Tofspot

@namarie got it right. Per Part 3 in the series:

In the second episode, we saw a slew of new telescopic discoveries during 1610-1611; viz., the mountains on the moon, the Medicean stars, and (more decisively) the phases of Venus. Now the first two do not demonstrate geomobility, not do they undermine geostationarity. The first indicates that the moon is not incorruptible. But this is agreed to by theology, and it undermines only Aristotelian physics. The second indicates that some heavenly bodies -- Cosmo, Franco, Carlo, and Lonzo -- circle Jupiter and not the Earth. This bothers Aristotelian physicists, but not Tychonic astronomers. Only the phases of Venus KOs Old Man Ptolemy.

But eliminating Ptolemy does not prove Copernicus any more than eliminating Darwin would prove ID. There may be [and were!] other alternatives. When Ptolemy was ptossed, astronomers flocked... to the Tychonic and Ursine systems -- because none of the telescopic observations have so far established the motions of the Earth.

* http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-great.html

In Part 2 Flynn outlines the seven major models in play:

* Heraclidean. Geo-heliocentric. Mercury and Venus circle the Sun; everything else circles the Earth.

* Ptolemaic. Geocentric, stationary Earth.

* Copernican. Heliocentric, pure circles with lots of epicycles.

* Gilbertian. Geocentric, rotating Earth. (proposed by William Gilbert in De magnete)

* Tychonic. Geo-heliocentric.…

I'm not trying to be facetious, but:

Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist.

Is something I'm skeptical about (if we all end up learning something here, I'll definitely appreciate the irony ... also I'm happier with your "a core" than I would be if you had said "the core").

Anyway, I just got done reading [1] and found it interesting that Galileo's biggest advantages as a scientist were that he could grind a lens and being trained as an artist (so he had a good idea what he was looking at when he looked at the moon). [And probably also being really witty so he could make friends at parties and impress his financial backers.]

Also:

Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical.

This is something I would love a proof for (being a little bit facetious this time, but a proof for this would actually be really useful for some of my purposes).

I took several history of science and technology courses at university and the impression I got was that the most important aspects of being a scientist was messing around with technology, taking notes, and having a lot of time to sit around and think. [Having some sort of rival who was also doing teh science whom you really wanted to show up seems to be a bonus.]

Being willing to be disappointed when you're proved wrong seems a lot more useful than only believing things you have proof for. In fact believing something without proof seems like a great way to get started on something very…

I mean, we actually know that not only was there pitifully little scientific advancement during that period (especially as you point out in the first half), but that science and technology regressed massively and entire fields were completely forgotten. For example, there was a gap of over a thousand years before anybody could build large domes again, and even then it had to be completely reinvented.

Like a few commenters here, you're confusing the dark ages and the middle ages. You can quibble over semantics and say that the middle ages includes the dark ages, but that obscures the point of the original post.

The standard narrative of Western intellectual progress looks like this:

~300BC to ~400AD: classical civilisation, high intellectual culture

~400AD to ~1500AD: Europe under the dominion of the Church, science and reason suppressed

~1500AD: bam, Renaissance

~1700AD: bam, Enlightenment

~1700AD - present: humanity freed from the yoke of religion, knowledge flowers again.

The revisionist view is as follows:

~300BC to ~400AD: classical civilisation, high intellectual culture

~400AD to ~1000AD: Europe in the dark ages due to barbarian invasions, underpopulated and poor, classical tradition barely kept alive in monasteries

~1000AD to ~1400AD: Europe begins to get wealthier, knowledge flowers in Church-sponsored universities

~1600AD: bam, Protestant Reformation

~1600AD - present: science builds on knowledge and philosophy developed by Catholic church, but…

Well, science came a long way in general. There were a number of objections to Galileo's ideas that were not religiously motivated.

See The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown, in 9 parts, a must read!

Part 1: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

Part 2: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-down-for.html

Part 3: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-great.html

Part 4: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-down-n.html

Part 5: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-heres-mud.html

Part 6: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/6-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-comet.html

Part 7: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/7-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-time-and_29.html

Part 8: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/8-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-trial-and.html

Part 9: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-from.html

> Copernican revolution

The guy who did the hard work was Kepler. Copernicus's model of the solar system was just idle speculation. Also widely off the mark (it had epicycles, lots of thyem, twice as many as the Ptolemaic model [1]). Kepler sifted through the mountains of astronomical observations made by Tycho Brahe over many decades, and used the latest cutting edge math tools available (logarithms) to come up with his 3 laws.

The true revolution is science was obviously Isaac Newton. But if he had some giants on whose shoulders to stand, they were Kepler and Brahe, not Galileo and Copernicus.

[1] http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

> When I wrote to remind him that Plato briefly discussed atheists in The Laws, implying that atheism among young adults was common […]

Being an "atheist" then may not have meant the same thing as what being an atheist now means:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Classical_antiquity

Aristotle for one did not believe in the traditional pantheon that we associate with Ancient Greece, but certainly did believe in the Unmoved Mover; or, probably more actually label Unactualized Actualizer:

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/first-way-some-background.html

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.html