> Did Feyerband also not argue that Galileo's claim that Copernicus's theory was proved was false My reading of AM was that it's less about what's "true" or "f

> Did Feyerband also not argue that Galileo's claim that Copernicus's theory was proved was false My reading of AM was that it's less about what's "true" or "false" and more about how the actual structure of the scientific argument compares to what's claimed about it. The (rough) point (as I understand it) is that Galileo's scientific "findings" were motivated by human desires for wealth and success (what we might call historically contingent or "poltical" factors) as much as they were by "following the hard evidence". > Telescopes are comprehensible. "Comprehensible" is a relative measure, I think. Incomprehensible things become comprehensible with time and familiarity.