Originally posted by KnightWulfehttp://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html
That is my understanding of the history as well. I would like to see evidence of Galileo trying to get the church to endorse his theories as well, LH....
Doesn't really appear from St Andrews University's History Departments website that Galileo was involved in any PR scheme. Merely putting his point across. The church was apparently ambivalent towards Copernicus' theorum, until they nailed Galileo for it. It may have been Heresy, but the church was still wrong. THE BIBLE DIDN'T PROPHESIZE THAT!!!
Originally posted by no1marauder1. These may be 20th century assessments, but they are the assessments of historians and scholars who have studied the episode and do not weigh in with isolated documents and events but look at events in their context and totality. They are what you might call 'expert witnesses'.
I'm not interested in opinions of 20th century apologetics; I'm interested in the historical evidence.
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" ...[text shortened]... om.
Please actually try to address the points presented for a change.
2. A priori I can tell you that Kepler's letter would not refute my points because the letter is dated 1597, whereas Galileo does not invent his telescope till 1610 and begin his campaign till 1610-11. Indeed, in 1597 Galileo has even less evidence for the heliocentric theory than he did in 1611. Your argument is anachronistic.
3. Even if Galileo was extremely reluctant to publish his findings in 1597, it tells us nothing about what he was doing nearly two decades later in 1611.
Aside: Indeed, given the evidence he had in 1597, he would've been ripped to pieces by fellow scientists (forget the theologians) - and anyone who's worked in scientific research can tell you that, even today, once your credibility has been seriously damaged by peer criticism, there is very little chance of regaining it unless you do something extraordinary. If you have the time, read the following article by Owen Gingrich:
www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2003/PSCF6-03Gingerich.pdf
Gingrich is a professor of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard. In his article Gingrich asks why, in the absence of scientific evidence, Kepler and Galileo embraced heliocentrism.
4. Galileo could not have been accused of heresy if he had simply asserted that heliocentricism was a good/better working mathematical model, rather than physical reality. The attacks of heresy came because he would not make this distinction.
5. Even after he was accused of heresy, Galileo could have made the distinction in (4) above and not faced further censure. He certainly didn't have to (against the advice of his supporters in the Church) start making private interpretations of Scripture claiming they were "divinely inspired" while ridiculing his opponents.
6. I don't know what Kepler is referring to when he said that few mathematicians would dispute Galileo's findings. In 1597, Galileo hasn't invented his telescope yet and has no astronomical evidence. His theory of tides, which he publicised c.1616 was absolute bull - and was shot down instantly by European scientists. Given that Kepler himself believed in the Copernican viewpoint because of something to do with the Holy Trinity, it's quite possible that he just bought Galileo's arguments (whatever they were in 1597) without critical thinking.
7. Kepler's disagreement with Galileo on the shape of orbits is not a red herring because it goes to the intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) of Galileo. It also shows how little the actual science mattered to Galileo at the time.
8. Yes, I did read the historical documents; you can stop asking.
9. So, if serious historians disagree with your amateurish, piece-meal and ideological reading of history, they are "revisionist"? Good ploy - you can't get much scholarly support for your myths, so you discredit the historians instead.
Originally posted by scottishinnzFrom your article:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html
Doesn't really appear from St Andrews University's History Departments website that Galileo was involved in any PR scheme. Merely putting his point across. The church was apparently ambivalent towards Copernicus' theorum, until they nailed Galileo for it. It may have been Heresy, but the church was still wrong. THE BIBLE DIDN'T PROPHESIZE THAT!!!
Galileo, less convinced that Castelli had won the argument, wrote Letter to Castelli to him arguing that the Bible had to be interpreted in the light of what science had shown to be true. Galileo had several opponents in Florence and they made sure that a copy of the Letter to Castelli was sent to the Inquisition in Rome. However, after examining its contents they found little to which they could object.
Question 1.: How did his opponents in Florence get a copy of the letter to Castelli in the first place?
In 1616 Galileo wrote the Letter to the Grand Duchess which vigorously attacked the followers of Aristotle. In this work, which he addressed to the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, he argued strongly for a non-literal interpretation of Holy Scripture when the literal interpretation would contradict facts about the physical world proved by mathematical science. In this Galileo stated quite clearly that for him the Copernican theory is not just a mathematical calculating tool, but is a physical reality...
