4 ms·

> Galielo failed to observe any parallax effect. That's the same issue - the size argument. Without the argument about the sizes of stars, not observing parall

> Galielo failed to observe any parallax effect. That's the same issue - the size argument. Without the argument about the sizes of stars, not observing parallax is not a problem at all. One can simply say that stars are far away. > Galileo's model did not enable better predictions, in the short term. Galileo did not have a model. He advocated Copernicus' heliocentric model, though I think his general attachment was more to heliocentrism than any particular heliocentric model (he appears not to have been particularly aware of Kepler's model). > They point out that Galileo's theory appeared to require all other stars to be much bigger than the Sun, which seemed implausible at the time. This point was made by Galileo's contemporaries, so it can't be anachronistic. Galileo measured much smaller stellar angular diameters than Tycho had, which very much called into question the reliability of the measurements. Arguing, based on modern knowledge, that stars are not so large, and insisting that this is the decisive argument, does come across as anachronistic to me. At the time, there were many other arguments in favor of heliocentrism that were very quickly accepted by a large part of the scientific community (particularly in Protestant Europe, beyond the control of the Church). Heliocentrism was widely accepted long before the star size objection was definitively answered (by an understanding of diffraction), and hundreds of years before the measurement of parallax. It was widely accepted even before a proper theory of gravity had been developed.

foldr 7y ago
Galileo's arguments were reasonable and we know with hindsight that he was right. But that doesn't mean that all of the resistance of his ideas was unreasonable. The star size objection clearly isn't anachronistic because it was considered to be a serious objection by other scientists at the time, on purely scientific grounds.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > it was considered to be a serious objection by other scientists at the time, on purely scientific grounds. Not by most scientists, who adopted heliocentrism long before diffraction was understood. And again, the opposition from the Church was due to theological and political reasons.
  - foldr 7y ago
    >Not by most scientists What's your source for the "most" here? Certainly there were prominent contemporaries of Galileo who took the star size objection seriously. >And again, the opposition from the Church was due to theological and political reasons. Partly. The Church didn't want to make theological revisions in the absence of a compelling scientific case for heliocentrism. So the scientific status of the claims was important as well.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      > What's your source for the "most" here? Most of the major scientific minds beyond the control of the Inquisition (i.e., in Protestant Europe). Heliocentrism was widely accepted by the time of Galileo's death, even though diffraction had not yet been understood (meaning that the star-size objection was still unanswered). It's significant that the next generation of scientists - Hooke, Newton et al. - were committed to the New Science, rather than the old geocentric worldview. > So the scientific status of the claims was important as well. The scientific status of the claims was irrelevant to the Church. The idea that it was is pure modern apologia. From the context of the times (the Counter-Reformation) and the texts of the Inquisition's decisions (which emphasize the heretical nature of heliocentrism), it's clear that what the Church cared about was enforcing its control over doctrine. This was an era in which the Church was in a bitter battle against heresy, trying to fight the spread of Protestantism and reassert control.
      - foldr 7y ago
        It's not the case that most of the major scientific minds beyond the control of the Inquisition immediately accepted Galileo's work. In fact, he was not particularly influential in scientific circles, in the short term. Of course the Church wanted to enforce its control over doctrine. But the Church was also fully aware that the Bible could potentially be interpreted in a way that was not contrary to heliocentrism. It simply wanted to avoid making a fairly significant doctrinal revision in the absence of a compelling scientific case for heliocentrism. That is not to say that such restrictions on scientific work are justified, merely that it's inaccurate to see the Church in this instance as acting from blind dogmatism.

foldr 7y ago

Galileo's arguments were reasonable and we know with hindsight that he was right. But that doesn't mean that all of the resistance of his ideas was unreasonable. The star size objection clearly isn't anachronistic because it was considered to be a serious objection by other scientists at the time, on purely scientific grounds.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
> it was considered to be a serious objection by other scientists at the time, on purely scientific grounds. Not by most scientists, who adopted heliocentrism long before diffraction was understood. And again, the opposition from the Church was due to theological and political reasons.
- foldr 7y ago
  >Not by most scientists What's your source for the "most" here? Certainly there were prominent contemporaries of Galileo who took the star size objection seriously. >And again, the opposition from the Church was due to theological and political reasons. Partly. The Church didn't want to make theological revisions in the absence of a compelling scientific case for heliocentrism. So the scientific status of the claims was important as well.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    > What's your source for the "most" here? Most of the major scientific minds beyond the control of the Inquisition (i.e., in Protestant Europe). Heliocentrism was widely accepted by the time of Galileo's death, even though diffraction had not yet been understood (meaning that the star-size objection was still unanswered). It's significant that the next generation of scientists - Hooke, Newton et al. - were committed to the New Science, rather than the old geocentric worldview. > So the scientific status of the claims was important as well. The scientific status of the claims was irrelevant to the Church. The idea that it was is pure modern apologia. From the context of the times (the Counter-Reformation) and the texts of the Inquisition's decisions (which emphasize the heretical nature of heliocentrism), it's clear that what the Church cared about was enforcing its control over doctrine. This was an era in which the Church was in a bitter battle against heresy, trying to fight the spread of Protestantism and reassert control.
    - foldr 7y ago
      It's not the case that most of the major scientific minds beyond the control of the Inquisition immediately accepted Galileo's work. In fact, he was not particularly influential in scientific circles, in the short term. Of course the Church wanted to enforce its control over doctrine. But the Church was also fully aware that the Bible could potentially be interpreted in a way that was not contrary to heliocentrism. It simply wanted to avoid making a fairly significant doctrinal revision in the absence of a compelling scientific case for heliocentrism. That is not to say that such restrictions on scientific work are justified, merely that it's inaccurate to see the Church in this instance as acting from blind dogmatism.