the expression either ....

I am not trying to give Doohickie a hard time. If Doohickie wants to hear what I know then all Dookickie has gotta do is ask. And asking nicely is even better. But it is no state secret. Start with the characters involved. What they were doing at the time. The environment they found themselves in and the tradition they were trying to carry on and how key characters like Kepler dealt with it. It is fascinating and far more interesting than trite claims about Ockham’s razor and “proof” that philosophers are so fond of trotting out. The story involves Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Halley, Newton, astrology, astronomy as the only acknowledge science of the time, the centers of royal power during the era, the reformation and the war between Protestantism and Catholicism. It would make a great history channel program. My favorite line is from Galileo that goes something like, “Astrology is the daughter we whore out for money so that we can do our astronomy.” Go look it up. It is very interesting.

[Doohickie]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

There is no argument. There are no set pieces. There is simply the observation that actual history is usually a lot more informative of what actually went on than the trite stories that are passed around as common knowledge. But like any knowledge worth knowing you are going to have to work at it. Look for it yourself.

That is just silly. What would you do if you wanted to learn something? Not talk to others, not look around at different points of view? Besides, I am the last person you will find on earth that would defend the sanctity or worth of philosophy as a tradition.

But like anything, if you have a genuine interest to know then go and look. In this day and age there are far, far, many more easily accessible sources than existed when I was young. There really is no excuse to not go look for yourself. By all means, do not "believe" me, find out for yourself. Besides I have always found the journey to be far more interesting than the destination.

You make a reference to a specific bit of history to make a point, but when I ask you where you get this from, you say "look it up yourself." Yes, I can look stuff up, but if I quote something and someone asks where I got it, I will link to it if I can find it online. It's usually easier for me to find it since I'm familiar with it than for someone else who is not familiar with it.

For instance, on this whole sun circling the earth thing, you say that the truth is different from the general perception. But when I try to look it up, how am I to know what you mean by "the truth" and "the general perception"? History, after all, can be subjective.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

You make a reference to a specific bit of history to make a point, but when I ask you where you get this from, you say "look it up yourself." Yes, I can look stuff up, but if I quote something and someone asks where I got it, I will link to it if I can find it online. It's usually easier for me to find it since I'm familiar with it than for someone else who is not familiar with it.

For instance, on this whole sun circling the earth thing, you say that the truth is different from the general perception. But when I try to look it up, how am I to know what you mean by "the truth" and "the general perception"? History, after all, can be subjective.

Calm down. First off I didn't make reference to anything. I was responding to a trite claim by Iacchus. In essence I was telling him to go do his homework. So I am not inclined to do it for him.

As for the word "truth" it is a term I do not use other than to quote the use of others. If you have been following my posts with Iacchus you would know this. And history is subjective, but the players in this story are not like Jesus. They wrote their own books and they also left behind a considerable amount of personal correspondence. Perhaps all that is equivocal, but if that is the case then you will have to make up your own mind by doing your own homework.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I understand that. But you of all people should be aware of another common usage, "I believe in god". Now of course some may claim that when they use the word in that context they use it in the way you have presented. But you also very well know that it is used as often or more often in a way more in line with wishful thinking. More like "If I say it is so often enough then *poof* it will be so".

I can honestly say that (even in my line of work) I can't recall a single instance where someone has used the phrase "I believe" with the intention of conveying the idea that they are engaged in "wishful thinking". You may think that what they believe is the result of wishful thinking, but it is unlikely that that they understand it that way.

I agree with both Listener and Miss Shelby that both the NT and a great many Christians attach the notion of commitment to the idea of belief. However, even that usage is grounded on the sense of belief as a conviction that what is believed is something that one has concluded (for whatever reasons) is likely to be the case.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Calm down. First off I didn't make reference to anything. I was responding to a trite claim by Iacchus. In essence I was telling him to go do his homework. So I am not inclined to do it for him.

As for the word "truth" it is a term I do not use other than to quote the use of others. If you have been following my posts with Iacchus you would know this. And history is subjective, but the players in this story are not like Jesus. They wrote their own books and they also left behind a considerable amount of personal correspondence. Perhaps all that is equivocal, but if that is the case then you will have to make up your own mind by doing your own homework.