It is this letter that finally gets him before the Inquisition.
Question 2: How does Galileo's opponents get a copy of the letter to the Grand Duchess in the first place so that they can send it before the Inquisition?
Think.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that Galileo tried to coerce the Church into adopting the Copernician system. Why is that? Because there is none.
From your article:
[quote]Galileo, less convinced that Castelli had won the argument, wrote Letter to Castelli to him arguing that the Bible had to be interpreted in the light of what science had shown to be true. Galileo had several opponents in Florence and they made sure that a copy of the Letter to Castelli was sent to the Inquisition in Rome. Ho ...[text shortened]... the Grand Duchess in the first place so that they can send it before the Inquisition?
Think.
Here's an excerpt from Galileo's letter to the Grand Duchess Christina which absolutely refutes your assertion:
With regard to this opinion, and others which are not directly matters of faith, certainly no one doubts that the Supreme Pontiff has always an absolute power to approve or condemn; but it is not in the power: of any created being to make things true or false, for this belongs to their own nature and to the fact. Therefore in my judgment one should first be assured of the necessary and immutable truth of the fact, over which no man has power. This is wiser counsel than to condemn either side in the absence of such certainty, thus depriving oneself of continued authority and ability to choose by determining things which are now undetermined and open and still lodged in the will of supreme authority. And in brief, if it is impossible for a conclusion to be declared heretical while we remain in doubt as to its truth, then these men are wasting their time clamoring for condemnation of the motion of the earth and stability of the sun, which they have not yet demonstrated to be impossible or false ….
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html
Read it; try to understand it. Your pathetic lies and "some revisionist historians agree with me" is tiresome. Present some evidence to prove your points.
Originally posted by DragonFriendSpeaking only for myself, it's pure entertainment. I like watching apologists jump through hoops to justify their faith.
I understand why the Christians are here discussing God, but why are the skeptics here? If I can speak generally, the thing skeptics dislike about Christians most is that we're unwilling to change the basis of our faith. So what do the skeptics hope to accomplish with these discussions?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerMaybe Kepler should have been threatened with torture too!! If he had been in Italy, he would have been. And he was an scientific idiot, while theologians like Bellermain were experts! You're completely ridiculous!
1. These may be 20th century assessments, but they are the assessments of historians and scholars who have studied the episode and do not weigh in with isolated documents and events but look at events in their context and totality. They are what you might call 'expert witnesses'.
2. A priori I can tell you that Kepler's letter would not refute my p much scholarly support for your myths, so you discredit the historians instead.
These people are no more "expert" than I am at weighing evidence in written documents. Probably less so. You've failed to present any evidence at all of some PR campaign by Galileo; you keep saying it was done, but refuse to come up with some contemporaneous historical evidence of its existence. Your refusal to do so suggests you have no such evidence.
Your justification for the heresy charge is utterly mind-boggling. Are you serious? Yes, Galileo asserted that heliocentrism was physical reality (it is, at least as far as the solar system is concerned). Because he wouldn't say it wasn't, he was accused of HERESY. That's OK with you, I guess. Incredible.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo "expert witness" would be allowed to merely state his opinion without supporting evidence. You were asked to present evidence, you presented opinions unencumbered by any evidence. If the question was "did Galileo try to coerce the Church into adopting heliocentric theory as a doctrine of faith" in a court of law and the only evidence you presented was "Historian X says yes", it would be inadmissible. You've shown before a stunning ignorance of legal principles; let's not go down that road again.
Appeal to Authority is not automatically a logical fallacy. You should know - you call expert witnesses all the time, don't you?
2 edits
George S. Johnston isn't even an academic historian; "George Sim Johnston is a writer living in New York City. He is a contributing editor for Crisis magazine and the National Catholic Register."
