Galileo and His Place in History

[Gord_in_Toronto]

An interesting article on our current understanding of Galileo from the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/02/11/130211crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all

A number of books have come out in anticipation of the anniversary, including a fine big biography, “Galileo” (Oxford), by the Berkeley historian of science John L. Heilbron, and new studies reflecting new research within the archives of the Roman Inquisition. Modern scholars have a gravitational pull toward ancient bureaucrats—keep records even of your cruelties and history will love you—and the new research has produced a slightly, if significantly, revised picture of Galileo’s enemies. The newer (and, unsurprisingly, Church-endorsed) view is that Galileo made needless trouble for himself by being impolitic, and that, in the circumstances of the time, it would have been hard for the Church to act otherwise. The Church wanted, as today’s intelligent designers now say, to be allowed to “teach the controversy”—to teach the Copernican and Aristotelian views as rival hypotheses, both plausible, both unproved. All Galileo had to do was give the Church a break and say that you could see it that way if you wanted to. He wouldn’t give it a break. The complaint is, in a way, the familiar torturer’s complaint: Why did you force us to do this to you? But the answer is the story of his life.

Well worth a read.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Cracked.com mentioned Galileo in one of their recent articles. It was something about "great trolls in history". In the article it mentioned that all of the math for the sun centered system was not yet ironed out yet. Given that the earth centered systems had been refined for centuries to make them reliably predictive there really was an honest scientific controversy at the time. Gallileo was not placed under house arrest for teaching the solar centric system, he was confined for writing a rather nasty straw-man rant that used words the Pope had actually said to him (confidentially in private) to stuff his straw-man.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sure, all the church wanted was to allow for a diversity of opinions. There was no church dogma involved! Everyone knows that.

 

[Dinwar]

So Galileo stood his ground and we're supposed to think less of him for it? Sorry, no. I don't care how much of a jackass a scientist is: if they're right, they're right. If you don't like that fact, that's your problem, not the problem of that researcher.

The Church wanted, as today’s intelligent designers now say, to be allowed to “teach the controversy”—to teach the Copernican and Aristotelian views as rival hypotheses, both plausible, both unproved. All Galileo had to do was give the Church a break and say that you could see it that way if you wanted to. He wouldn’t give it a break.

This really says it all, doesn't it? All us paleontologists need to do is give the Creationists a break! Won't that make history love us! Guess how well that idea's going to go over. Sorry, but there IS a right answer to some questions, and that means that by definition all other answers are wrong. Doesn't matter how that makes you feel.

In the article it mentioned that all of the math for the sun centered system was not yet ironed out yet.

If the observations support it, what does it matter? All the math for mass extinctions hasn't been ironed out yet, either, yet you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a Uniformitarianist sensun stricto. Science is more than math.

I'm sorry, but the Church reacted badly. Galileo acted in the best traditions of scientific research--any examination of the issues within any dicipline will bear that out (ever hear of the Bone Wars?). The proper approach is to stick with the facts. Even if you're wrong, as long as you're following the data you're not acting improperly. Even if you behave indecoriously you aren't acting improperly--there are all kinds of stories of scientists getting into fights, and anyone who's been at a conference knows that a lot of scientific controversies boil down to personality clashes. Read Ward's book "Gorgon" to see examples of that sort of thing. The Chruch's error wasn't in opposing Galileo; scientists should expect to fly into a headwind. It was in their methodology.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Cracked.com mentioned Galileo in one of their recent articles. It was something about "great trolls in history". In the article it mentioned that all of the math for the sun centered system was not yet ironed out yet. Given that the earth centered systems had been refined for centuries to make them reliably predictive there really was an honest scientific controversy at the time. Gallileo was not placed under house arrest for teaching the solar centric system, he was confined for writing a rather nasty straw-man rant that used words the Pope had actually said to him (confidentially in private) to stuff his straw-man.

I might have believed some of that before I read the New Yorker piece. If you actually read it, you might find that you are mostly wrong and it was more complicated than that.

 

[Roboramma]

If the observations support it, what does it matter?

The observations couldn't differentiate between one model and the other. In fact, if I recall correctly, at the time the earth-centric model was better at making predictions (for instance about where planets appear in the night sky, or when an eclipse would happen). What the heliocentric model had going for it was that it was simpler and it's accuracy was still very near that of the older model.

 

[lpetrich]

Galileo had the habit of making sarcastic comments about his critics. Comments like:

When a critic recently died, GG commented that he would have a chance to see the moons of Jupiter on his way to Heaven.

When someone claimed that the moons of Jupiter are telescope artifacts, GG offered a big reward to anyone who could make a telescope that only makes such artifacts around Jupiter.

When someone claimed that the mountains of the Moon were filled in with an invisible substance with a spherical surface, GG proposed that there could be mountains of this material 10 times taller than the observed mountains.

I can't find GG's response to another argument, however. Francesco Sizzi argued that Jupiter's moons could not exist in his 1611 book Dianoia Astronomica:

Just as in the microcosm there are seven 'windows' in the head (two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth), so in the macrocosm God has placed two beneficent stars (Jupiter, Venus), two maleficent stars (Mars, Saturn), two luminaries (sun and moon), and one indifferent star (Mercury). The seven days of the week follow from these. Finally, since ancient times the alchemists had made each of the seven metals correspond to one of the planets; gold to the sun, silver to the moon, copper to Venus, quicksilver to Mercury, iron to Mars, tin to Jupiter, lead to Saturn.

From these and many other similar phenomena of nature such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven... Besides, the Jews and other ancient nations as well as modern Europeans, have adopted the division of the week into seven days, and have named them from the seven planets; now if we increase the number of planets, this whole system falls to the ground... Moreover, the satellites are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist.

On religion, GG considered himself a good Catholic, and he hoped that the Church would agree that it's OK to present heliocentrism as more than something purely hypothetical. He argued that the Holy Spirit tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go, and similar sorts of things.

However, the theologians did not like his intrusion into their professional territory.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sure, all the church wanted was to allow for a diversity of opinions. There was no church dogma involved! Everyone knows that.

And, of course Bruno was executed in the spirit of facilitating a diversity of views and maintaining a healthy dialog.
I so love revisionist history. What rubbish!

 

[geni]

So Galileo stood his ground and we're supposed to think less of him for it? Sorry, no. I don't care how much of a jackass a scientist is: if they're right, they're right. If you don't like that fact, that's your problem, not the problem of that researcher.

In science it isn't enough to be right. You also have to show your working. The availible evidence didn't support Galileo (the best fit for the availible evidence was Tychonic system of all things).

 

[Damien Evans]

And, of course Bruno was executed in the spirit of facilitating a diversity of views and maintaining a healthy dialog.
I so love revisionist history. What rubbish!

You're perpetuating some yourself. Bruno was in most of his troubles because of his religious views, including defending the Arian heresy.

Here is a list of the charges against him:


holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes, and;
dealing in magics and divination.


You'll note most of those have nothing to do with Astronomy.

 

[Craig B]

Gallileo was not placed under house arrest for teaching the solar centric system, he was confined for writing a rather nasty straw-man rant that used words the Pope had actually said to him (confidentially in private) to stuff his straw-man.

In that case why did the Church say the very opposite in his 1633 condemnation? Was the Church telling lies about this important matter?

... the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows: The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith [ ... ] And in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be wholly rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave prejudice of Catholic truth, a decree was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index prohibiting the books which treat of this doctrine and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

 

[nathan]

The observations couldn't differentiate between one model and the other. In fact, if I recall correctly, at the time the earth-centric model was better at making predictions (for instance about where planets appear in the night sky, or when an eclipse would happen). What the heliocentric model had going for it was that it was simpler and it's accuracy was still very near that of the older model.

My recollection, from reading about it many years ago was that Galileo didn't have any direct evidence for a heliocentric model. Although simpler, it wasn't that much simpler at the time, because of the limited accuracy of observation. His observations of Jupiter's moons is not evidence of a heliocentric model, just evidence that things can orbit something other than Earth. His tidal theory was blatantly wrong, as it predicted a single tide at local noon.

 

[Dinwar]

In science it isn't enough to be right. You also have to show your working. The availible evidence didn't support Galileo (the best fit for the availible evidence was Tychonic system of all things).

If you can possibly know the parenthetical statement, it proves that Galileo DID show his work. So your first sentence is irrelevant. And if Galileo was wrong, it would have been enough to demonstrate it and move on (even if by "wrong" you mean "the data as we know them right now don't support it"). Galileo still acted like a proper scientist, if obnoxious, and the Church still behaved badly.

His observations of Jupiter's moons is not evidence of a heliocentric model, just evidence that things can orbit something other than Earth.

This was pretty significant, though, at least from the Church's perspective. The notion that things can orbit objects other than the Earth would have shaken the geocentric world view. Sure, once you add enough epicycles you can make anything work; however, this meant that there was more than one center for cycels and epicycles, at minimum--and that meant that the Earth was only one of several bodies that things can orbit around.

This is akin to extinction. All extinction is, is the death of the last of an organism (note that I'm talking about a single species; mass extinctions are another issue entirely). It's nothing--no forcing mechanisms are needed, and if you accept that things die you can easily accept extinction. Yet it created an enormous controversy because "God would never allow one of His creations to disappear!" Even apparently petty changes to church dogma were met--by the Church and others--with a great deal of hostility and disbelief at the start of science.

The issue is, once you accept that other celestial bodies can have things orbiting them, or that extinctions occur, it becomes possible to honestly believe concepts other than Church dogma. Once you accept the notion of moons orbiting Jupiter, it becomes possible to accept that other things orbit other bodies--and that opens the door to accpeting that the Earth orbits some other, more central bodie. God Himself would have walked on a secondary surface under that beleif!

 

[Andy_Ross]

You're perpetuating some yourself. Bruno was in most of his troubles because of his religious views, including defending the Arian heresy.

Here is a list of the charges against him:


holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes, and;
dealing in magics and divination.


You'll note most of those have nothing to do with Astronomy.

