“Keep in mind that the battle between Galileo and the church was not a battle between science and mindless fundamentalism. It was a battle between new science and old science, and the error of the church had been that of getting into bed with the best science of the day. And we all know, as Max Planck put it, science advances funeral by funeral” (Writers to Read, p. 99).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Galileo did not have proof that the Earth circled the sun. He was in error about other science (such as tides). And he was arrogant, unnecessarily putting friends offside with him.
Not to be sympathetic with the church here though, they were too married to Aristotle.
For a more detailed understanding of the history I am reading my way though this most interesting analysis of the affair: http://tofspot.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html
Would it be fair to say that the phases of Venus, which he did notice, were proof of his statement that Venus orbits the sun?
Yes, the phases of Venus were the first most definitive proof of Copernicus over Ptolemy. Though I am not certain this proves Copernicus over Tycho Brahe.
I don’t know who first noticed the phases of Venus.
Historians also mention that the models mattered for accuracy more than reality. The model needed to predict the stars (and planets) more than the model needed to emulate the truth. And Copernicus was no less complicated than Ptolemy as his model had circles. Kepler was busy doing far more rigorous science at the time.
I found Copernicus’ theory, with its two orbital paths, a real head scratcher. I thought of Ezekiel–“A wheel within a wheel a rolling, way in the middle of the air.”
Have you read, “The Galileo Affair”? I read that for a Science and Religion class back the in the day. The differing interpretations by the Christians and the non-Christians in the class were surprising to me. I came out of it with a much more positive view of Galileo than I had had, seeing him as someone who was an honest believer, very familiar with the Scriptures, and who was making very clear arguments from them which were much better than those of his opponents. Several of the non-Christians in the class, on the other hand, had their opinion seriously… Read more »
I think that the Galileo Affair has made the Catholic church much more tolerant of science than it would otherwise have been. It was a Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang theory.
I thought of him, and Mendel too (though Mendel may have done his work secretly without approval from his superiors). There’s been a few quite renowned ones:
http://www.realclearscience.com/lists/priests_who_were_scientists/
And here’s a longer list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_cleric-scientists
No. I never had an unfavourable opinion of Galileo. I always thought of him as a Christian. But the more I read the more he seems vain and proud. And the less competent as a scientist. He scoffed at others that were correct. He was wrong about the tides. He was wrong about comets. And while he was right about heliocentricism he was incorrect about circles. (A circle solution required epicycles just like Ptolemy.) He happened to be correct about the sun as were many others at the time, and others at the time were more correct about other concepts… Read more »
Detailed discussion of the flow of events, including the ‘cutting-edge science’ of the day:
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html
What puzzles me about this quotation is that the Vatican’s formal denunciation of Galileo explicitly accuses him of teaching heresy in that his theory contradicts holy scripture:
“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.”
Galileo got involved interpreting Scripture. That was where the battle lay. I disagree with the position that laymen can’t interpret Scripture and Galileo’s ideas were quite reasonable. There was no objection to teaching heliocentricism as a model, there were at least 3 major models, none of which had been shown to be more accurate than the others. Galileo was asked to furnish proof of the concept before the church decided to reinterpret the Bible. I think this is mistaken also, because interpretative issues would be helpful to address before the problem was resolved. Even so, Galileo didn’t produce the evidence.
That is very interesting. So, if he had simply proposed his theory, he would have had a different outcome?
I probably don’t know enough to answer that. But given that there were at least 3 theories (my link says 7), Copernicus had died decades earlier and his ideas were well known, Brahe was discussed, Kepler was looking at ellipses and was a Protestant…. It seems that if Galileo hadn’t been so belligerent. I mean the Pope was (previously) his very good friend. And he writes a dialogue between The Wise Sage (Galileo) and the Village Idiot (Pope) and everyone knows who the characters are. There were a lot of academics who were sympathetic to heliocentricism. Who else took a… Read more »
I wonder if, like many rocket scientist types, his social skills were terrible, and he had a fundamental inability to predict how people would react. Was there a Mrs Galileo? Sometimes the wives of brilliant people have their work cut out for them in helping smooth relations with their colleagues. I like to think I am reasonably even-tempered, but being called the Village Idiot in print might ruffle my feathers!
Well, he had at least one daughter by a woman he was not married to…