Originally posted by lucifershammerInvoking Kepler's name is bizarre even for you; here's a letter he wrote to Galileo in 1597(!):
The dancing woman wasn't trying to get raped, either.
Galileo wasn't simply trying to "understand the world and share his ideas" - he wanted the Church to bend to his will and declare his ideas true (even ignoring the findings of fellow-heliocentricist Kepler in the process).
[Kepler to Galileo, 1597]
....I could only have wished that you, who have so profound an insight, would choose another way. You advise us, by your personal example, and in discreetly veiled fashion, to retreat before the general ignorance and not to expose ourselves or heedlessly to oppose the violent attacks of the mob of scholars (and in this you follow Plato and Pythagoras, our true perceptors). But after a tremendous task has been begun in our time, first by Copernicus and then by many very learned mathematicians, and when the assertion that the Earth moves can no longer be considered something new, would it not be much better to pull the wagon to its goal by our joint efforts, now that we have got it under way, and gradually, with powerful voices, to shout down the common herd, which really does not weigh the arguments very carefully? Thus perhaps by cleverness we may bring it to a knowledge of the truth. With your arguments you would at the same time help your comrades who endure so many unjust judgments, for they would obtain either comfort from your agreement or protection from your influential position. It is not only your Italians who cannot believe that they move if they do not feel it, but we in Germany also do not by any means endear ourselves with this idea. Yet there are ways by which we protect ourselves against these difficulties....
Be of good cheer, Galileo, and come out publicly. If I judge correctly, there are only a few of the distinguished mathematicians of Europe who would part company with us, so great is the power of truth. If Italy seems a less favorable place for your publication, and if you look for difficulties there, perhaps Germany will allow us this freedom.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterkepler.html
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay.
You've repeatedly made the claim that Galileo tried to get the Church to officially endorse his theories, please offer SOME evidence to support this assertion. If you knew the history, you'd know that some in the Church were lobbying for Galileo's theories and heliocentrism in general to be declared heresy. What was the penalty for heresy, LH? Galileo th mind. Probably it was because Galileo was so well known that the Inquistion choose him.
From George S. Johnston's 'The Galileo Affair'[1]:
Galileo returned to Florence, where he might have been expected to continue his scientific research. But for about two decades after 1611, pure science ceased to be his main concern. Instead, he became obsessed with converting public opinion to the Copernican system. He was an early instance of that very modern type, the cultural politician. All of Europe, starting with the Church, had to buy into Copernicus. This crusade would never have ended in the offices of the Inquisition had Galileo possessed a modicum of discretion, not to mention charity. But he was not a tactful person; he loved to score off people and make them look ridiculous. And he would make no allowance for human nature, which does not easily shuck off an old cosmology to embrace a new one which seems to contradict both sense and tradition.
How about Prof. Timothy Moy[2]?
Over the past few decades, historians of science have been re-examining the "Galileo Affair"--Galileo's trial by the Roman Catholic Church in 1633. While scholars have (naturally) been unable to come to a consensus on why Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, almost all historians agree that it was not primarily because Galileo believed in Copernican heliocentrism...
So much for the facts. But why did the Church come down so hard on Galileo? Some scholars argue that Galileo simply had terrible luck, since he happened to be pushing his arguments at the worst possible political moment. In the early seventeenth century, the Catholic Church was desperately trying to fight off an insurrection within Christendom (the Protestant Reformation). Many within the Church hierarchy were not particularly fond of liberalizing Catholic doctrine while it was under assault, and Galileo may have ended up as a collateral casualty of a much larger war.
Other historians argue that an enormous amount of the fault was Galileo's. He was, without a doubt, a voracious social and political climber, and his political maneuverings in the Italian Renaissance court system over his career had garnered him many powerful enemies. With his (erroneous) proof of Copernicanism, Galileo apparently hoped to climb the pyramid to the most prestigious court of all: the Vatican itself (he wanted to become official mathematician/astronomer for the Pope). He took a gamble on his proof, lost, and suffered the consequences.
Still other scholars suggest that Galileo's downfall resulted from a personal falling out he had with the Pope. There is some documentation to support the conclusion that Urban VIII felt personally betrayed by Galileo's false proof, and was irritated to boot that Galileo bad put the Pope's words from one of their private conversations into the mouth of Simplicio (the simpleton) at the end of the Dialogue.
