Test Paper CaseEssay Preview: Test Paper CaseReport this essayIn Renaissance Europe, the writing of Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler were all most closely associated withchallenges to the authority of the Popediscoveries related to the position of the Earth in the universenew ideas on the role of the citizen in governmentrevival of medieval knowledge about the human bodyThe Scientific Methods greatest contribution was toencourage individuals to accept traditional explanations of social and scientific problemsdemonstrate that natural occurrences all could be explained by reference to the teachings of the Churchpromote investigation into the physical world using observation and experimentationexplain how human society and government should work for the improvement of peopleThree of the following statements describe some of the advances in learning in Renaissance Europe. Choose the statement that does not accurately describe an advance in learning.
Sections
A Brief History of the Scientific Method in Medieval Europe.
The earliest of the popular scientific theories was that of the time of Galileo Galilei, published in 1777, he proposed that the earth was a solid sphere surrounded by a sphere of light about which the sun must be placed. He did not prove this by claiming that the Moon orbited the earth, and he did not claim that this orb was the Sun’s orbit, nor did he assert that the Sun was directly linked to the orbit of the Moon, nor that it had anything to do with the Sun’s orbit–nor did he assert that the Moon had anything to do with it. After the nineteenth century his generalist ideas were the dominant one of the era, with the view to changing the prevailing thought process by which science was conducted, with the aim that they (the Scientific Method) should be the “principle of science”. Galileo, however, failed to see the relevance of a religious idea. His beliefs are based upon a series of statements about the Sun in which he describes his own personal experiences from his first telescope observation to his very first and greatest telescope study. In the course of his observations Galileo had given the following account ofhis observations in his telescope : “On the afternoon of 24 December 1393 an angel of the Lord appeared to him a man of light and a man of darkness, whose name was Ephraim, who ruled over a land bounded by rivers, in a hill called the Horseshoe. All of the people in the land, except a few few, were looking over the man. He had also seen certain waterfalls under which he had been seen and all were now dark . . . “In his view the man described to him what had happened in the earth-world. He said there had been waterfalls on the hill, which were seen in all directions (as the man who viewed them had been seen). He suggested that Ephraim, who was of noble birth, would be seen by all who saw this strange and peculiar phenomenon. His conclusion had nothing to do with the Sun, his view being that the human body was made up of a small body whose energy was at least equal to or almost equal to the Sun’s. Ephraim thought this to be possible in any case, but Galileo’s experience raised serious doubts about it. To explain the situation of Ephraim we must first have to have seen him. Ephraim himself is said to have observed his view; however, he made his observations in the midst of a hostile world which he recognised as the enemy. By looking over the picture and seeing everything he saw in its various forms, one can easily distinguish the different forms between the two. Thus he sees the globe as an oval shape and the sun as a small circle ; he also sees the earth as an oval shaped circle and the sun as a larger circle. After the conclusion that we have seen Ephraim’s results, one cannot deny that his conclusions have been the subject of considerable controversy and confusion.” Ephraim took advantage of this misunderstanding regarding his position and, as it turned out, he was able to use the same argument that Galileo’s had given to explain his observations. The following extract from the paper was circulated at that time, dated 16 February 1682 in London.
Sections
A Brief History of the Scientific Method in Medieval Europe.
The earliest of the popular scientific theories was that of the time of Galileo Galilei, published in 1777, he proposed that the earth was a solid sphere surrounded by a sphere of light about which the sun must be placed. He did not prove this by claiming that the Moon orbited the earth, and he did not claim that this orb was the Sun’s orbit, nor did he assert that the Sun was directly linked to the orbit of the Moon, nor that it had anything to do with the Sun’s orbit–nor did he assert that the Moon had anything to do with it. After the nineteenth century his generalist ideas were the dominant one of the era, with the view to changing the prevailing thought process by which science was conducted, with the aim that they (the Scientific Method) should be the “principle of science”. Galileo, however, failed to see the relevance of a religious idea. His beliefs are based upon a series of statements about the Sun in which he describes his own personal experiences from his first telescope observation to his very first and greatest telescope study. In the course of his observations Galileo had given the following account ofhis observations in his telescope : “On the afternoon of 24 December 1393 an angel of the Lord appeared to him a man of light and a man of darkness, whose name was Ephraim, who ruled over a land bounded by rivers, in a hill called the Horseshoe. All of the people in the land, except a few few, were looking over the man. He had also seen certain waterfalls under which he had been seen and all were now dark . . . “In his view the man described to him what had happened in the earth-world. He said there had been waterfalls on the hill, which were seen in all directions (as the man who viewed them had been seen). He suggested that Ephraim, who was of noble birth, would be seen by all who saw this strange and peculiar phenomenon. His conclusion had nothing to do with the Sun, his view being that the human body was made up of a small body whose energy was at least equal to or almost equal to the Sun’s. Ephraim thought this to be possible in any case, but Galileo’s experience raised serious doubts about it. To explain the situation of Ephraim we must first have to have seen him. Ephraim himself is said to have observed his view; however, he made his observations in the midst of a hostile world which he recognised as the enemy. By looking over the picture and seeing everything he saw in its various forms, one can easily distinguish the different forms between the two. Thus he sees the globe as an oval shape and the sun as a small circle ; he also sees the earth as an oval shaped circle and the sun as a larger circle. After the conclusion that we have seen Ephraim’s results, one cannot deny that his conclusions have been the subject of considerable controversy and confusion.” Ephraim took advantage of this misunderstanding regarding his position and, as it turned out, he was able to use the same argument that Galileo’s had given to explain his observations. The following extract from the paper was circulated at that time, dated 16 February 1682 in London.
Teachings of the Church and discoveries of science worked together to improve understanding of the physical world.Creation of the telescope allowed closer observation of the movements of the planets.Mathematical knowledge from the Muslim world was applied to science and economics.Advances were made in the knowledge of anatomy and the functioning of the human body.To answer Question 4, refer to Figure 3-18 on text page 71. Look on the Smartboard screen at the front of class.Which of the following features of Renaissance painting is most evident in the artwork above?perspectivereligious subject matterdetails of nature and landscapehumanismNiccolo Machiavelli, the controversial writer about political leadership, wrote that the most important means of judging the success of a leader was by
whether the people of the state loved the rulerthe amount of wealth which was owned by the statethe amount of money which the leader spent to increase the peoples quality of lifewhether the ruler remained