Richard J. Blackwell, author of Science, Religion and Authority:Lessons from the Galileo Affair is a Professor of Philosophy at Marquette (unsurprisingly, a RC university), not a historian.
http://www.marquette.edu/mupress/aquinasrecent.html
Impressive group of "expert" "serious" "historians" ya got there, LH.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe letter to the Grand Duchess itself is my proof. It was not a letter written to some aristocratic lady with a hobby in astronomy and theology; it was a pamphlet written in the form of a letter to the Grand Duchess (this is mentioned in one of the excerpts I provided earlier). Why do people write pamphlets, no1?
You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that Galileo tried to coerce the Church into adopting the Copernician system. Why is that? Because there is none.
Here's an excerpt from Galileo's letter to the Grand Duchess Christina which absolutely refutes your assertion:
With regard to this opinion, and others which are not directl ...[text shortened]... visionist historians agree with me" is tiresome. Present some evidence to prove your points.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhere exactly in that letter (conceding for the sake of argument your assertion that it was a pamphlet) does it say that Galileo wants the Church to adopt heliocentrism? In the excerpt I quoted above (might want to read it) he merely argues that since the opponents of heliocentrism cannot prove it is impossible, that it should not be declared heresy.
The letter to the Grand Duchess itself is my proof. It was not a letter written to some aristocratic lady with a hobby in astronomy and theology; it was a pamphlet written in the form of a letter to the Grand Duchess (this is mentioned in one of the excerpts I provided earlier). Why do people write pamphlets, no1?
Since you state that is your "proof", you should concede that your statements were wrong.
EDIT: This one for example from page 12:
LH: 1. Galileo didn't just "[write] his theories and [try] to avoid being killed for it". He tried to get the Church to officially endorse his theories as truth (and he couldn't even prove it).
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder1. I know Johnston isn't an academic historian - why do you think I looked for other sources?
George S. Johnston isn't even an academic historian; "George Sim Johnston is a writer living in New York City. He is a contributing editor for Crisis magazine and the National Catholic Register."
Richard J. Blackwell, author of Science, Religion and Authority:Lessons from the Galileo Affair is a Professor of Philosophy at Marquette (unsurprisingly, a ...[text shortened]... ent.html
Impressive group of "expert" "serious" "historians" ya got there, LH.
2a. So what if Marquette is an RC university? Are you claiming that teachers at Catholic institutions cannot be objective unless they take positions criticising the Church? That is putting the cart before the horse.
2b. Blackwell is a professor of the Philosophy of science[1] (which would include the history of science - ask Bbarr). He is a well-recognised scholar in the area of the Galileo trials by his peers (not all of whom teach at Catholic institutions). For instance, he is a contributor to Machamer's 'Cambridge Companion to Galileo' (Cambridge, 1998) and 'Studies in History and Philosophy of Science' (Elsevier, 1996) - neither of which is a Catholic publication.[1b]
3. What about the other three historians I cited? Want to have a go at them too?
Here, I'll help you:
(A)"William R. Shea holds the "Galileo Chair" of the History of Science at the University of Padua, in Italy. He is Past President of both the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science and the International Academy of the History of Science, and is currently Chairman of the Standing Committee for the Humanities of the European Science Foundation in Strasbourg. He is the author, co-author, or editor of 25 books, including Galileo's Intellectual Revolution and The Magic of Numbers and Motion: The Scientific Career of Rene Descartes."[2]
(B) "Mariano Artigas is Professor of Philosophy of Science and was Dean of the Ecclesiastical Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Navarra, in Pamplona, Spain. He holds a Ph.D. both in physics and philosophy, is an ordained Catholic priest, and has written 14 books, including The Mind of the Universe, which won a Templeton Award."[3]
(C) "ASA Fellow Owen Gingerich is a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and Research professor of astronomy and of the history of science at Harvard University. He has served as vice president of the American Philosophical Society and as chairman of the U.S. National Committee of the International Astronomical Union.Amember of the Mennonite Congregation of Boston and an active participant in the international science-religion dialogue, he has twice given an Advent sermon at the National Cathedral in Washington."[4]
Not expert or serious enough for you?
---
[1] http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/philos/fblackwell.html
[1b] ibid.
[2] http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryOther/HistoryofScience/?ci=0195165985&view=usa
[3] ibid.
[4] http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2003/PSCF6-03Gingerich.pdf