Personally, I suspect that Galileo got into so much trouble for a variety of reasons. First, he thought heliocentrism was true and became an evangelist for the idea; sadly, there is good reason to believe that Copernican heliocentrism was already succeeding within Church hierarchy and would have become an accepted element of doctrine on its own if Galileo had not forced the issue. Second, he felt that the Church needed to reform its entire intellectual structure in order to modernize and protect itself against Protestantism; in particular, Galileo believed that science had to replace theology as the Church's principal mode of understanding, and that accepting Copernicus was a good first step. Third, he felt that he could have the greatest impact in shaping new doctrine at precisely the moment when the Church was feeling weak and on the defensive. And finally, he felt that he, Galileo Galilei, had the authority and brilliance to transform Catholicism in this way. When you read his writings, you get the distinc t impression that Galileo believed that expertise in astronomy and mathematics gave him (and all scientists) a special authority to make theological pronouncements and inform Rome how to run the Church. Frankly, I find it no surprise that the Inquisition dropped the hammer on him.
Oh, and you might find this interesting:
After the trial, Galileo returned to his villa outside Florence, where he technically spent the last decade of his life under a very comfortable house arrest and under injunction not to write anything further on physics. Just to show how strictly his sentence was carried out, during his remaining years Galileo often stayed at the palaces of nobles and patrons in Tuscany, and openly disobeyed the gag rule by writing his Discourse on Two New Sciences, in which he essentially invented kinematics and materials science (though it's true that Galileo's criminal record meant that the book could not be published in Italy; it was published in the Netherlands in 1638).
Also:
The attitudes of both the censors and Galileo are instructive. On the one hand, the censors adamantly refused a layman the right to meddle with Scripture. On the other, Galileo was inclined to describe his point of view as “divinely inspired” and to brand that of his opponents as “contrary to Scripture.” The popular conception of Galileo as a martyr for freedom of thought is an oversimplification.[3]
Or:
At any rate the confrontation between Copernicanism and the Bible occurred subsequently at two levels: (1) how should the relevant passages in the Bible be interpreted on this issue? and, (2) as is directly addressed in the decree from Trent, who had the authority to undertake such an interpretation, or better, reinterpretation?
Galileo, of course, not being a bishop and having no training in theology, was in no position to enter the scriptural debate, and he knew that he could never possibly win on that battlefield. But he did the next best thing. He was bold enough to write a short pamphlet, in the form of a Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina ( 1615), in which he examined the general principles of biblical exegesis that would apply to the coming debate regarding scripture and science.[4]
Cheers,
LH
---
[1] http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/GALILEO.HTM
[2] The article is from the September issue of 'The Skeptical Inquirer':
http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:77757768&ctrlInfo=Round18%3AMode18c%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=
[3] Artigas & Shea. 'Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius' (New York, 2003). p.50.
[4] Blackwell. 'Science, Religion and Authority: Lessons from the Galileo Affair' (Milwaukee, 1999). p.28.
Originally posted by no1marauderBy the time of Galileo's trial in 1615-16, Kepler had already assembled data supporting elliptical orbits for the planets (rather than the circular ones Galileo so steadfastly adhered to).
Invoking Kepler's name is bizarre even for you; here's a letter he wrote to Galileo in 1597(!):
[Kepler to Galileo, 1597]
....I could only have wished that you, who have so profound an insight, would choose another way. You advise us, by your personal example, and in discreetly veiled fashion, to retreat before the general ignorance and no ...[text shortened]... this freedom.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterkepler.html
But all of that is moot. Read the excerpts I've cited in my previous post. Of the serious historians studying the subject, only Finnochario (sp?) (and Paula Newell - who's based her entire thesis on Finnochario) hold to the "martyr of science/freedom" (take your pick) myth.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI know why you do not participate in the "Cartoon War" debate, marauder.
I'm trying to avoid Debates as much as possible; it's become a sewer. I'm sure you're quite capable of waging your Holy War against Muslims on your own and with the ignorant bigots who infest Debates. The world situation is fairly clear to me; Western rich guys are trying to dominant and control the world and some of the average Joes are resisting it. So ting mass murder for the result of further control of the world by Western capitalists.
You do not know which party to accuse. Thàt is your dilemma. The Muslims ? The Islamists ? Never ! Denmark ? The Newspaper that publicised the cartoons ? No ! The West .... not in this case where the West is the party who defends Free Speech ..... Maybe your favorite scapegoats, such as the American government ? Bush ? the Roman-Catholic Church ? Believers in general ? No, toooooo ridiculous for words ...... You see, the situation isn't suited to practise your favorite hobby, that annoying habit of yours: "Accusing People". The situation is tooooooo complicated for that.
