> The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that th

> The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church. > valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'. While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_sy...