Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:08 pm Post subject: Galileo
Read Galileo: “The Assayer” pp. 52-57. Discuss the following in your post:
• What is the role of experience and “authorities”?
• How are we able to know what we know?
Well, I thought the role of experience was way more important than authorities. It seemed that Galileo wouldn’t believe anything he heard unless he could prove it himself. I think that’s really awesome because skepticism and asking questions always proves to be useful, like when Galileo didn’t take Aristotle’s (I think?) word for how heat is created, so he tried to make it himself, and came up with his own theory. (57) I was also impressed with the depth of Galileo’s skepticism. He tested and redefined even the most basic ideas, shown in his thorough explanations of all the senses. It was also interesting how humble and meticulous his methods were, while they were based on broad ideas of trusting no one, only because there are more people who reason poorly than there people who do so well. (54) So anyway, I think the role of experience is to prove something to oneself. I wasn’t super clear on who the authorities were, so if someone could help me with a definition there that’d be great.
We’re able to know what we know based on the knowledge and experience of past authorities and ourselves. Maybe? Eh?
Finally, a question I have is: Is it necessary to question everything? Where can we stop and say, alright, I can’t see this or prove this, but I believe it.
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:32 pm Post subject: Galileo is a champ.
Galileo is my favorite. I feel the need to share that.
Galileo’s use of the word experience definitely reflects Aristotle’s. Galileo uses deductive reasoning to explain how arrows do not catch on fire mid-flight and eggs do not cook by being whirled in slings. He justifies this based on the knowledge he has from experience, that being Babylonian does not affect one’s ability to cook eggs in a sling.
Galileo also mentions the ‘authority’ humans have over nature, which is next to none (which I believe has changed greatly but that is a different topic altogether) And I connected that to how he described colors cannot exist without something to be that color. People like to believe that red exists on its own, but nature suggests otherwise. Which ties in to how I believe we know what we know after reading this.
Everything we know is based on already existing things. Say someone saw a flower for the first time, but then they saw another that looked exactly the same but was a different color. They are both flowers, but now they need another word to differentiate them, such as a Blue flower versus a red flower.
In response to Dylan’s Question, I know in math there are certain properties that are accepted, no questions asked. Though, for a philosopher, that could be frustrating because then all the proofs and formulas that use those properties would have questionable validity.
I thought the cycle of experience and knowledge in the reading was very interesting. I felt like this cycle is something that everyone goes through at some point. The story at the beginning of the reading made me think about how people learn new things. When the man finally admits that, while he has some understanding of how sound is made, he doesn’t know everything he can really start learning because he is no longer trying to learn everything. This story felt like an interesting way for Galileo to say that it was unreasonable to expect him to discover why comets fall. I also thought the story was very well written. The idea that Galileo put forth about someone having authority over other people but not over nature was very interesting because it basically means that no matter what people are always bound by what happens in nature.
Am I the only one who was a little confused with the reading? I had a hard time discerning which parts were part of the story and which were Galileo's own ideas. This got me thinking about how I've been defining history. I saw history as more of a story and science as truth and fact. But now I'm not sure. Here is history in story form and it actually makes it harder for me to understand. Perhaps there were some flaws in Herodotus' way of approaching history after all. I think I've been underestimating the importance of practicality. Just because something works conceptually, like telling history through stories, does not mean it works in the real world.
I was able to get a general idea of Galileo's philosophy and I just want to echo what everyone else has been saying about authority vs. experience. His idea of questioning authority struck me as very CSW. Then my brain did a weird twist after I noticed the previous posters saying how much they liked this idea. We go to a school where the authority figures tell us to question authority. Are we, then, really questioning authority? Or just listening to those in power? Same goes for Galileo. He told people that it was important to be skeptical of authority figures. If they listened then wouldn't they be actually responding to authority?
This may have just been a weird tangent I got lost in, it just really got me asking whether anyone can truly follow Galileo's model of putting experience over authority. Power and people in power are so engrained in our society that it seems nearly impossible. Thanks for listening to me ramble.
While reading this, I was fascinated by the images that Galileo described. What I basically got from the reading was that humans have had the authoritative role. The part where he says, " Without the senses as our guides, reason or imagination unaided would probably never arrive at qualities like these…" (pg 56) really stood out to me. Humans have assigned names to senses, objects, and ideas. Without these names, those things would still be there, right? the names are what reside in our consciousness. The experiences that we have, are what help us identify what things are make up what we know. My question is: if humans hadn't had the control to name the senses, or basically anything else, would they still be there? or would be something completely different in our minds, or be eliminated completely?
