8 ms·

It is easy to treat Galileo as fighting the obscurantist church of the 15th century, but as the article explains briefly: > provocatively voiced the pope’s own

It is easy to treat Galileo as fighting the obscurantist church of the 15th century, but as the article explains briefly: > provocatively voiced the pope’s own arguments through an obtuse Aristotelian called Simplicio ... Galileo's ordeal with the inquisition was mostly due to him making fun of the pope (probably not a good idea). The truth is that until Kepler introduced elliptical orbits and variable orbital speeds, the Copernican heliocentric model still needed epicycles and was not much better than the ptolemaic model. And the church didn't even care _that_ much. Copernicus himself was a priest and, while he himself was wary of publishing it and framed it as a way to do astronomical calculations without any kind of philosophical implication, in the end it circulated without much fuss. This of course should not diminish his contributions to the scientific method and his other contribution to astronomical observations (mostly the satellites of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn, though his instrument wasn't good enough to recognize them as rings).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gwd 2y ago
> Galileo's ordeal with the inquisition was mostly due to him making fun of the pope (probably not a good idea). And at least one history I read on the subject questions whether Galileo was even intending to make fun of the Pope. My memory of the basic story that book told: - The Pope encouraged Galileo to publish a book with his new theories, but just told him to add a theological "escape hatch" (provided by the Pope himself) to make sure he wasn't viewed as heretical - The book is a dialogue between three people, one of whom, "Simplicio", is kind of stupid and backwards the whole book, but in the last chapter says effectively, "Actually I've just been pretending this whole time to be foolish; but actually I"m wise, and let me tell you why." He then gives the Pope's argument and the book ends -- giving the Pope the last word, as it were. - At the time no books can be printed unless they're officially approved by the Church as being non-heretical. The book was reviewed, and approved, by two different Papal censors in two different cities. It was only sometime later that the Pope became offended by his words being placed in Simplicio's mouth; in what the author I read thought was almost certainly a misunderstanding. As the author said, Galileo was encouraged to write the book; was told some theology to put into it; he did so. The book was submitted for review and approved twice. What more could Galileo have done? If I could read Renaissance Italian I'd go back and read it and judge for myself. Anyone here read it that can weigh in on the theory that Galileo never meant to offend the Pope?
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  Galileo could have not had the Pope's words come out of the mouth of a moron. If I was the Pope I would have correctly inferred the insult.
  - darkerside 2y ago
    Painted as not only stupid but disingenuous.
- gjm11 2y ago
  This http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/dialogue4.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/dialog... appears to be an English translation of the fourth and final "day" in the Dialogue. Here's the last thing Simplicio says: [begins] You need not make any excuses; they are superfluous, and especially so to me, who, being accustomed to public debates, have heard disputants countless times not merely grow angry and get excited at each other, but even break out into insulting speech and sometimes come very close to blows. As to the discourses we have held, and especially this last one concerning the reasons for the ebbing and flowing of the ocean, I am really not entirely convinced; but from such feeble ideas of the matter as I have formed, I admit that your thoughts seem to me more ingenious than many others I have heard. I do not therefore consider them true and conclusive; indeed, keeping always before my mind's eye a most solid doctrine that I once heard from a most eminent and learned person, and before which one must fall silent, I know that if asked whether God in His infinite power and wisdom could have conferred upon the watery element its observed reciprocating motion using some other