"Galileo Galilei - 400 years on" Topic

On 25th August 1609 Galileo Galilei demonstrated his telescope to Venetian lawmakers.

He moved forward the science of Astronomy and gave tangible proof to the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus.

This was natural greeted with cries of "It's just a theory" from the usual suspects. It was not until the 1990's that the Catholic Church formally acknowledged its error in rejecting heliocentric theory.

That late, wow, I had no idea. I had thought his "foregiveness" a thing in the distant past: a hundred years or more after his death….

The ban on the publication of Galileo's works was lifted in 1718.

1758 books on heliocentric theory were removed in the list of banned books.

It was not until 1992 that Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei.

Edited my original post.

The bans on his works were lifted in the 1700s and 1800s. In 1939 Pope Pius XII called Galileo a hero. In 1992 Pope John Paul II expressed official regret at how the church had treated Galileo.

Interestingly, in 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger (current Pope Benedict XVI) seemed to dismiss the need for an apology from the Church. He felt that the Church acted "reasonably" in its treatment of Galileo, by considering the ethical and social consequences of his work, and not just its scientific merit. He then stated that it would be "political", "foolish", and "impulsive" for the Church to apologize to Galileo.

Hi

And the point is?

Well I wanted to make two points:

To remember on of the most important scientific advances in human history.

To point out that if those discoveries contradict a manuscript of dubious authorship from the Bronze Age it takes a while for the leaders of the resultant cult to admit they made a mistake.

Well maybe there is hope for poor old Charles Darwin in the next 300 years.

To quote from Die Frohllche Wissenshaft by Friedrich Nietzsche

"Gott ist tot: aber so wie die Art der Menschen ist, wird es vielleicht noch jahrtausendlang Hohlen geben, in denen man seinen Schatten zeigt."

(God is Dead; but considering the state the species Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will still be shown.)

Some members of the church began back pedaling from the trial of Galileo about 100 years after the fact. Slowly, as the Copernican model was beginning to get accepted, various clergy were making it well known that the Church was too harsh with him.

As 138SquadronRAF says, Galileo was fully exonerated much later by John Paul II. By that time however, the Heliocentric model of the solar system, was a long held established fact. The clergy/astronomers of the Vatican Observatory would have been aware of the merits of Copernican Heliocentrism long before this time too.

Ralph

One should also salute the Dutch, especially the glass grinding tinkerers of Middleburg, Zeeland. From them, Galileo could look to the heavens with the telescope, and later, van Leeuwenhoek could explore the other extreme with his microscope.

Ralph

So the point was you wanted to take a shot at Christianity and figured that would be a clever way to do it.

jdg

To point out that if those discoveries contradict a manuscript of dubious authorship from the Bronze Age it takes a while for the leaders of the resultant cult to admit they made a mistake.

link
That Bronze Age manuscript wasn't the cause of Galileo Galilei's issue with the church, which was following established Greco-Roman science based on the Ptolemaic system. If you want to blame someone, blame the Greeks for accepting Ptolemy's Geocentric system instead of Aristarchus' Heliocentric system.

Blue Fez! Blue Fez!!

For a bit different view of the Galileo controversy -

link

It reinforces what I have read elsewhere – Galileo's biggest problem was his own ego.

Interestingly it also notes that he had to flee Pisa after his experiments there in part because of the ire of the Aristoteleans who would not accept even facts in contradiction with their accepted world view.

Potential Blue Fez aside – this is not unlike the view taken today toward 'deniers' by the AGW/CC 'consensus' holders. I find it amusing that no doubt many of those who are calling for 'deniers' to be silenced or executed put Galileo on a pedestal for his courage in espousing his beliefs in contradiction to the 'establishment/consensus' viewpoint.

It would appear that Galileo ruffled the feathers of the established 'scientific' community as well as those of the Church. Proclaiming those who disagree with you to be idiots is not conducive to getting an objective view of your theories. The article notes that at his trial he was unable to conclusively prove the validity of the Copernican theory. A Cardinal is quoted as saying that with solid scientific proof, it would be foolish to reject the theory.

What's AGW/CC?

Hi

Goragrad, I don't like blaming the victim here either. Yup, Galileo was probably an "A-hole". My circle has included a lot of respected scientist, my wife being one, and most of them are arrogant SOBs. Personally, i LIKE that sort of person, but often power doesn't.

In the darwin thread, of course, the current assertion about this makes the same assertian that Galeleo's problems were because of the "Bronze age book" rather than a more enlightened "greek" approach. The discussion about the WHY the greeks held their views on this is its own fun discussion.

Not a real problem except for people who have an anti-religion agenda. They always make me think of the people they are attacking.

Condottiere, "AGW/CC" is "Anthropogenic Global Warming/ Climate Change" which is, as with Aristotle and the greeks, another discussion.

Most gamers are long on history and short on science.

rocky

AGW/CC, Even I know that one :) Anthropogenic global warming / climate change. The acronyms get you sooner or later; they are becoming more and more preposterous….

One should also salute the Dutch, especially the glass grinding tinkerers of Middleburg, Zeeland. From them, Galileo could look to the heavens with the telescope, and later, van Leeuwenhoek could explore the other extreme with his microscope.

Ralph

Good points Ralph, Leeawenhoek open a whole new world to us too and he did it with a small hand-held device.

Oh, Rocky already said it….

Proclaiming those who disagree with you to be idiots is not conducive to getting an objective view of your theories.

