Axelgear wrote:Galileo did have what can be called observational proof, which is really the only proof we have of anything in space really. We didn't get proof the Earth was round until 1960-something (Great song, that is) when people took photos of Earth from space.
The facts are that Galileo may have been forceful (Though I have never heard of this) but he neither assaulted the church, nor defaced it, or in any way violated it besides stating his beliefs, which is a basic human right today. The Church did not remain neutral or scientifically objective, and Galileo did nothing but speak his mind. That is not a crime, and that should never be a crime.
Now, if Galileo had burned Bibles, beaten up monks, and written "Down with the Pope" on the walls of a Church, this would be another story. But he didn't. They burned his books, they threatened him with torture, and confined him to House Arrest for the rest of his life. Whether he used forceful words or not, he did nothing but exercise his right to speak, and I think the Church should recognize such a right as much as any legitimate government should.
Now, I think you proposed an elegant solution to this:
In scientific conflict, the Church should remain neutral. That suits me fine.
Kerry Skydancer wrote:Actually, there was a semi-proof of the heliocentric solar system available to Galileo's technology, so it can be considered proven. Mercury and Venus show phases and sizes in even a small telescope, demonstrating that those two (and -only- those two planets) circle the sun inside of Earth's distance. Either Copernicus or Brahe's solar system (Brahe had the sun and moon circling Earth, everything else circling the sun) therefore had to be correct. It was a definitive disproof of the Ptolemaic version of geocentrism.
TMLutas wrote:Galileo mocked the Pope (the whole Simplicimus thing) and taught theological error, sowing doubt among the faithful. For a Catholic, this is not acceptable. Galileo was disciplined, which he should have been, but on inappropriate grounds. The apology was given. It just hasn't been translated in english.
Axelgear wrote:TMLutas wrote:Galileo mocked the Pope (the whole Simplicimus thing) and taught theological error, sowing doubt among the faithful. For a Catholic, this is not acceptable. Galileo was disciplined, which he should have been, but on inappropriate grounds. The apology was given. It just hasn't been translated in english.
Theological error? What does that mean? Does that mean that he taught the Pope was wrong? That's not a crime; the man was right after all. As to Simplicimus, that was biting the hand that fed him more than an insult. He didn't want to present both views as equal, so he played Passive Aggressive.
Galileo went to Rome to defend himself against these accusations, but, in 1616, Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino personally handed Galileo an admonition enjoining him to neither advocate nor teach Copernican astronomy as religious doctrine.
TMLutas wrote:Axelgear - One thing that I've noticed is that the language of the Vatican is generally not quite the simple straightforward tongue that most people are used to these days. If you just pop in to read one item and go away, you might miss a great deal of meaning. I've been doing *some* reading and it's just enough to start realizing how much I'm likely missing because my own ears are not entirely trained to the style and nuance that comes out of that place. There are people who are knee deep in Vatican verbiage professionally and they generally interpret for the rest of us. Among that educated set, I haven't heard anyone hold your position that it wasn't really an apology.
TMLutas wrote:I believe Galileo's first book was the 1623 tome The Assayer which was published under Church approval and not banned. Galileo's argument was wrong in this case as comets are, in fact, real objects and not simply a play of light as Galileo thought.
TMLutas wrote:The 1616 letter was about Copernicanism as religious doctrine (from the above linked article):Galileo went to Rome to defend himself against these accusations, but, in 1616, Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino personally handed Galileo an admonition enjoining him to neither advocate nor teach Copernican astronomy as religious doctrine.
And the final three words in that quote are really the sum total of the Church's legitimate beef with Galileo. His subsequent trial and squashing were about him teaching that Copernican theories were true instead of what he had been permitted, that Copernican theories were a viable scientific theory among multiple contenders and that the question had not been settled.
TMLutas wrote:Given the state of the science, Galileo was wrong, he should have been convicted on those grounds, and that is why it is so difficult to calibrate the proper level of regret at the unjust personal persecution that Galileo underwent because of his abrasive personality and style.
TMLutas wrote:Galileo, in case you didn't know, had prominent Church sponsors, which meant that a portion of the clothes on his back, his salary, his lodgings etc. was paid for out of Church coffers and his works were published with Church approval. This is a fairly unusual situation today but back then it was so normal as to be unremarkable and generally unremarked. The system of the time embroiled the Church in chancy matters of predicting unknown physical facts based on sketchy evidence. This is an approach that has wisely been abandoned.
So, should the Church have in fact suppressed the Assayer because Galileo was incorrect? And how were they to know that Galileo was right on planets but wrong on comets?
TMLutas wrote:Galileo and his opponents played a dirty game of religious accusation and denunciation over scientific facts. It's a game that embroiled the Church wrongly in the controversy. The Church made its own mistakes in the matter but had Galileo stuck to actual science he would have survived without the judicial conviction.
Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot and 1 guest