Adequately analysing the situation demands something you definitely lack and that is the ability to assess and analyse the situation in an impartial and objective manner without derailing and sadly ending up accusing people.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm not interested in opinions of 20th century apologetics; I'm interested in the historical evidence.
By the time of Galileo's trial in 1615-16, Kepler had already assembled data supporting elliptical orbits for the planets (rather than the circular ones Galileo so steadfastly adhered to).
But all of that is moot. Read the excerpts I've cited in my previous post. Of the serious historians studying the subject, only Finnochario (sp?) (and Paula Newe ntire thesis on Finnochario) hold to the "martyr of science/freedom" (take your pick) myth.
Kepler's letter totally refutes your absurd claims on several points:
A) It shows that Galileo was extremely reluctant to publish his findings because he feared persecution by the Church. Thus far from waging a PR campaign to "coerce" the Church into anything, Galileo wound up having to try to defend himself against attacks that his writings were heresy. You continually dodge and/or lie about this simple historical fact. Galileo's only choices after he was accused of heresy was to either stop writing and teaching his theories or try to defend his ideas to the Church which could have him killed;
B) Kepler states that few mathematicians in Europe would dispute Galileo's findings. This refutes your absurd claim that Galileo's theories were "unscientific" by the standards of 1600-1700th century science. Or was Kepler wrong and your 20th Century historians right?;
C) Kepler explicitly states that Galileo should consider going to Germany where it would be safer for him to espouse his theories. What was the difference between Germany and Italy at the time, dear LH?
Kepler's disagreement with Galileo on the shape of orbits has nothing to do with this discussion and is a complete red herring. The Church didn't declare Galileo's opinion that the orbits were round to be heresy; it declared the heliocentric model itself heresy. If Kepler had been in RCC controlled lands, he would have undoubtedly wound up in front of the Inquistion, too. Your intellectual dishonesty in your "arguments" is truly astounding. I ask again: did you ever read the actual historical documents or did you rely purely on revisionist historians?
EDIT: The last paragraph of Kepler's letter:
Be of good cheer, Galileo, and come out publicly. If I judge correctly, there are only a few of the distinguished mathematicians of Europe who would part company with us, so great is the power of truth. If Italy seems a less favorable place for your publication, and if you look for difficulties there, perhaps Germany will allow us this freedom.
Please actually try to address the points presented for a change.
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeKepler's letter is contemporaneous historical evidence on each of the points mentioned. LH's are all "in my 20th century opinion ........." I'm not surprised you don't know why the use of the former is valid and the use of the latter is not in support of an argument; you've consistently shown that you have little understanding of logical argument.
You mean your appeal to Kepler ?
Here's what I said to LH: "You've repeatedly made the claim that Galileo tried to get the Church to officially endorse his theories, please offer SOME evidence to support this assertion."
Is the opinion of someone writing 370 years later evidence that supports LH's assertion?
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "Kepler's letter is contemporaneous historical evidence on each of the points mentioned."
Kepler's letter is contemporaneous historical evidence on each of the points mentioned. LH's are all "in my 20th century opinion ........." I'm not surprised you don't know why the use of the former is valid and the use of the latter is not in support of an argument; you've consistently shown that you have little understanding of logical argument.
...[text shortened]... he opinion of someone writing 370 years later evidence that supports LH's assertion?
But you of all people should know that people are inclined to present things in a way they find advantageous to their own cause and interests ..... or maybe your favorite accusation applies here .... maybe he was a disingenuous liar, like so many, if not all, of your RHP opponents .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf he was, it should be a relatively simple matter for LH to present evidence of it. I've presented evidence to support my assertions; LH has not.
marauder: "Kepler's letter is contemporaneous historical evidence on each of the points mentioned."
But you of all people should know that people are inclined to present things in a way they find advantageous to their own cause and interests ..... or maybe your favorite accusation applies here .... maybe he was a disingenuous liar, like so many, if not all, of your RHP opponents .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's not an opinion that I've presented historical evidence to support my assertions in this thread; it's a fact with Kepler's letter being the most recent. LH was asked to present evidence supporting what is arguably his central assertion and has failed to do so. That is not an opinion either; it is a fact. You tend to confuse the two believing that many things that are opinions are facts and many things that are facts are opinions. This is one of the many defects in your "thinking" process, at least so far as it is demonstrated by your posts in these forums.
marauder: "I've presented evidence to support my assertions; LH has not.
You're entitled to your opinion 🙂