"In questions of science the authority of a thousand
is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
by:
Galileo Galilei
Astronomer (1564 - 1642)
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
"Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit" English translation: "And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness" -- Alcuin to Charlemagne
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    aah yes, the key words here - authority and reasoning (from an individual who had experienced both sides of that coin)
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    The key word here - is "In questions of science" and Galileo is absoutely correct. But some say he was also correct to recant correct science and relent to ignorant Papal Authority in order to have a decent and respectful life for him and his family rather than being excommuicated from church and society. Thus his story is evidence that some times one most go along with the riotousness of the crowd or corrupt power for a spell and prove his science over time. "Humble reasoning" methinks is a key word also, indicating the need to persevere quietly and respectfully against the riotousness crowd or scientifcally challenged authority. Al Gore is a prime example of suffering some what in silence for eight years while humbling preaching his science.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    If a thousand, or a million people believe a lie, it's still a lie, and Waff, when did the haughty Al Gore suffer in silence. He's the biggest blowhard in the country. As to preaching his science, I wasn't aware that Al was a scientist. I must have missed that one.
     -- jim k, austin     
  •  
    Al Gore's not a scientist. He's just a guy with a lot to gain by selling climate change. It's actually comforting to know that deep down, he's a capitalist just trying to increase his bottom line. When push comes to shove, we're all just trying to do what benefits us the most. Some of us just choose to do it through the free market and voluntary cooperation while others prefer to use the power of government to steal it for them.
     -- Bryan Morton, Stuart, FL     
  •  
    You do not have to be a scientist to care about a science or to preach it. He personally chose to be a spokesman for this issue that was important to him as early as 1988. He has been consistently interested in this issue. Like him or not believe him or not he has accomplished a remarkable thing. Now Mr. Pickens wants to get into the act. There must be something to what they are saying. A little cynicism is cute but one needs to know when it is to much. Maybe Gore and Pickens should recant and just live at peace with you guys.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Yes, yes, love it! and the room is getting warmer - very good Logen - what was your source? did you study at a seminary
     -- RobertSRQ     
  •  
    We should always be walking question marks. None of us know it all. Todays dogma, is tomorrows myth. When you stop learning, you start dying. What good is a brain, when you stop critically thinking?
     -- Ken, Milford Pa     
  •  
    It only took the church 500 years to change its mind and offer an apology to Galileo. I do give them credit that they actually did (in the face of overwhelming evidence). As for the Church of Global Warming and it's Pontiff Albertus Gorius, I wonder how long it will take for the apology. Perhaps Gorius XXIV will come around when there's no longer a profit to be made and it's time to start the next scam.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  •  
    Ken, Pa. Good, todays fact is yesterdays theory and tomorrows lie. It will come, trust me; as the moon follows the sun and the sun follows the moon.
     -- RobertSRQ     
  •  
    Perfect reasoning to demonstrate why there is no such thing as a consensus in science. Global warming is loosing. We now have the media in a scramble trying to keep the hoax alive. I heard suggested the other day on a PBS station that they should stop having people that do not agree with the theory included in reports. They found that exposing an audience to any of the opposing views caused a reduction in the percentage of believers. Many believed because they were told it was true and had never heard different. An audience that had a majority of believers listened to a few minutes of pro GW propaganda that had only 11 seconds of one person making a statement against GW and the opinion of the audience dropped to a minority still believing in it. The PBS solution suggested was to no longer include any ant- GW information in our nation’s media so as to protect the GW theory from going away.