If your interlocutors have done their homework and reached a conclusion that differs from your own, what then? Speaking from personal experience, your usual tactic, rather than providing arguments and evidence in support of your position, is to disregard their effort and reiterate your suggestion that they do their own dang homework. A not very subtle insinuation that either they have not actually done their homework or, that if they had any sense at all their conclusion would agree with yours. Your usual method of argument smacks of an attempt, on your part, to escape shouldering the burden of providing a substantive counter-argument.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If your interlocutors have done their homework and reached a conclusion that differs from your own, what then? Speaking from personal experience, your usual tactic, rather than providing arguments and evidence in support of your position, is to disregard their effort and reiterate your suggestion that they do their own dang homework. A not very subtle insinuation that either they have not actually done their homework or, that if they had any sense at all their conclusion would agree with yours. Your usual method of argument smacks of an attempt, on your part, to escape shouldering the burden of providing a substantive counter-argument.

If they do their homework and come to a different conclusion that is fine with me. It is not as if coming to different conclusion from the same or similar information is not par for the course for most things. It is not as if everyone uses the same criterion of preference for choosing one explanation over another based on the very same information. You of all people should know this.

I do find that when people do their homework there is a lot more to talk about so I have no problems with suggesting that they do so. But if they don't want to that is fine with me too. But I have no idea why you would want to discuss a subject that you were pretty clueless about.

And I have told you before and at length, I think that was passes for debate on this forum is puerile and you certainly do your part to contribute to that situation. As a result I prefer to discuss. You can master debate with yourself if you like.

[Alex]

A question for naturalist.atheist :

Apart from the procedural strings attached to a formal debate, doesn't a debate and a discussion usually amount to the same thing?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Alex

A question for naturalist.atheist :

Apart from the procedural strings attached to a formal debate, doesn't a debate and a discussion usually amount to the same thing?

Among civil, polite and charitable company a debate and a discussion often ends up being the same thing. But around here debate devolves more often than not into a childish exchange with much heat and no light.

[Doohickie]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Calm down.

*takes a deep breath*

Okay, I'm calm.

1. I know I'm a n00b, relatively speaking, when it comes to humanistic discussions.

2. I realize that in some sense at least, my own Christian background will be at odds with humanism/secularism (although probably not as bad as most Christians).

3. Perhaps the example I chose was not a very good one, but there are times when shorthand statements are made in a discussion that the issuer of the statement feels makes their point very well. So there might be a post that simply says "Occam's Razor" or "Pascal's Wager" and the person who makes such a statement feels the discussion is complete, done, no further discussion required. (In those examples, I'm familiar with the two terms.) So what happens is that people feel they've stated all they need to state to support their argument, but the person to whom the statement was made is not familiar enough with the shorthand to make sense of it. Philosophese can be a foreign language to the neophyte.

So, I guess what I'm saying is if you use a term as a philosophical shorthand, it would be helpful if you can provide either a link explaining the term or be able to briefly explain the term yourself:

CASE A:

FFer: That is a simple case of Occam's Razor.

n00b: Occam's Razor? What's that?

FFer (typically): Do your homework!

n00b: AAAAARGH!

CASE B:

FFer: That is a simple case of Occam's Razor.

n00b: Occam's Razor? What's that?

FFer (helpfully): Occam's Razor basically means, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

n00b: I see what you mean, but I disagree with you for the following reasons....

In Case A, the n00b is alienated, humiliated, and shut down, and the humanist feels intellectually superior. "HA! I showed him!" But there is no furthering of understanding between the parties and the gulf exists.

In Case B, the language is explained and the discourse can continue. In Case B, there's even the potential that the n00b will come to understand Occam's Razor so that it doesn't have to be explained again the next time.

Discussions can move along quite quickly on this forum and the use of shorthand terms can be useful, but if you want to make your point effectively, be prepared to explain the shorthand concisely (or at least be able to link to a site that can).

Relating that back to the original case- about the history of what revolves around what- from your statement it sounded to me like you were referring to a specific historical view that a humanist would be familiar with that differs from the popularly held view. You've explained that this was not the case, but I just wanted you to know where my questions were coming from.

*takes one more deep breath*

There. I wrote far more about that than I wanted to.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

*takes a deep breath*

Okay, I'm calm.

1. I know I'm a n00b, relatively speaking, when it comes to humanistic discussions.

2. I realize that in some sense at least, my own Christian background will be at odds with humanism/secularism (although probably not as bad as most Christians).

3. Perhaps the example I chose was not a very good one, but there are times when shorthand statements are made in a discussion that the issuer of the statement feels makes their point very well. So there might be a post that simply says "Occam's Razor" or "Pascal's Wager" and the person who makes such a statement feels the discussion is complete, done, no further discussion required. (In those examples, I'm familiar with the two terms.) So what happens is that people feel they've stated all they need to state to support their argument, but the person to whom the statement was made is not familiar enough with the shorthand to make sense of it. Philosophese can be a foreign language to the neophyte.

So, I guess what I'm saying is if you use a term as a philosophical shorthand, it would be helpful if you can provide either a link explaining the term or be able to briefly explain the term yourself:

CASE A:

CASE B:

In Case A, the n00b is alienated, humiliated, and shut down, and the humanist feels intellectually superior. "HA! I showed him!" But there is no furthering of understanding between the parties and the gulf exists.

In Case B, the language is explained and the discourse can continue. In Case B, there's even the potential that the n00b will come to understand Occam's Razor so that it doesn't have to be explained again the next time.

Discussions can move along quite quickly on this forum and the use of shorthand terms can be useful, but if you want to make your point effectively, be prepared to explain the shorthand concisely (or at least be able to link to a site that can).

Relating that back to the original case- about the history of what revolves around what- from your statement it sounded to me like you were referring to a specific historical view that a humanist would be familiar with that differs from the popularly held view. You've explained that this was not the case, but I just wanted you to know where my questions were coming from.

*takes one more deep breath*

There. I wrote far more about that than I wanted to.

I'm sorry if my replies made you feel inferior. Not my intention. You appear to have been caught in an exchange between Iacchus and myself and I assumed that you had been following what was going on.

If I understand you correctly all the frakas is over this:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Maybe sometime you will look into the history behind that story. It is much more interesting and instructive then the trite little tale that passes for common knowledge.

As for what they knew or "believed" it is an interesting story. There is a book called "The Book Nobody Read Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus" by Owen Gingerich. It is a story about a guy who spend ten years tracking down as many copies of the first and second edition of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus he could find to see if anyone had actually read the book. In doing so he was able to learn a great deal about what people like Brahe, Kepler, and Newton and so on were actually concerned with at the time, what they "believed" or knew by looking at the parts of the book that had notes and appeared to have been read repeatedly.

It turns out that astronomers of the time didn't care all that much about what rotated about what. They were more concerned with creating more accurate ephemerides so that they could make more accurate horoscopes. That it mostly became a big deal when the Protestants took one side of the issue forcing the Catholics to take another side because both sides were into being disagreeable with each other just on general principles. Which sounds a great deal like what passes for debate on this forum.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

That it mostly became a big deal when the Protestants took one side of the issue forcing the Catholics to take another side because both sides were into being disagreeable with each other just on general principles. Which sounds a great deal like what passes for debate on this forum.

Y'know...That's the second time I've seen that notion in this thread, NA.

I do note that you're still here, so I'm assuming that the other places where you go to "debate" aren't much better. Or you'd be there instead of here.

To do what you'd need to do, you could try starting a thread with a set of guidelines meeting your qualifications for a "debate" and punt the topic. You could even boilerplate each thread, thereby designating "debate" threads. Then you could have the kind of exchange you seem to desire. Then we could see who amongst us desires such a venue....

I personally suspect you'd have some pretty damned slow threads.

My impression is that people come here to "discuss" or even "converse", rather than debate. I don't want to debate myself. I don't like the formal trappings of structured debate. I prefer the open humor and drama of conversation...which includes derailings, melodrama, snappy asides, and snit fits.

If you think somebody here should erect a special debate forum just for you...well...let me know how that comes out, huh?

I think you have plenty of room for your soapbox already.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

As for what they knew or "believed" it is an interesting story. There is a book called "The Book Nobody Read Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus" by Owen Gingerich. It is a story about a guy who spend ten years tracking down as many copies of the first and second edition of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus he could find to see if anyone had actually read the book. In doing so he was able to learn a great deal about what people like Brahe, Kepler, and Newton and so on were actually concerned with at the time, what they "believed" or knew by looking at the parts of the book that had notes and appeared to have been read repeatedly.

It turns out that astronomers of the time didn't care all that much about what rotated about what. They were more concerned with creating more accurate ephemerides so that they could make more accurate horoscopes.

That sounds like a great read!

[Doohickie]

What was this thread about?

This really is pretty normal for what goes on when people discuss religion vs. non-religion (or one religion vs. another), Godfry. Discussion becomes debate becomes acrimony becomes reconciliation becomes flameout OMG I'M NEVER COMING HERE AGAIN. Par for the course.

Some of us want to get up on our soapbox and pontificate; some of us want to knock the guy off the soapbox so we can do the same; some of us just want to see what the guy on the soapbox is talking about.

I don't see any major problems in this thread; it's just the nature of philosophy, of sharing what we know about things not known.

P.S.... yeah, it does sound like a good read. As I recall, the other big deal coming out of astronomy at the time, along with the development of dependable time pieces, was the art of navigation and the age of exploration. Some of this knowledge was probably being closely guarded by those intrested in opening trade routes and stuff, which probably led to some misinformation purposely being put out there as well.