On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 20:30:18 UTC, William Hyde
gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 2, 3:59 pm, "Dan Drake"
dandrake.com> wrote:
> >>
>> Well, no, not really. There is not a shred of evidence that Galileo
>> intended an insult in his handling of the argument that *the Pope ordered
>> him* to put in the book *after the book was written*.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Galileo's book was discussed in the Globe and Mail's book section last
> Saturday.
>
>
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080830.BKFIFT30/TPStory/?query...
>
> I was unaware of just how successful this book was, simply in terms of
> copies sold.
>
> A few key points from the article:
>
>
> " Although he had been planning to write his own big book about "the
> construction of the universe," he judged the time too dangerous. He
> put off the project for a decade, until after his most powerful
> admirer, Maffeo Cardinal Barberini, was elected Pope Urban VIII. Then
> Galileo discussed his book idea with the new pope and got tacit
> permission to proceed - provided he would present the two arguments
> equally, and not promote one side over the other."
>
> Though how one can "fairly" promote an incorrect theory is a question
> I cannot answer.
A kindred spirit! I have seen statements over and over again about how
badly and unfairly Galileo presented the other side, but never a hint
about what he'd have said if he'd handled it more fairly. And not for lack
of asking, over and over.
In all fairness, Simplicio really is not the sharpest crayon in that box.
There's a notable contrast with the Simplicio in the Two New Sciences. So
Galileo could have been nicer. I still don't know how the *substance* of
the argument would have changed.
>
> Crucially:
>
> "After he finished writing his Dialogue, on Christmas Eve of 1629,
> Galileo sent it to Rome for examination by the censors. Several
> theologians scrutinized the text and gave their provisional approval.
> When an outbreak of the plague interrupted the flow of communication
> between Rome and Florence, Galileo submitted the manuscript to new
> censors in his own city, so that the book went through two
> prepublication approval procedures. Even so, its publication generated
> a shock wave that forever shattered Galileo's peace. His critics
> complained that he had argued the Copernican case with too much
> fervour. Worse, they claimed that Galileo had been ordered - back in
> 1616 - never to write about this topic, and had hidden that fact from
> Urban. The Pope exploded with rage, and the Inquisition summoned
> Galileo to Rome to stand trial."
>
> Given the vetting, I think the fact that the book reached a large
> group of people, instead
> of a few scholars, spurred the persecution.
That surely contributed. But there's another whole large controversy that
she alludes to: "they claimed that Galileo had been ordered - back in 1616
- never to write about this topic, and had hidden that fact from Urban."
That summary is good for a news article, but there are depths to it that
require a much longer dissertation, and who would sit still for that? I
like the diplomatic way she uses the "claimed" to avoid taking a position,
just because it leads into such a big and vexed pile of questions.