Well, that's OK then exacuting him for disagreeing about something other than science is OK.

 

[Damien Evans]

Well, that's OK then exacuting him for disagreeing about something other than science is OK.

I didn't say it was ok, just that saying he was executed because of his views on heliocentricity is at best a gross oversimplification.

 

[catsmate]

An interesting article on our current understanding of Galileo from the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/02/11/130211crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all

Well worth a read.

It's not bad, rather over-simplified. And describing Galileo Galilei as "The founder of modern science" just isn't justified.

So Galileo stood his ground and we're supposed to think less of him for it? Sorry, no. I don't care how much of a jackass a scientist is: if they're right, they're right. If you don't like that fact, that's your problem, not the problem of that researcher.

Galileo couldn't show that the Copernican hypothesis was correct.

I'm sorry, but the Church reacted badly.

Indeed. But Galileo could have dealt a far more significant blow for science by actually showing doctrine was provably wrong. He failed in this.

Galileo acted in the best traditions of scientific research--any examination of the issues within any dicipline will bear that out (ever hear of the Bone Wars?). The proper approach is to stick with the facts. Even if you're wrong, as long as you're following the data you're not acting improperly. Even if you behave indecoriously you aren't acting improperly--there are all kinds of stories of scientists getting into fights, and anyone who's been at a conference knows that a lot of scientific controversies boil down to personality clashes. Read Ward's book "Gorgon" to see examples of that sort of thing. The Chruch's error wasn't in opposing Galileo; scientists should expect to fly into a headwind. It was in their methodology.

You're reading far too much of modern methodology and doctrine into the situation. Galileo annoyed some very important people, including his former patron Urban VIII with the Dialogue. He also failed to follow the practice of the time and publish his work in Latin, thus he couldn't claim that he was trying to start a learned debate.
Ironically if Galileo hadn't been such an unpleasant person, quick to insult, verbally assault and ridicule his contemporaries he might well have been able to prove the Copernican hypothesis using the work of Scheiner and Grassi. Instead he derided their work (on comets) as fraudulent.
Galileo thought comets were optical illusions in the upper atmosphere.

I might have believed some of that before I read the New Yorker piece. If you actually read it, you might find that you are mostly wrong and it was more complicated than that.

I've read it. I've also read far, far, more on the subject. It's a reasonable introduction to the story but lacks the detail necessary to really understand it, especially the conjunction of the three elements of Politics, Personalities and Proof.

In science it isn't enough to be right. You also have to show your working. The availible evidence didn't support Galileo (the best fit for the availible evidence was Tychonic system of all things).

Indeed.

 

[Dinwar]

You're reading far too much of modern methodology and doctrine into the situation.

And my opposition is being far to appologetic to the errors of previous cultures. Besides, I'm actually ignoring modern mythology and going by 13th century standards (Abulard, if you're curious). Annoying important people isn't a crime (no package deals), you'll never convince a rational person that you need to publish in a particular language to be considered an intellectual (this is called the Is/Ought Fallacy), etc.

I'm not saying that Galileo was a perfect person; I'm just saying that from the standpoint of rational discourse, he was in the right in this case.

Galileo couldn't show that the Copernican hypothesis was correct.

I'm sorry, but this is a pretty ineffectual counter-argument. If the Church, or people of the time, accepted it the entire issue could easily have been dealt with without all this trouble. They could have simply shown him to be wrong, and left it at that. Galileo would have been viewed the way anti-tectonics advocates are today: a guy who invested too much of himself into his pet theory. But that's not what happened, so obviously the fact that the idea was incorrect isn't sufficient to explain the Church's reaction. What DOES explain it is, as I said before, the fact that this idea was dangerous. It became possible to present a rational disagreement with Church dogma.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Wow, I didn't realize that Galileo was such a sacred cow to some people. I personally was enjoying finding an opposing argument to the whole "Oh poor Galileo" stuff I was taught in school. Given how quickly science was advancing at the time, often with church support, the Galileo story always struck me as a little off. Especially since he was only placed under house arrest and allowed tons of visitors over the years.

 

[Dinwar]

Wow, I didn't realize that Galileo was such a sacred cow to some people.

He's no sacred cow to me. I'm just also not going to throw him under the bus merely because he's a sacred cow to others. It's almost an instinctive reaction in our culture to try to undermine anything held up as good, and most often such attempts are just as wrong as the idealistic notions they're trying to weaken.

The situation was complex. Galileo did somestupid things, no one's denying that. But so did the Church. Galileo probably overstated his results, and the Church definitely over-reacted.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Ok, I can agree with you on that one Dinwar. The stupid was all around, Galileo was a bit too eager to tweak the noses of some very powerful people and those powerful people over-reacted a bit.

When I was a kid Galileo was talked up to be some sort of scientific martyr. Some of the books even fuzzed it enough to make it look like he died for his cause. I was quite put out when I got older and discovered that he did nothing of the kind while real men and women who had died in search of the truth were often treated as mere footnotes.

Changing the subject a bit do any of you have some good stories about those who actually died for the sake of science? Death from radiation poisoning counts, bonus points if they knew it would kill them.