Galileo has got some refreshing sass in his writing but even so i think this was the most difficult reading for me. Galileo went out of his way to prove that some aspects of objects exist only in our heads. At the same time he criticizes his fellow scientist for preforming thought experiments without testing them.
how does he reconcile these two ideas?
separate note: Expertise and experience --might be a bit of an illusion.
there was an article in the New Scientist about a trivia quiz they designed for historians and mathematicians. All the question were essentially "Is Johannes de Groot a famous mathematician? a. Yes b. No c. I don't know" If the questions were about fellow mathematicians then the mathematicians would be more likely to say either Yes or No, and get the question wrong, then to say "C". The same applied to historians about history.
If you want to look up the article It's called Ignorance is Bliss and's pretty good read
Experience's role is important in determining knowledge. Experience helped Galileo understand sound and that there is a multitude amount of sounds in the world. Although he never really examined that sound is infinite, he was able to "say" that there are only certain sounds in the world. One thing that I thought was interesting was when the article was talking about belief in these "archers and catapultists" like Aristotle. It made me think that, we quote and cite these "great people" but is what they are really saying truthful and honest and do they know only as much as we know now? Reasoning and conclusion was also an interesting thing for me as well. This also raises the question of authority and who's role it is to give judgements for others.
Galileo bases almost all his thoughts and ideas surrounding understanding and nature on experience. I agree with the earlier posts that Galileo leaves nothing untouched and lays out his explanations and opinions in a very methodical way. A slightly confusing way to me personally, but I can see where Knaide definitely falls a bit in love with his approach to certain concepts. After reading Aristotle and looking at his views on the senses and human understanding, I was able to compare their assessments on the absolute importance of senses. For instance, how, when sensations such as sound, odor, color, etc. are separated from “living beings” they become just words (p. 57).
I’m not exactly sure about the “authorities” part of the reading, or how to answer the above question. I highlighted every time Galileo mentioned authorities, but I can’t seem to draw any connection between them. Someone want to explain that?
I also agree with Sonia about the beginning story and how it beautifully demonstrates how we can’t ever know everything or nothing at all. That he was able to understand that the more he learned the less he knew intrigued me (p. 52), especially when he then goes on to believe that he had seen all the ways sound was made. With his accidental killing of the cicada only shortly after, the man saw that “by this experience his knowledge was reduced to diffidence” (p. 53) and then he was able to acknowledge that he only knew a portion of what was possible.
just a side note i kinda laughed cause above the writing part of this post thing there;'s a thing that says "choose color" and it made me think of the reading. hahah Anyway.
i may have misunderstood, but i thought when he was talking about authorities he was talking abut people in the past who's ideas have been accepted as truth, and that he was arguing that you connot solely rely on the perceptions of those in the past because as we grow as a people there's perceptions can be proved wrong. our new experiences can outwit the past great minds. and he states that even when we cannot prove something, one can only assume, until proven wrong by any truthful (haha) means, that it's the truth. continuing experience over authorities timely ideas.
i think he says that we find truth through what we experience, but people don't go far enough into these experiences and just accept them as an overall idea truth, which he is admonishing.
i found his stating that color, sound, touch and such are all names given o things we percieve, without us they wouldn't be what we call them, which mademe think about weather we all see that same blue or red. i know a few others have thought about this cause i've been in class with them.
i agree with tess that he has a lot of sass in his writings which i greatly admire, and also i found myself underlining almost every sentence in this reading, it is filled with so many great ideas it's hard to just stop at one or two main idea ideas.
Kate- thank you for those wise ramblings!!!! I'm really enjoying the challenge of applying the swirling thoughts about power/authority in my brain to our everyday experience at school. I think the strongest leaders and authoritative figures in my life have been significant when they teach me how to be empowered on my own, how to utilize the tools I have ("Nature and God have given me my senses and my reason..."pg 55) to harness my own power. It sounds to me like Galileo is all about using our own devices to make discoveries for ourselves and not just take someone else's philosophy on life.
I found it interesting that Galileo believes that sensible experiences such as bitter/sweet/hot/cold/tickling etc. wouldn't exist if the "living creature were removed" for it is through that medium that we experience such "real qualities"- if the hand that tickles us did not exist, we wouldn't feel the sensation of being touched in that way, right? He goes on to say that "the sensation belongs to us and not to the hand"(56) but it makes me wonder what is between our individual sensible experience and the external world that carries these qualities that we interact with? why do some people experience tickling when others don't, or temperature in a more extreme way than others? Is there any way to really develop a universal truth of any kind when we each feel things so uniquely? Tying it back to Dylan's, could we come to an agreement or acceptance of a truth without sharing the same experience of it?