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    Robert, the source is: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 3rd ed, Oxford University Press, 1993.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    The truth is always dangerous to the status quo and the ruling class. It is dangerous to be right when the majority is wrong.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Cute Ken but maybe just maybe you are a little confused. Maybe industry and their coupon clippers are the church and Gore is the Galileo. Here is hoping we all live long enough to see who apologizes to whom. I promise I will if need be, any other takers. The fact that many on this site pooh pooh Nobel Prizes, international recognition, Hollywood Oscars the jumping on the bandwagon of T. Boone etcetera and still adhere to their illusions or delusions show what a far out segment of the public and of reality they really represent.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    I am constantly confused, Waffler, as to why PT Barnum was right: why is there a sucker born every minute? T. Boone and Nancy Pelosi have their large financial interests in Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) and are ready to reap their "wind-millions" in profits. I don't see any reason why that should give them any moral standing. Nobel Peace prizes are political beauty contests. The only prizes that are earned on the basis of merit are those in the sciences and perhaps literature. All the rest are handed out to make a political statement by the prize committee itself. By the way wasn't Rush Limbaugh nominated for a Nobel Peace prize? Political indeed. If Al Gore won the Miss America pageant, I might give him a little credit because at least he'd look good in a bathing suit.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  •  
    I think you have lousy tastes in men Ken. My admiration for Mr. Al is for his brain and his steadfastness to what he believes in, not for his body.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    I prefer to keep my tastes in men lousy, Waff. By the way, I think George Bush might have had more to do with Al Gore winning the Nobel than Al Gore did. As I recall one of member of the prize panel said they gave Gore the prize as a "kick in the shins" to George Bush. I think that's Swede speak for a "poke in the eye." Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Al.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  •  
    People on this site tend to be (I use the word tend as a substantial understatement) extremely contrarian. They feel that the further they are in the minority then the more they are correct. Thus the silly argument over words like Republic and Democracy and now the more Universities (you know those socialist instituitions) and governments (IPCC) produce studies showing the effects of human produced pollution on our environment the more these narrow people reject it as a communist haywire plot. Ken these people suffer from the same mentality flaw as those who rejected fluoride, the metric system and any thing else that is a change as being an alien, sinsiter plot. We have discussed recently on this site the subject of the way "truth" unfolds and becomes "universal" or at least more universal. I find your position to be akin to these past foibles that got us now into signifcant environmental troubles like the Everglades, killing off the Bald Eagle etc. It is a shame that many can only see things retrospectively and not prospectively. Some think it is a good idea to learn from our past, I don't see it in regards to the environmental issue at least not on this site.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    If all the Universities and Government institutions and "professionals" are in consensus with each other... Then why aren't they? That sure sounds like the argument of an intelligent man to not give the science behind why something is or isn't the case, but to use a scarecrow argument to take a totally absurd list of "past foibles" to arbitrarily affix to anyone who may second guess the "establishment of absolute consensus". Sounds a bit like "Wikiality" to me, but then again, that's your kind of thing, isn't it Waffler? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    I do not think I have ever heard Waffler admit he doesn't know something. His so-called knowledge is broadcast to him and the masses, and this 'common knowledge' requires no debate or individual research. People who question such information are 'contrarians' and the 'minority' and therefore deserve no consideration. There is a big distinction between 'pollution' and 'CO2' -- I cannot believe that we are expected to accept that and begin enforcing mammals to stop farting and eventually stop breathing, too! I find it interesting that some folks will not pay attention to the definition of words and ignore the possibility that there are those who profit immensely from getting 'the majority' of all the people to do what they say, buy the 'drugs' (in whatever form) they monopolize, and mindlessly cast off all those who question such 'necessities.' In Waffler's world the only evil is in the individual who doesn't want to 'go with the flow.' To admit that we don't know and that we should examine thoroughly the data and especially the financial interests in these grand schemes that the powers-that-be want everyone on the planet to follow would be prudent as history has well shown. Trust in politicians is not something we have to do -- and neither is trusting the masses who only 'know' what they are told. Facts elude most of the masses because they do not look them up -- there are lines to get into movie theaters but the libraries are relatively empty. Those that honestly search for truth find a great many untruths along the way -- it is unpleasant business for those that have a life time invested in myths, customs, and down-right lies. It is the humble reasoning of individuals that have liberated us from the bondage of the ruling classes. Waffler would do well to consider that his group-think is designed to control and domesticate people. I believe his programming is deep and that he has a lot invested in this way of life (i.e. controlling others, laying claim to their labors and property for the 'common good,' and working in collusion for this system for his own gain). The authority of the masses is a dumb giant. Galileo was right on -- and the powers-that-be (church and followers) forced him under threat of death to 'take it back.' Of course today Galileo is recognized for being absolutely correct (and Waffler very likely one of those that would have called for his death).
