14 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerUpon reflection, it seems reasonable that Galileo was actually striving to achieve the position of Grand Inquisitor. So, for the 100th anniversary of his pardon, the Office of the Inquisition could begin another military crusade under the honorary direction of Galileo, and then we could put to the test the question of whether the people "loved their inquisition!"
Why didn't you throw in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition while you were at it? You could've claimed a royal flush.
14 Feb 06
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerno1-
Incidentally, your source does not say it was a "PUBLIC" attack.
Actually it does, in one of the narrative pages.
So, is your Galileo timeline chart (the one you cited from) wrong then?
EDIT: Just pointing out that two of your sources apparently contradict each other on a factual matter. Or are both correct - did Lorini attack Galileo in private in 1612, give him an apology; then attack him in public in 1613 and give him another apology before going to the Inquisition in 1615?
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAre you still claiming to be on the "rational" side ? Because what you are showing us in this thread certainly points in the opposite direction.
Upon reflection, it seems reasonable that Galileo was actually striving to achieve the position of Grand Inquisitor. So, for the 100th anniversary of his pardon, the Office of the Inquisition could begin another military crusade under the honorary direction of Galileo, and then we could put to the test the question of whether the people "loved their inquisition!"
14 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAre you aware what a contradiction is? We can say the Galileo timeline has an omission, whereas the other site the Trial Of Galileo is more detailed. This is unsurprising because it is a law school website regarding a TRIAL, albeit a farcical one.
no1-
Actually it does, in one of the narrative pages.
So, is your Galileo timeline chart (the one you cited from) wrong then?
EDIT: Just pointing out that two of your sources apparently contradict each other on a factual matter. Or are both correct - did Lorini attack Galileo in private in 1612, give him an apology; then attack him in public in 1613 and give him another apology before going to the Inquisition in 1615?
14 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerUnfortunately, the historian who makes the claim that virtually no historian believe that heliocentric views were the "primary" reason Galileo was brought before the Inquistion completely ignores salient facts. That being that Fignoricacci's heliocentric book was banned, Copernicius books were banned until "corrected" and heliocentricism itself was declared a heresy, all in 1616. I can only assume that he did not put much effort in a short article he wrote for the Skeptical Inquirer. Since those facts are certainly pertinent and relevant as to why Galileo was brought before the Inquistion, his failure to mention them is a serious lack of scholarship. The complaints brought to the Inquistion concerning Galileo were all primarily concerned with heliocentricism. And the judgment against Galileo stresses that heliocentric theory is heretical.
no1: "A judgment on a historical occurrence requires no special expertise."
I couldn't disagree more. If you're right, then why do we need historians? Why do we hand out PhDs in history? You might think that judging what and why something happened 400 years ago is no different from judging something that happened 4 months ago (as it might in a cour reason, yes, but there is no dispute that it isn't what you claim it is.
I guess none of us need think at all; some historian can tell us what is the historical truth. The opinion of real experts is entitled to some weight, but ultimately each person must make there own decision on such matters based on the EVIDENCE. You've miserably failed to produce EVIDENCE to support your contentions and have simply fallen back on "Professor X says so". This is at very best, a weak argument and most likely, fallacious.
14 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis position is "blaming the victim" pure and simple. The actual sequence of events utterly refutes your interpretation as a reasonable explanation. Galileo was clearly responding to attempts to get him tried for heresy by people inside the Church. And by the explicit wording of his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (not your convoluted reasoning, which would be a poor technique for a "pamphlet"😉 he was merely asking that heliocentrism not be declared a heresy, not that it be declared the truth (though he believed it was and was correct).
I didn't say Galileo coerced the Church into trying him for heresy. 🙂
I said that Galileo attempted to coerce the Church into supporting his heliocentric views; the attempt backfired and he ended up on trial for heresy. Now maybe "coerce" is too strong a word, but I certainly think he intended it; probably not as an end in itself but, given Galile o. Rather, as my mother would put it, it's a reminder that "it takes two hands to clap".
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerPresumably, Castelli, the Grand Duchess or one of their servants, leaked the letter. Happens all the time nowadays, so why not then. You are suggesting that Galileo made several copies of his letters; so where it your proof?
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.