means than moving its containing vessels, both of you would reply that He could have, and that He would have known how to do this in many ways which are unthinkable to our minds. From this I forthwith conclude that, this being so, it would be excessive boldness for anyone to limit and restrict the Divine power and wisdom to some particular fancy of his own. [ends] That doesn't seem like it's quite the same as what you're saying you read. Simplicio ends up professing a sort of pious agnosticism about what Galileo is talking about. I don't get any particular sense from this that we're meant to think "oh, hey, Simplicio is much smarter than we were giving him credit for being". (I do not know enough about any pope's astronomical opinions to have a useful opinion on how closely Simplicio's professed positions match those of the pope, or how likely it is that Galileo was and/or seemed to be making fun of the pope. My highly inexpert impression was that Simplicio wasn't modelled on the pope specifically but on other people with whom Galileo had more of a grudge.)
baryphonic 2y ago
Galileo also couldn't explain the lack of an observed parallax effect between opposite seasons given the ideas about optics at the time. When Kepler's model arrived, it was so much better at predicting the positions of all planets except Mercury than any previous model that it was clearly superior. Galileo's was bad at predicting and just contradicted the accepted observations of the day. IMO Galileo should be better remembered for objects of different masses falling at the same rate and the original idea that all motion is relative (when observing from an internal frame).
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > Galileo also couldn't explain the lack of an observed parallax effect between opposite seasons given the ideas about optics at the time. That's not entirely correct. The lack of parallax was explained by the stars being far away; the problem with that explanation is that Brahe had measured the apparent stellar diameter of stars, which implied that for the stars to be as big as they appear to be to us, they would have to be far, far larger... which violates the underlying Copernican principle that the sun is but a normal star.
  - graemep 2y ago
    The Copernican model was heliocentric, surely? It placed the sun motionless at the centre of the universe. That makes the sun anything but a normal star.
    - noslenwerdna 2y ago
      The copernican principle is separate from the model. Basically it says that our position in the universe is random - we don't exist at the center of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle "Hermann Bondi named the principle after Copernicus in the mid-20th century, although the principle itself dates back to the 16th-17th century paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic system, which placed Earth at the center of the universe. Copernicus proposed that the motion of the planets could be explained by reference to an assumption that the Sun is centrally located and stationary in contrast to the geocentrism. "
bazoom42 2y ago
> And the church didn't even care _that_ much. They cared enough to put heliocentric books on the index of forbidded books for centuries. Gallileo might have offended the Pope, but the works of Copernicus was also forbidden.
- XorNot 2y ago
  There's a weird amount of apologism for the actions of the Church towards Galileo. "Oh but he insulted an authority" - like, that doesn't make it better. I mean they also just straight up incinerated a man for daring to suggest aliens might exist[1]. Organized religion is, and remains, an authoritarian system of oppression. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
  - moi2388 2y ago
    Did you know that in quite some countries you are officially not allowed to mock foreign leaders either? I mean it’s usually not enforced, but it’s definitely part of the law
    - XorNot 2y ago
      You seem to think this is some sort of "gotcha". I can, and other citizens have told our Prime Minister exactly what they think of him to his face. They're completely free to do so.
      - moi2388 2y ago
        Not a gotcha, just showing that’s it’s not only the church
- josefx 2y ago
  The works of Copernicus circulated for almost a century before they where put on the index for their association with Galileo.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gwd 2y ago

