On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:05:03 UTC, cliff wright
paradise.net.nz>
wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>>>On Sep 7, 12:09 am, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sep 6, 12:46 am, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In article
,
>>>>>> "Dan Drake" dandrake.com> wrote:>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 04:39:19 UTC, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>
d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>> chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sep 4, 4:17 pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 3, 4:41 pm, "Dan Drake"
dandrake.com> wrote:>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:59:25 UTC, z
snail-mail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>according to an article by arthur c clarke, galileo couldn't resist
>>>>>>>>>>>>insulting the officials. i don't know if he's right or not, but he
>>>>>>>>>>>>deserves the benefit of the doubt.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Which "he" is the one who deserves the benefit of the doubt here? The
>>>>>>>>>>>honored historical figure, or the writer expressing an opinion about him?
>>>>>>>>>>>(Surely not actual historians, who don't rate a mention.) One way of
>>>>>>>>>>>reducing the doubt would be to read what Galileo wrote. Then you could
>>>>>>>>>>>come back with, let's say, three clear instances of his insulting the
>>>>>>>>>>>officials.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The first, I know, will be the big famous one, which is actually false or
>>>>>>>>>>>at least an unfounded charge. I'm curious to see what the other two will
>>>>>>>>>>>be.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Galileo was trying to advance his own views at the expense of those
>>>>>>>>>>with more power than he had. This does tend to get one into
>>>>>>>>>>difficulties, in general, unless your evidence is overwhelming --
>>>>>>>>>>which Galileo's was not, at the time. He was able to challenge the
>>>>>>>>>>existing system, not establish a new one, as Newton did.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Newton was just one more link in the chain of reason. The heliocentric
>>>>>>>>>system already made mush more sense at the time of Kepler and Galileo.
>>>>>>>>>All Newton was to do was to describe it all mathematically from a
>>>>>>>>>suggestion made by Robert Hooke.
>>>>>>>>>Of the 2 systems available the heliocentric one was far and away the
>>>>>>>>>most elegant and simple. The church's objections were never scientific
>>>>>>>>>but psychological. Psychological in two ways: first, was that it was
>>>>>>>>>thought that "divinely inspired" ideology should and could not be
>>>>>>>>>wrong; any gainsaying of church dogma was "heretical", and secondly
>>>>>>>>>the heliocentric hypothesis moved the earth away from its special
>>>>>>>>>position at the centre of a relatively small universe to a subordinate
>>>>>>>>>position which (with the evidential lack of stellar parallax evidence)
>>>>>>>>>expanded the distance to the nearest star to unimaginable distances.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Or it could be the RCC entered into a contract where they paid
>>>>>>>>Copernicus to develop a method to calculate the date of Easter.
>>>>>>>>Copernicus delivered a correct, easily calculated method. Implicit in,
>>>>>>>>but not necessary to, his method is a heliocentric model. Since
>>>>>>>>the project was funded by the RCC, they contended that they had
>>>>>>>>the rights; and prosecuted those who used it without permission.
>>>>
>>>>>>>The Intellectual Property theory. Oh joy, warring sect appears over the
>>>>>>>horizon! Write a book, and you could get some people believing it.
>>>>
>>>>>>Intellectual property is a contentious matter today. Why not then?
>>>>
>>>>>>Or maybe Galileo was not taken to task for his work with the telescope,
>>>>>>but rather his work with the microscope.
>>>>
>>>>>and maybe - just maybe you should read a book or two before you shoot
>>>>>your mouth off?
>>>>
>>>>History books? Which ones support the view you take,
>>>>and which ones oppose it?
>>>>Michael Press
>>>
>>>None support yours - is the point.
>>
>>
>> Galileo: Eretico, Pietro Redondi.
>>
> Well the late A.C.Clarke was dead right there!
> Hasn't anyone had a look at Galileo's "Dialogue on the two world
> systems". He really spares no effort to make Simplicimus
Simplicio. I *have* read the book. Even Galileo's introduction where he
explains why he used the name (in its Italian form) of the eminent Roman
philosopher Simplicius.
( the supporter
> of the Papal line)
No, not the Papal line; the traditional line, that of all respectable
philosophers, such as the ones who were cited in 1616 making the claim
that the motion of the Earth, etc., was "false and contrary to
philosophyy". This is not a quibble; letting the philosophers off the hook
is a serious error.
> look like several kinds of Idiot.
He was by no means the brightest, but it would be useful if you'd cite
some text that supports that strong characterization.
Also, as I've said before, even on this thread, it would be nice to see
what the presentation of the philosophers' side would have looked like if
it had been done right. Nobody has ever attempted that, so far as I've
been able to find out.
> I'm very definitely on his side, but in my translation he really laid it
> on a bit thick for the church to ignore.
In the transalation I read (which is very likely to be the one you've
read, unless you like antique and/or incomplete texts) he lays it on
philosophers but stays clear of the Church. For some reason. As to the
Pope's pet theory, inserted after the fact on the Pope's orders, you do
know what the Smart Guy said about it in the book, don't you?
> If he had left them a bit more dignity he might just have got away with
> it, at least for a while. But then Galileo wasn't the first or last
> scientist with an axe to grind, and he had his telescope to prove some
> of it!!!
> Cliff Wright.
