On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:27:43 UTC, "OG"
gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
> "Dan Drake"
dandrake.com> wrote in message
> news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-diqddp7B3rr4@m...>> 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?
>>
>
> Which historians of science would you recommend I use to follow up on your
> post ? It would be good to get an alternative authoritative view.
>
> On the specific points you have raised - as I originally stated it's been a
> long while since I've read it, so as for the names and positions of they key
> players, I am provisionally happy to take your corrections.
>
> I don't know where you're getting the 'mythology' that "it was all all rude
> old Galileo while the other guys were perfectly polite and nice", as the
> general telling is that brave old G was subjected to the full power of the
> inquisition and yet proudly (yet quietly) proclaimed "Eppur si muove" - yes,
> I know he didn't, but that is the more common 'myth'.
I didn't say there was only one mythology. (BTW, he certainly was
subjected to the power of the Inquisition; and there is good historical
evidence that he said that famous line -- not to the Inquisition, of
course! -- because the story certainly was circulating within a year or
two of his death.) Anyway, the mythology that I hostilely describe as
"Nasty Galileo brought it all on himself" is widespread on the Internet.
Is there another source for it than Koestler? I don't know. Anyway anyway,
duelling mythologies are not uncommon.
>
> So, a couple of references from you would be useful.
Well, for a very short introduction, there's "Galileo: A Very Short
Introduction" from Oxford University Press, by Stillman Drake. And it's
available on the used market, so you don't have to generate any royalties
for my brother and me. There's also a very long and detailed one, "Galileo
at Work" by the same author. Back to the popular level, there's Dava
Sobel's "Galileo's Daughter", which is not primarily a history of the
controversies, but provides a good antidote, on the firmest historical
footing, for any Koestler-induced feelings that this was a nasty mean guy
whom nobody could stand and vice versa. (As to being based on published
scholarship: I have heard a complaint about her taking too much without
adequate credit, and I can agree; but to me, putting a well-founded
Galileo book on the best-seller list will excuse almost anything.)
There are famous older titles, including "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio
di Santillana, though I'm not recommending his version. He, by the way,
was the other author of the review of Koestler that I referred to. He
complained vehemently about the way his text had been (he said) mis-used
by Koestler.
And my top recommendation for anyone who really wants to get into the
church controversy and see really recent work on it: "Galileo: For
Copernicanism and the Church", by Annibale Fantoli, translated by George
V. Coyne, S.J.; Vatican Observatory Publications, 1994 and 2003. You may
find that this book has a point of view rather favorable to the Jesuits!
But that can be taken into account, and by the nature of this case it
doesn't do much harm. The book is long (600+ pages, nearly half of which
is notes and the like), and it has vast amounts of information that you're
not likely to see outside of a Hist of Sci course, if even there; and by
and large, always with some reservations, the interpretations appear very
sound. His explanation of why the Pope was so mad at Galileo looks like
the best available and has at least the advantage of tying directly to
solid historical data.
