Regulation claimed to be saving the world cynically pits Our Democracy™ against Constitutional Governance. But constitutional governance can yet prevail.
Just a note: What Galileo saw through his telescope did not irritate the Church. Instead, they paid him handsomely to make them one. And they were funding him, and continued to fund him even after his first trial for heresy. This all while the Thirty Years War against the Protestants was raging, where the notion that any man could come up with his own interpretation of the Bible was something to fight wars over ....
One of the enduring questions of history is 'how come the West was able to create lasting prosperity for the multitude' while civilisations that had a head start didn't start pulling this off until they adopted Western methods?'
Your take that it has to do with freedom is acute, but one thing that has been largely obscured is the role of the Catholic Church in all this. At the time of Galileo, the dogma that the Catholic Church scholars were intent on protecting was not the literal truth of the Bible. Biblical Literalism was a very Protestant thing (which not all Protestants believed, either.) The Roman Catholic Church was perfectly happy with the idea that the Bible was to be understood in an nuanced, and metaphorical way. That's what all the Catholic theologians and scholars were for! They are the elite that provide the common man with the nuanced understandings.
But there was a strong conflict among these scholastic elites, and it was over Aristotle. The old Catholic elite, heirs to the Scholastic Tradtion, believed that everything scientific had more or less been discovered by Aristotle. Only a little tidying up around the edges was required. Science was whatever Aristotle said. Anybody who could quote Aristotle on the subject won the debate over what was truth, and when they needed to come up with a truth about something Aristotle didn't talk about, they came to a scholastic consensus, and then said that 'the Truth is whatever we just said, because we are the Consensus'. In today's parlance, 'they controlled the narrative'.
However, the Scholastics faced, simultaneously, two challenges. The first was Protestant popularism. The Protestant rebellion was, among other things, lead by people who reasoned that it was Jesus and not Aristotle who was the Son of God, and that they shouldn't have to believe that Aristotle and his writings were quasi-sacred truths. They had lots of other arguments, but this was one of them. This is serious stuff; they were fighting a blood and armies war about this; not just sniping at each other in pamphlets.
And the second challenge was from the Experimental wing of their own Establishment. The Experimentalists said that science was whatever the experiment verified, and if it disagreed with Aristotle, then too bad for Aristotle. Galileo was one of the leading lights in the Experimental Science movement, but the biggest fish in that particular academic Pond was Cardinal Barberini . He's the one who actually dropped things off a Tower to test Galileo's claim that all objects fell at the same rate which contradicted Aristotle's assertion that heavier ones fell faster. And found out that, yes, this is mostly true, however the shape of the object matters. Feathers and cannonballs do not fall at the same rate, but round balls of various materials do for the most part.
When Cardinal Barberini got made Pope Urban VIII he didn't have as much time for Science, since he had the 30-years war to run. So he dumped a ton of money on all his Experimentalist friends. Galileo got a stipend and a huge sum of money to make a second telescope for the use of the Church. And the friendship endured, if somewhat cooled down, despite the church finding out that Galileo had grossly overcharged them for materials in the telescope, and a host of other tactless things that Galileo did. It was only when Galileo began openly mocking the Pope, and saying things that were critical of the war effort, and saying that he should be held in the same esteem as Aristotle, believed just because 'I said so!' that the famous trial for heresy happened.
I think that it is truly ironic that the leading proponent of Experiementalism has been burdened with the Historical role of Biblical literalist incarnate. The fable is just too good, while the truth is just too messy.
Why thank you. I just find it bitterly ironic that the leading champion of experimentalism, over 'truth is what I order you believe' is now universally despised for being the exemplar of the other position. And I think that experimentalism is one of the great drivers of prosperity. If your society lives with 'truth by fiat', you mostly don't prosper, because prosperity is disruptive, and the elites don't want that.
I really admire your work. I suspect the regulators, being such, will never run out of things that they can find for regulation, whether needed or not. An outsider, like Trump, was wise in insisting some must go before making any new ones. Likely a good move but rare. The book of rules has grown exceedingly large over the years, well beyond any other than specialists can understand.
I suspect regulations stifle innovation - a very real cost. The US led innovation for a very long time with the notion that the market would sort the good from the bad. Nominally until recently, finances kept the failure rate high for poor performers. As the economy declines marginal firms disappear but regulation might be a part of that. Regulatory capture is one way the large guys keep the new upstarts in their place even before they can really compete. In the long term, I can't see how this improves the economy.
Without innovation by dreamers, even the green future is harmed. If carbon is really an issue we need a lot of innovation that the entire world might benefit from. State control as in many places has led to poor designs - notably the Chinese copy of a US nuclear reactor design is not widely used, not even by the Chinese! We can hope the new modular, factory built smaller US reactors might pave the way; some regulations have been set aside as unsuited for the newer designs, but we shall see.
I think your findings might be useful to Congress going forward. Why are there no teams to build a better case? This issue, like non-proprietary open systems voting designs seem stalled. I assume great forces exist to prevent change that might disrupt their cozy conditions.
Just a note: What Galileo saw through his telescope did not irritate the Church. Instead, they paid him handsomely to make them one. And they were funding him, and continued to fund him even after his first trial for heresy. This all while the Thirty Years War against the Protestants was raging, where the notion that any man could come up with his own interpretation of the Bible was something to fight wars over ....
See for instance: https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/09/the-myth-of-galileo-a-story-with-a-mostly-valuable-lesson-for-today/ or https://www.ncregister.com/blog/14-errors-revolving-around-galileo-and-how-to-clear-them-up
I have no particular liking for the Roman Catholic Church but the Galileo story is just another false narrative.
Thank you, Madam. I must be confusing episodes of heresies.
One of the enduring questions of history is 'how come the West was able to create lasting prosperity for the multitude' while civilisations that had a head start didn't start pulling this off until they adopted Western methods?'
Your take that it has to do with freedom is acute, but one thing that has been largely obscured is the role of the Catholic Church in all this. At the time of Galileo, the dogma that the Catholic Church scholars were intent on protecting was not the literal truth of the Bible. Biblical Literalism was a very Protestant thing (which not all Protestants believed, either.) The Roman Catholic Church was perfectly happy with the idea that the Bible was to be understood in an nuanced, and metaphorical way. That's what all the Catholic theologians and scholars were for! They are the elite that provide the common man with the nuanced understandings.
But there was a strong conflict among these scholastic elites, and it was over Aristotle. The old Catholic elite, heirs to the Scholastic Tradtion, believed that everything scientific had more or less been discovered by Aristotle. Only a little tidying up around the edges was required. Science was whatever Aristotle said. Anybody who could quote Aristotle on the subject won the debate over what was truth, and when they needed to come up with a truth about something Aristotle didn't talk about, they came to a scholastic consensus, and then said that 'the Truth is whatever we just said, because we are the Consensus'. In today's parlance, 'they controlled the narrative'.
However, the Scholastics faced, simultaneously, two challenges. The first was Protestant popularism. The Protestant rebellion was, among other things, lead by people who reasoned that it was Jesus and not Aristotle who was the Son of God, and that they shouldn't have to believe that Aristotle and his writings were quasi-sacred truths. They had lots of other arguments, but this was one of them. This is serious stuff; they were fighting a blood and armies war about this; not just sniping at each other in pamphlets.
And the second challenge was from the Experimental wing of their own Establishment. The Experimentalists said that science was whatever the experiment verified, and if it disagreed with Aristotle, then too bad for Aristotle. Galileo was one of the leading lights in the Experimental Science movement, but the biggest fish in that particular academic Pond was Cardinal Barberini . He's the one who actually dropped things off a Tower to test Galileo's claim that all objects fell at the same rate which contradicted Aristotle's assertion that heavier ones fell faster. And found out that, yes, this is mostly true, however the shape of the object matters. Feathers and cannonballs do not fall at the same rate, but round balls of various materials do for the most part.
When Cardinal Barberini got made Pope Urban VIII he didn't have as much time for Science, since he had the 30-years war to run. So he dumped a ton of money on all his Experimentalist friends. Galileo got a stipend and a huge sum of money to make a second telescope for the use of the Church. And the friendship endured, if somewhat cooled down, despite the church finding out that Galileo had grossly overcharged them for materials in the telescope, and a host of other tactless things that Galileo did. It was only when Galileo began openly mocking the Pope, and saying things that were critical of the war effort, and saying that he should be held in the same esteem as Aristotle, believed just because 'I said so!' that the famous trial for heresy happened.
I think that it is truly ironic that the leading proponent of Experiementalism has been burdened with the Historical role of Biblical literalist incarnate. The fable is just too good, while the truth is just too messy.
Very entertaining essay with many nice turns of phrase!
Why thank you. I just find it bitterly ironic that the leading champion of experimentalism, over 'truth is what I order you believe' is now universally despised for being the exemplar of the other position. And I think that experimentalism is one of the great drivers of prosperity. If your society lives with 'truth by fiat', you mostly don't prosper, because prosperity is disruptive, and the elites don't want that.
Quite well said. I am inspired by your knowledge and ability to frame a history lesson.
I really admire your work. I suspect the regulators, being such, will never run out of things that they can find for regulation, whether needed or not. An outsider, like Trump, was wise in insisting some must go before making any new ones. Likely a good move but rare. The book of rules has grown exceedingly large over the years, well beyond any other than specialists can understand.
I suspect regulations stifle innovation - a very real cost. The US led innovation for a very long time with the notion that the market would sort the good from the bad. Nominally until recently, finances kept the failure rate high for poor performers. As the economy declines marginal firms disappear but regulation might be a part of that. Regulatory capture is one way the large guys keep the new upstarts in their place even before they can really compete. In the long term, I can't see how this improves the economy.
Without innovation by dreamers, even the green future is harmed. If carbon is really an issue we need a lot of innovation that the entire world might benefit from. State control as in many places has led to poor designs - notably the Chinese copy of a US nuclear reactor design is not widely used, not even by the Chinese! We can hope the new modular, factory built smaller US reactors might pave the way; some regulations have been set aside as unsuited for the newer designs, but we shall see.
I think your findings might be useful to Congress going forward. Why are there no teams to build a better case? This issue, like non-proprietary open systems voting designs seem stalled. I assume great forces exist to prevent change that might disrupt their cozy conditions.