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Your constant positioning of yourself against the "masses" show you for what you are at your core. You are a misanthrope or hater of mankind. The masses were not against Galileo just the chruch and its authoritarian system. Gore succeeded to some extent against the authority of the Bush administration and other naysayers. His efforts were not from the masses but from a small group of the population of the world - highly trained sceintists. Like Galileo his efforts will gain universal recognition in time. He made a good start with a Nobel Peace Prize. His efforts certainly did not spring from group think. Only the ignorant and those that see a senister political motive behind every thing think that. Since you brought it up I am not complaining about my life. I have an F250 6.0 diesel and fifth-wheel tailer in Texas, several cars here including a 1969 Buick Riviera that I put $10,000 into last year, three boats, and looking for another. Life is good I don't work. So now you know. That listing has nothing to do with nothing but since you were so impolite to bring it up, there you have it. So according to Mr. McCain I am only middle class since I make less than $5 million a year. But yes I have a son and grand nephews and I do have a vested interest in this world, its population, its happiness and success. The way we live in community effects the way we will live individually. As the world population grows that fact will become more pervasive. Again I truly feel at core you are misanthropic or a hater of mankind. Archer you are committing the intelectual death of Al Gore by shunning him right now. You are so shallow and blind I just can't believe it!
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, do not confuse my contempt for your ideals to be hatred of mankind. Once again, as I have pointed out previously, you equate yourself with the collective and an attack on your arguments is somehow construed as an attack on mankind. Your self-righteousness and arrogance is without compare on this list. You love it, or else you wouldn't come back day after day to cast your pearls to swine..
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    I don't know what the hell the collective is. No one I know talks that way. I still think you are a misanthrope, what with your setting yourself up as if you are somehow not of the masses or I guess that is what you call the collective. If I walked down one of your New York Steets and passed you along with 10,000 others you are just as much one of the masses or collective as any one else. Your setting yourself up not to be so is your show of arrogance. I will not hold you to the fact that you called your self a swine. I will just chalk it up to the fact that you don't know what you are saying at any given moment. At the same time you made my day by calling my thoughts "pearls" and I totally agree with you. HaHA. I do enjoy expressing myself in writing and I guess in coversation. As far as being indivualistic I am, I do a lot of backpacking, and boating alone, I am desirous in getting a sailboat where I can sail the intracoastal waterway from Florida to Texas etcetera. So I don't run with the collective or the masses if that is what you think. But just because someone can live in the high moutains Sierra Nevada where my father lived does not mean he must have disdain for the masses in LA for example, and I use to tell him so.
     -- Waffler, Smith. Arkansas     
  •  
    Hey Mike of Norwalk,
    I can sum up what you are saying with this:
    That is, if what you do with that knowledge gives you power of a thousand. Otherwise, your being scientific isn’t worth poo.
     -- Walter Clark, Fullerton CA     
  •  
    And Waffler, Al Gore is still a bag of leftist wind. Friends don't let friends pay any attention to this stuffed shirt.
     -- jim k, austin tx     
  •  
    To much T V for Waffler. It is easy to destroy the planet. Cut down all the trees, pave it over with ( ass at fault ) . don't forget to reduce the population to tenet farmers. It is the only soap box Gore can preach from. There's change coming, there's change coming. Like we cannot see, mans ability to screw up a crowbar in a sand box. A voice of reason in a sea of stupidity, created by the ruling class elite. And I do mean Galileo !
     -- Ron w13, Or     
  •  
    Interesting quote. As for climate science by consensus, rather than illuminate the science it clouds in in intense emotion. Emotion clouds judgment and intense emotion intensely clouds judgment. For instance it blinds people to the lack of a cause and effect relationship between carbon dioxide and the atmospheric average temperature. Why is it that most U.S. state highest temperature readings are not increasing along with the average temperature? Why is it that the greatest greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor is not discussed but a comparatively small quantity of carbon dioxide is supposed to be driving global temperature. I think we have a lot to learn.
     -- Jerry A, Rapid City     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2017 Liberty-Tree.ca