3 ms·

I am careful about Galileo. You see a lot of Catholics trying to rewrite history by presenting the Galileo trial as a simple scientific debate where Galileo lac

by Iv 9y ago

I am careful about Galileo. You see a lot of Catholics trying to rewrite history by presenting the Galileo trial as a simple scientific debate where Galileo lacked proofs of his hypothesis. Actually I find it very suspicious that the author of this article skips the trial altogether. We have the minutes. We have the judgement. Even if Galileo was an ambitious asshole Ith political afterthoughts, one important fact remains: The Church used the literal interpretation of the Bible to contradict a scientific theory. This is the main point and the main problem of the Galileo trial and why it is significant. Galileo deserved opposition in a debate, not condemnation in a religious tribunal. It happened and the blame is solely on the dogmatism of the church. From this point, science diverged more and more from religious teaching and stopped seeing the church as an ally.

mcv 9y ago
I haven't seen any Catholics yet trying to rewrite this history. I have seen atheists correcting incorrect beliefs about this period of history. I'm protestant and not a fan of the RC church hierarchy, but I do care about an accurate representation of history, and the Galileo trial is muddled with fairy tales and misinterpretations, because people don't know the context. But whatever your religious beliefs are, Galileo did lack proof. His model was wrong. His idea was correct (though originally from Copernicus, of course). But without proof, and without a correct model (which Kepler later provided) there was no way at the time they could know it was correct. There was simply no scientific basis yet to accept it over the existing geocentric model. The RC Church's position on science was not homogenous. Various officials have said that if an interpretation of the bible ever conflicted with verifiable observations, then clearly the interpretation of the bible must be incorrect. Obviously not everybody agreed, but heliocentrism did have its supporters within the church. It was not considered heresy until Galileo made his position impossible and alienated his biggest fan (pope Urban). In any case, Galileo's theory here, his model, was simply incorrect, and they knew it. There was a solid scientific basis to contradict it. They did pile on a bunch of other accusations, but that's primarily because he angered the wrong people. Galileo did receive opposition in debate. His problem is that he didn't accept it. He wanted everybody to accept his model, despite the lack of a scientific basis for it.
- Luc 9y ago
  > But whatever your religious beliefs are, Galileo did lack proof. His model was wrong. You know who else lacked proof? It didn't bother you just as it didn't bother the inquisition. Maybe try using the same standards for those theocrats as you apply to Galileo.
  - Sharlin 9y ago
    The whole point is that geocentricism wasn't just dogma, it also happened to match observations. It was the null hypothesis, if you will, and Galileo failed to disprove the null hypothesis.
    - Luc 9y ago
      The fact that a man had to fear for his life for having an opinion doesn't bare mentioning? All Galileo had to do was follow the rules as set out by the Inquisition, and all would have been well. It was all Galileo's fault!
      - mcv 9y ago
        Is it a fact that he had to fear for his life? We're not talking about the Spanish Inquisition or an accusation of witchcraft here. He was questioned and got house arrest. Of course it's still not good to get punished for dissing the pope according to our modern freedom of speech, but in those days, insulting rulers was still frowned upon. And Galileo went well beyond simply having an opinion; he insulted the pope. Not merely by ignoring the pope's instruction to present both alternatives in a balanced way, but by putting arguments from the pope (a good friend before this) in the mouth of a character called "Fool" (Simplico).
        Luc 9y ago
        No. Galileo feared for his life more than once during decades of persecution. He was lucky to avoid torture. Read Heilbron's biography, or even just Wikipedia. This notion that Galileo insulting the pope was some sort of rhyme and reason for his persecution is wrong. It's commonly accepted that Galileo had no intention of insulting the pope, and the pope didn't take it as an insult (Heilbron goes into much detail) . There is some minor evidence involving the rumour that someone suggested to the pope that it looked bad, but this is not at all the central reason for his persecution. Did you get this from the Dava Sobel book? It's takes an awful license with history. Her Longitude book is the same, it's just wrong in so many aspects while presenting itself as accurate.

by Iv 9y ago

mcv 9y ago

I haven't seen any Catholics yet trying to rewrite this history. I have seen atheists correcting incorrect beliefs about this period of history. I'm protestant and not a fan of the RC church hierarchy, but I do care about an accurate representation of history, and the Galileo trial is muddled with fairy tales and misinterpretations, because people don't know the context. But whatever your religious beliefs are, Galileo did lack proof. His model was wrong. His idea was correct (though originally from Copernicus, of course). But without proof, and without a correct model (which Kepler later provided) there was no way at the time they could know it was correct. There was simply no scientific basis yet to accept it over the existing geocentric model. The RC Church's position on science was not homogenous. Various officials have said that if an interpretation of the bible ever conflicted with verifiable observations, then clearly the interpretation of the bible must be incorrect. Obviously not everybody agreed, but heliocentrism did have its supporters within the church. It was not considered heresy until Galileo made his position impossible and alienated his biggest fan (pope Urban). In any case, Galileo's theory here, his model, was simply incorrect, and they knew it. There was a solid scientific basis to contradict it. They did pile on a bunch of other accusations, but that's primarily because he angered the wrong people. Galileo did receive opposition in debate. His problem is that he didn't accept it. He wanted everybody to accept his model, despite the lack of a scientific basis for it.

Luc 9y ago
> But whatever your religious beliefs are, Galileo did lack proof. His model was wrong. You know who else lacked proof? It didn't bother you just as it didn't bother the inquisition. Maybe try using the same standards for those theocrats as you apply to Galileo.
- Sharlin 9y ago
  The whole point is that geocentricism wasn't just dogma, it also happened to match observations. It was the null hypothesis, if you will, and Galileo failed to disprove the null hypothesis.
  - Luc 9y ago
    The fact that a man had to fear for his life for having an opinion doesn't bare mentioning? All Galileo had to do was follow the rules as set out by the Inquisition, and all would have been well. It was all Galileo's fault!
    - mcv 9y ago
      Is it a fact that he had to fear for his life? We're not talking about the Spanish Inquisition or an accusation of witchcraft here. He was questioned and got house arrest. Of course it's still not good to get punished for dissing the pope according to our modern freedom of speech, but in those days, insulting rulers was still frowned upon. And Galileo went well beyond simply having an opinion; he insulted the pope. Not merely by ignoring the pope's instruction to present both alternatives in a balanced way, but by putting arguments from the pope (a good friend before this) in the mouth of a character called "Fool" (Simplico).
      - Luc 9y ago
        No. Galileo feared for his life more than once during decades of persecution. He was lucky to avoid torture. Read Heilbron's biography, or even just Wikipedia. This notion that Galileo insulting the pope was some sort of rhyme and reason for his persecution is wrong. It's commonly accepted that Galileo had no intention of insulting the pope, and the pope didn't take it as an insult (Heilbron goes into much detail) . There is some minor evidence involving the rumour that someone suggested to the pope that it looked bad, but this is not at all the central reason for his persecution. Did you get this from the Dava Sobel book? It's takes an awful license with history. Her Longitude book is the same, it's just wrong in so many aspects while presenting itself as accurate.