Take... Wait, what take are we on?

In the readings (wow what a lame way to start a blog), I found it interesting not in the fact that the Church and Aristotle were challenged (or rather that somebody challenged them...) (because I mean you figure that that's going to happen anyway) but how the laws that they managed to set so nearly in stone were contradicted. From cadavers to free will, this working from the first step forward with me learning about astronomy and how things came to be is all very fascinating.

Anyway. Aristotle's ideas needed to be challenged for the simple fact that they weren't true. They weren't based on legitimate empirical evidence and I think these discoveries resulted in not just a change of ideals but a change in the way we come about these ideals. Or maybe I'm just looking too far into something that isn't really there. I don't know. This is how I see it. Every time something that we take for granted and true is broken down by legitimate evidence, it challenges us to look further into anything else that we might take for truth. And that is always a good place to be in.

As it pertains to this class, at least they're sort of trying. Or I mean. At least somebody is trying to challenge these things. I wouldn't say that Galileo was exactly inspired by the notion to challenge things because, just from the little bit I read of Galileo's daughter, he seemed always the kind of rebellious guy to go around telling people that tradition is silly, etc., and I mean maybe some of that was his background (what with his father, right, challenging Pythagoras's music theories?). Anyway, I think just the whole mentality of things needing to be challenged and being challenged and changing thus was starting to heat up, whether or not the Church liked it. So there.