> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:18:15 UTC, OG gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:

>> tadchem wrote:

>>> On Sep 2, 10:49 am, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>>Modern scientists tend to misinterpret the recent rehabilitation of
>>>>Galileo Galilei as indicating that Church admits that they were wrong
>>>>to prosecute him, at the time.  This is most certainly not the the
>>>>case.  All the Church is saying is that Galileo was not a bad person,
>>>>and that his writings, even his satires of the Church,  no longer pose
>>>>any social threat.

>

>>> Power Politics 101:

>

>>> The first priority of those in power is to preserve that power, which
>>> requires intolerance of novelty and the development of reactionary
>>> positions on matters of policy. Acts of liberalism only serve those
>>> out of power.  Once power has been acquired, those "acts" of
>>> liberalism become a smoke screen of empty (or nearly so) promises -
>>> lip service to preserve loyalty among the masses.

>

>>> As the most powerful political force in western civilization at that
>>> time, the Church of Rome could ill-afford Galileo's novel ideas,
>>> especially as they directly contradicted established Church Doctrine.

>

>> It's been a while since I read "The Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler,
>> but as I recall, the senior church leaders were initially very receptive
>> to Galileo's ideas, but in his arrogance he decided that he should have
>> the right to lead discussion on spiritual issues as well as physical
>> matters.

>
> [What follows is too rude, regrattably. The annoyance it expresses is not
> personal, but directed at the way bad information digs itself in and can't
> be dislodged.]
>
> That is not a position held by any historian of science, so far as I'm
> aware. Mavericks *can* be right where the experts are wrong, but after 50
> years or so that becomes a pretty weak reed to lean on. Tends to require a
> conspiracy theory.
>
> Conspiracies aside, there are actually masses of historical evidence, and
> 50 years of more and more information have not been kind to Koestler's
> position.
>
> "Right to lead discussion"? He wanted to discuss it. What do you mean
> "right to lead"? Just as to arguing his opinions, the official position
> was, No way, he wasn't an expert who had the right to talk of such things.
>
> He is still denounced for not simply taking the word of his betters and
> shutting up. (E.g., in the second "Science and Religion" number of the
> Skeptical Inquirer a few years ago.) Not denounced, of course, by Pope
> John Paul II, who, as I've noted but really enjoy rubbing in, thought
> Galileo understood the relevant theology better than the theologians did.
> (OK, here it took 350 years for the experts to fall in with the maverick.
> Then again, this is religion; I was talking about scholarship.)
>
>
>

>> He also had some problems with attempting to use the existence of tides
>> as evidence in support of his motion - but as it became clear that his
>> explanation would only give 1 tide per day he used scorn and insult to
>> hide the fact that he was (in that instance at least) using a very weak
>> argument.

>
> Now would you or Mr. Koestler like to tell us of any theory of the tides
> at that time that accounted for 2 tides a day? Save yourself the trouble
> of checking Kepler's ideas; they had the same problem.
>
> I like the "as it became clear" -- as if Galileo had been too stupid to
> see that immediately. Since you doubtless want a fair and balanced
> approach, you may want to mention that he had a specific theory of why
> tides do not occur on some astronomical schedule. But then, maybe you
> think the high tides faithfully follow Moon everywhere. Try again.
> Galileo's theory about this was original and correct, by the way.
>
>
>

>> I can't remember exactly how that affected things, but I suspect that
>> when he used bluster, insult and scorn against some of his clerical
>> opponents he lost the sympathy of the church leaders as a result. One of
>> the cardinals who he had been particularly vicious against more of less
>> forced the church to take action.

>
> Do you know which Cardinal that was? I rather suspect you're thinking of
> Scheiner, a Jesuit astronomer, not a Cardinal. And the mythology that it
> was all rude old Galileo while the other guys were perfectly polite and
> nice (you know, just the way academics always have been and are to this
> very day) is another good candidate for oblivion.
>
>
>

>> If anyone wants to know a bit more about the development of the work of
>> Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo it's well worth finding the Koestler book.

>
> And, if you have some sort of university access, reading the review of it
> (with counter and counter-counter following) by two historians of science,
> in Isis, v 50 number 3, Sept. 1959, will tell you even more.
> Sorry, it's not so easy to find as a popular book by a popular novelist
> out of his field. Ain't scholarship a nuisance?
>
> --
> Dan Drake
> d...@dandrake.comhttp://www.dandrake.com/
> porlockjr.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -