>>So I guess he considers the church banning his book, putting him on trial and forcing him to recant his research is not an effort to suppress the research?
>>
>>This is like saying some KKK members were once unhappy about black people, but made no effort to opress them.
>>
>>If this is an example of his keen perception, then I pass.
>
>The research was not supressed. They were very upset about his conclusions and publications, and used the powers (improper by modern standards) of a theocratic government to persecute them.
Yes, technically, I suppose they suppressed him, not the research. Although banning the book does seem a little like suppressing the research. Anyway, it's too fine a distinction for me. AFAIC, you suppress the researcher, you suppress the research. Anything else is a lawyer's argument, and not worth the ink he used to say it.
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only