4 ms·

This http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/dialogue4.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/dialog... appears to be an Engli

by 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.)

gwd 2y ago
Thanks for that; this part in particular: > 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, Assuming that the following really is the "theological angle" suggested by the Pope, it's literally saying that the Pope is a most eminent and learned person, and that the argument he's made is "solid doctrine" and an unassailable argument. And Simplicio isn't coming up with the argument himself; he's saying he's heard it from this other eminent and learned person. All that's perfectly consistent with a good-faith attempt to flatter the Pope's wisdom and influence, and accommodate his request regarding the theological "escape hatch". Unfortunately, it's also fairly open to being construed as being a sarcastic insult... or even an attempt at a sort of "dog whistle", where "devout" people take it as face value, but people "in the know" take it as being sarcastic. EDIT: And, seriously: > 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... 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. It's not saying "God could just magic things to make the water appear to move like this"; it's "There are lots of other possible reasons why the water might appear to move like that". It sounds to me like a description of necessary scientific humility. We have these observations, this one theory is consistent with them, but there lots of other possibilities, so we should keep an open mind and not be too insistent on one particular theory.
- lupire 2y ago
  Simplicio was the correct one in that part of the book! Galileo's arguments about the tides were deeply flawed. Simplicio's "I don't buy it" is the correct response.

by gjm11 2y ago

gwd 2y ago

Thanks for that; this part in particular: > 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, Assuming that the following really is the "theological angle" suggested by the Pope, it's literally saying that the Pope is a most eminent and learned person, and that the argument he's made is "solid doctrine" and an unassailable argument. And Simplicio isn't coming up with the argument himself; he's saying he's heard it from this other eminent and learned person. All that's perfectly consistent with a good-faith attempt to flatter the Pope's wisdom and influence, and accommodate his request regarding the theological "escape hatch". Unfortunately, it's also fairly open to being construed as being a sarcastic insult... or even an attempt at a sort of "dog whistle", where "devout" people take it as face value, but people "in the know" take it as being sarcastic. EDIT: And, seriously: > 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... 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. It's not saying "God could just magic things to make the water appear to move like this"; it's "There are lots of other possible reasons why the water might appear to move like that". It sounds to me like a description of necessary scientific humility. We have these observations, this one theory is consistent with them, but there lots of other possibilities, so we should keep an open mind and not be too insistent on one particular theory.

lupire 2y ago
Simplicio was the correct one in that part of the book! Galileo's arguments about the tides were deeply flawed. Simplicio's "I don't buy it" is the correct response.