I'd be interested in seeing where this came from. I agree with Rocky, let's not blame the victim too much.

The article notes that at his trial he was unable to conclusively prove the validity of the Copernican theory. A Cardinal is quoted as saying that with solid scientific proof, it would be foolish to reject the theory.

This is 20/20 hindsight in action. The "trial" of Galileo was actually 3 hearings of the Commission of the Cardinal Inquisitors. Only the middle hearing had to do with any sort of scientific import. Galileo presented how Copernicism best describes his findings on the movement of tides from his publication "Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea". He was informed by Urban VIII that Copernicism was considered heretical and that the Church supported the Ptolemaic version of the solar system.

He was already officially censored, 16 years earlier, by the 1616 Decree of the Congregation of the Index (effectively the censors of the Vatican) for preaching the "heresy" of Copernicism. Clearly the problems the Church was having with Copernicism, went beyond simply scientific issues.

Galileo was not a "heroic" figure struggling against the Church. He eventually caved in and retracted his support for Copernicism. Of course this was the smart thing to do, and he was counseled in this by his old friend the Cardinal Ballarmine. It is not inconceivable that, had he persisted in his views during the Inquisitions, he would have faced capital punishment. I think a reading of the Inquisitors transcripts settles the "Galileo's ego was his own worst enemy" canard.

Now here is an interesting part of Galileo's trial totally missed by the Catholic Encyclopedia. Galileo wrote his "Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea" as a classical dialogue, as seen in the works of Socrates and Plato. One of his characters was called Simplicio, who didn't understand Copernicus and was a staunch Ptolemaic. He doesn't come across too well in the Dialogue one can appreciate. Now Pope Urban VIII got it into his head that Simplicio was a caricature of himself. In fact, Galileo was asked about this repeatedly during his inquisition. He didn't convince the Pope that he wasn't making him the butt of his joke. Scholars today argue over whether this was actually Galileo's intent. Maybe the whole trial came about due to the fact that the Pope felt insulted?

We should drop the Church vs Galileo conflict in order to think what this man (and those clever Dutch lens grinders) brought to us and opened up for us.

Ralph

That Bronze Age manuscript wasn't the cause of Galileo Galilei's issue with the church, which was following established Greco-Roman science based on the Ptolemaic system.

Hmmm…… but there are many instances in that Bronze Age manuscript which, when taken literally, explain an unmoving earth in a geocentric universe. On the other hand I can't be too hard on primitive geocentrists, as that is what common sense would dictate.

Also having studied Greek Science, be aware that it does not resemble science in any way we now understand it. For example Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's circumference around 240BCE. But how did he know the Earth was round? Because of most Greeks adherence to Plato's Theory of Forms. The sphere was the most "perfect" form, as it had the most volume per least surface area. Therefore, the Earth must be a sphere. Not scientific is it?

Unfortunately, Aristarchus and his uncanny ideas never caught on, largely due to the Platonic influence. Later, the Catholic Church began amassing all the lost classical knowledge (much from Arab sources). As many of the intellectual giants of the Church, (Augustine, Boethius, John Scotus, etc.) were also Neo-Platonists, the Ptolemaic system endured.

Ralph

Hi

Ralph, I was wondering if you would tell THIS story. I remember as a kid reading on this how it left me laughing. What a joyous view!

Some years later when Sagan did that famous series on science and starts with the tragedy of the burning of the library at Alexandria and "Who knows what was lost"… I happened to be at dinner with a bunch of university level bio researchers who were venting on this.

I explain the Greek approach and that the likely losses probably consisted of mostly proofs on perfection rather than real science. They didn't understand. So, I explained STEAM as a toy.

The parts of these discussions I enjoy the most is "listening" to the way people think.

Rocky

. . . the likely losses probably consisted of mostly proofs on perfection rather than real science . . .

As I recall, though, Sagan was also expressing regret at the loss of all of the plays, poems, biographies, histories, and other literature that had been kept in the library, not just the scientific treatises.

What I wouldn't give for a time machine, a universal translator, and a bag of holding.

:)

Actually, just *hearing* how ancient Egyptian, Greek, Latin, and all of the other languages of antiquity were pronounced, including regional dialects, would be amazing.

Hi

I remembered him addressing the lost science.

Latin has been studied in deapth. By coincidence, a few days ago, some of us were discussing how one must be cautious when reading latin because of the literary flourishes and how the pronunciation in use changed and, thus affected how the literate wrote those histories versus the words they were actually hearing.

Or why poetry doesn't always scan well in any language.

Rocky

We do have the confidence that human nature has been the same throughout time. People are just people anywhere and everywhere. That means that when we read an original passage of text 2K years old and are momentarily stumped (their meaning of "hit the road" isn't the same as ours), we can read for context and usually come out close or even right on. The only difficulties seem to be in expectation, then: believers in one doctrinal view and all others read for different context. So it isn't so much the problem of getting the drift of the ancient writers, as it is our agenda-based expectations from the text….

That means that when we read an original passage of text 2K years old and are momentarily stumped (their meaning of "hit the road" isn't the same as ours), we can read for context and usually come out close or even right on.

Nope. Try teaching Hamlet to African tribesmen.

PDF link

That was fabulous, Hex.

But it underscores the belief EVERYWHERE that men everywhere are the same: we believe that we understand and can teach others "the truth". Nobody is willingly going to admit that other peoples know more about wisdom and good and evil than we do. And that is universally true….

Hi

Or meanings like "so GAY".

R