> Galileo's ordeal with the inquisition was mostly due to him making fun of the pope (probably not a good idea). And at least one history I read on the subject questions whether Galileo was even intending to make fun of the Pope. My memory of the basic story that book told: - The Pope encouraged Galileo to publish a book with his new theories, but just told him to add a theological "escape hatch" (provided by the Pope himself) to make sure he wasn't viewed as heretical - The book is a dialogue between three people, one of whom, "Simplicio", is kind of stupid and backwards the whole book, but in the last chapter says effectively, "Actually I've just been pretending this whole time to be foolish; but actually I"m wise, and let me tell you why." He then gives the Pope's argument and the book ends -- giving the Pope the last word, as it were. - At the time no books can be printed unless they're officially approved by the Church as being non-heretical. The book was reviewed, and approved, by two different Papal censors in two different cities. It was only sometime later that the Pope became offended by his words being placed in Simplicio's mouth; in what the author I read thought was almost certainly a misunderstanding. As the author said, Galileo was encouraged to write the book; was told some theology to put into it; he did so. The book was submitted for review and approved twice. What more could Galileo have done? If I could read Renaissance Italian I'd go back and read it and judge for myself. Anyone here read it that can weigh in on the theory that Galileo never meant to offend the Pope?

michaelmrose 2y ago
Galileo could have not had the Pope's words come out of the mouth of a moron. If I was the Pope I would have correctly inferred the insult.
- darkerside 2y ago
  Painted as not only stupid but disingenuous.
gjm11 2y ago
This http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/dialogue4.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/dialog... appears to be an English translation of the fourth and final "day" in the Dialogue. Here's the last thing Simplicio says: [begins] You need not make any excuses; they are superfluous, and especially so to me, who, being accustomed to public debates, have heard disputants countless times not merely grow angry and get excited at each other, but even break out into insulting speech and sometimes come very close to blows. As to the discourses we have held, and especially this last one concerning the reasons for the ebbing and flowing of the ocean, I am really not entirely convinced; but from such feeble ideas of the matter as I have formed, I admit that your thoughts seem to me more ingenious than many others I have heard. I do not therefore consider them true and conclusive; indeed, keeping always before my mind's eye a most solid doctrine that I once heard from a most eminent and learned person, and before which one must fall silent, I know that if asked whether God in His infinite power and wisdom could have conferred upon the watery element its observed reciprocating motion using some other means than moving its containing vessels, both of you would reply that He could have, and that He would have known how to do this in many ways which are unthinkable to our minds. From this I forthwith conclude that, this being so, it would be excessive boldness for anyone to limit and restrict the Divine power and wisdom to some particular fancy of his own. [ends] That doesn't seem like it's quite the same as what you're saying you read. Simplicio ends up professing a sort of pious agnosticism about what Galileo is talking about. I don't get any particular sense from this that we're meant to think "oh, hey, Simplicio is much smarter than we were giving him credit for being". (I do not know enough about any pope's astronomical opinions to have a useful opinion on how closely Simplicio's professed positions match those of the pope, or how likely it is that Galileo was and/or seemed to be making fun of the pope. My highly inexpert impression was that Simplicio wasn't modelled on the pope specifically but on other people with whom Galileo had more of a grudge.)

baryphonic 2y ago

Galileo also couldn't explain the lack of an observed parallax effect between opposite seasons given the ideas about optics at the time. When Kepler's model arrived, it was so much better at predicting the positions of all planets except Mercury than any previous model that it was clearly superior. Galileo's was bad at predicting and just contradicted the accepted observations of the day. IMO Galileo should be better remembered for objects of different masses falling at the same rate and the original idea that all motion is relative (when observing from an internal frame).

jcranmer 2y ago
> Galileo also couldn't explain the lack of an observed parallax effect between opposite seasons given the ideas about optics at the time. That's not entirely correct. The lack of parallax was explained by the stars being far away; the problem with that explanation is that Brahe had measured the apparent stellar diameter of stars, which implied that for the stars to be as big as they appear to be to us, they would have to be far, far larger... which violates the underlying Copernican principle that the sun is but a normal star.
- graemep 2y ago
  The Copernican model was heliocentric, surely? It placed the sun motionless at the centre of the universe. That makes the sun anything but a normal star.
  - noslenwerdna 2y ago
    The copernican principle is separate from the model. Basically it says that our position in the universe is random - we don't exist at the center of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle "Hermann Bondi named the principle after Copernicus in the mid-20th century, although the principle itself dates back to the 16th-17th century paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic system, which placed Earth at the center of the universe. Copernicus proposed that the motion of the planets could be explained by reference to an assumption that the Sun is centrally located and stationary in contrast to the geocentrism. "

bazoom42 2y ago

> And the church didn't even care _that_ much. They cared enough to put heliocentric books on the index of forbidded books for centuries. Gallileo might have offended the Pope, but the works of Copernicus was also forbidden.

XorNot 2y ago
There's a weird amount of apologism for the actions of the Church towards Galileo. "Oh but he insulted an authority" - like, that doesn't make it better. I mean they also just straight up incinerated a man for daring to suggest aliens might exist[1]. Organized religion is, and remains, an authoritarian system of oppression. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
- moi2388 2y ago
  Did you know that in quite some countries you are officially not allowed to mock foreign leaders either? I mean it’s usually not enforced, but it’s definitely part of the law
  - XorNot 2y ago
    You seem to think this is some sort of "gotcha". I can, and other citizens have told our Prime Minister exactly what they think of him to his face. They're completely free to do so.
    - moi2388 2y ago
      Not a gotcha, just showing that’s it’s not only the church
josefx 2y ago
The works of Copernicus circulated for almost a century before they where put on the index for their association with Galileo.