To Galileo human authority is everything. Aristotle argued that objects have both form (an objects properties) and matter (the subject), and that these two components of objects are inseparable. Aristotle believed that properties “actually reside in the material” and that they are real (56). Galileo on the other hand believes that properties only exist when humans are present to sense them and that “if the live and sensitive body were removed it [tickling] would remain no more than a mere word” (56). Human authorities are the interpreters who make properties exist by sensing them. Basically (according to Galileo’s theory) if a tree falls in a forest but no one is there to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound. This philosophy attributes a lot more power to humans than Aristotle’s philosophical system did (which I found comforting). Also Galileo stresses that he cannot trust a conclusion merely because another man has come to it; instead he must test this theory with experiments of his own before he can believe it.
**I think I interpreted the word “authority” different than most people. It seems like everyone else sees “authorities” as people like Aristotle, who are considered experts on a field and who have specific ideas or a “system” that is widely respected. I (kind of like Niko) saw “authority” as the authority Galileo’s philosophy endows to humans, in that properties don’t exist unless there are people to experience them. Is that really off base?
The part I found really interesting about the reading was the story at the beginning. According to Galileo humans know what we know only through out own experiences (which means experience plays a vital role I knowledge getting), but the more a person is educated on a subject the more he/she will admit to not understanding the subject. To Galileo wisdom is acknowledging one’s own ignorance. That definition is something I’ve found to be very true in my own life, the more details I learn about a subject, the more “gray” area I see. Agree/disagree?
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: Galileo
Well, I'd like to look into that damnable question of 'What do we really know?' Basically, we learn through experience how things work in a practical sense. We 'know' our surroundings, what we like and dislike, and from there, we build a powerful intuition. As children, we learn about expected outcomes. Any time an outcome varies, we reevaluate the situation, and hopefully learn from it. Knowledge is, as Aristotle wisely said 'empirical.' But then again, is it? Is there something we don't have to experience, that we can use logic to find all else? For example, If there is a truth, then we exist. Ultimately, I think it's a question of faith. It is possible to reason that since there isn't one irrefutable truth that we know of and agree on, we cannot be entirely sure that anything is true or real. This is rather annoying to most of us, but just as everything can be explained as odds due to the theory of probability, we must acknowledge the remote chance that some or all of what we know is a lie.
In a response to Kate's post about questioning authority, I'd just like to point out the uniqueness of our school, and how too many leaders, with varying amounts of power, respond to dissent with violence and brutality. But I think we all know this; a healthy system of governance welcomes questioning from its citizens. Any time an official cannot adequately address the questions of its people, it is time for a new leader. _________________ "We have two ears and one tongue so that we would listen more and talk less." - Diogenes of Sinope
I also found the reading to be quite confusing. I re-read it three times and still had difficulty answering the questions. (Maybe it's my lack of brain power from being sick). So please bear with me if I answer the question wrong. I really enjoyed the reading about the man that kept discovering different ways of making music. I think it's a good metaphor for the fact that even if we think we know all that there is to know about something, there is always something else that we could learn about it. Although experience oftentimes grants a person authority, there are always people that know more than this person in power. I feel that authority can sometimes be hindering, because people get the illusion that they know everything about their subject, and this prevents them from broadening their knowledge. I liked the man in the story because, although he was wise and knowledgeable, he didn't let this stop him from being curious about the world around him, and this expanded his knowledge even further. We're able to know what we know through experiencing the world, and also by learning from those who have already experienced it.
In response to Dylan's question: I do think that it is necessary to question everything in order to reach some deeper understanding on the subject. However, I don't think it's necessary to question everything endlessly. There's definitely a point where things just have to be accepted for what they are without being put into question.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:48 pm Post subject:
Galileo said that experience helps us to learn. At the begining, he stated that “the less people understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgement upon anything new.” (p.52) The more knowlege people know, the more they block themselves from outside because they think they know everything. Garlileo at the end of the story told us that being skeptism is essential for knowlege. Also, I thought that the parts that talk about senses are similar to experience. Some of the sense can only feel inside of our body, which same with knowlege. Knowlege can only fully be understoon when we have the experience.
When I was reading the parts about authority, I could not really understand it. Partly was that I could not define what authority was through the content.
To answer Dylan’s question, I think that questioning is always really important because it allows ou to think about what are some false we see, and how can we improve it. Like what Garlileo said, that was part of learning and experiencing.
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
