Dava Sobel, the woman who wrote _Longitude_, has translated letters written
by Galileo's illegitimate daughter and researched them and other documents
to show us that the story was more complex by far than the standard
hagiography of science. Some quotes:
"He didn't have to reject his religion to do what he did. He becomes so
much more complex and interesting when seen in this entirety.''
Perhaps the most compelling fact that surfaces is that Galileo forged a
strong, meaningful relationship with the Church and that he pressed his
heliocentric theories not to destroy the Catholic teachings, but to protect
them.
''He essentially said `Look, someone's going to come along someday with a
more powerful telescope than mine and prove it to you,'' says Sobel. ''He
didn't want his Church to look foolish.''
Dava Sobel, the woman who wrote _Longitude_, has translated
letters written by Galileo's illegitimate daughter and researched
them and other documents to show us that the story was more
complex by far than the standard hagiography of science.
Some quotes:
"He didn't have to reject his religion to do what he did. He
becomes so much more complex and interesting when seen in this
entirety.''
Linda just got "Galileo's Daughter" as a book on tape; I'm
looking forward to listening to it.
I don't believe that the "standard hagiography" has Galileo
rejecting religion; I think it has him rejecting dogma. Galileo
is a scientific saint because he pushed the idea (still radical
in our own highly religious era) of _testing_ one's ideas (what
we would now call "models") against _observation_. I think the
best (probably apocryphal) Galileo story has him offering the
telescope to the Pope (or the Doge or whomever) who refuses to
look. People who refuse to look (properly) are still with us,
of course, and they are not just people defending conventional
religious beliefs. Behavioral scientists, for example, have
refused to look at controlled variables through the "telescope"
of the Test; like the Pope, their refusal to look is their
means of defending their existing beliefs.
Galileo is a scientific saint because he didn't just take the
word of authorities (like Aristotle or the writers of the
Biblical scrolls); he used his noodle to devise _tests_ of
what these authorities said and then he actually _did_ the
tests and _observed_ the results. Hallelujah. Unto us a
scientist is born.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
Dava Sobel, the woman who wrote _Longitude_, has translated letters written
by Galileo's illegitimate daughter and researched them and other documents
to show us that the story was more complex by far than the standard
hagiography of science. Some quotes:
"He didn't have to reject his religion to do what he did. He becomes so
much more complex and interesting when seen in this entirety.''
Perhaps the most compelling fact that surfaces is that Galileo forged a
strong, meaningful relationship with the Church and that he pressed his
heliocentric theories not to destroy the Catholic teachings, but to protect
them.
''He essentially said `Look, someone's going to come along someday with a
more powerful telescope than mine and prove it to you,'' says Sobel. ''He
didn't want his Church to look foolish.''
It's so easy to forget why scientists in those days (Descartes, Galileo,
and many others) would have been ultra-cautious about contradicting
official dogma. I would have done the same: I would have said that PCT is
not contrary to the teachings of the church, and indeed I would have found
scriptural justification for each principle I publicly proposed. I would
have said how thankful I was to God for the gift of understanding, and how
humbly I await the interpretations of the Church leaders to guide me further.
I am not kidding in the slightest. The alternatives to letting the Church
have its way were incredibly ghastly, and I'm sure that every sane
scientist was vividly aware of the end that awaited heretics. Any
interpretations of writings of scientists prior to the 20th Century that do
not take into account the barbarity of religious institutions and customs
can't possibly be plausible.
Bill Powers (991108.1112 MDT) re: Galileo and religion
The alternatives to letting the Church have its way were
incredibly ghastly, and I'm sure that every sane scientist
was vividly aware of the end that awaited heretics. Any
interpretations of writings of scientists prior to the
20th Century that do not take into account the barbarity
of religious institutions and customs can't possibly be
plausible.
A frighteningly good point!
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
I would have said how thankful I was to God for the gift of
understanding, and how humbly I await the interpretations of
the Church leaders to guide me further.
Oops. I forgot to mention that, since your intentions would
have been aligned with those of the Church leaders, your own
theory (as interpreted by many of your followers) would have said
that you were not being coerced to into making these statements.
At least Galileo knew who the opposition was;-)
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
Oops. I forgot to mention that, since your intentions would
have been aligned with those of the Church leaders, your own
theory (as interpreted by many of your followers) would have said
that you were not being coerced to into making these statements.
At least Galileo knew who the opposition was;-)
My intentions would have been aligned with those of the Church leaders only
to the extent of governing what I said and published where they might hear
or see it. The reason for such alignment would have been my fear of
physical torture, which I would have had good reason to expect they would
apply to me if I said what I really thought. The reason would not have been
that I actually agreed with them, or had changed my thoughts about PCT. If
the threat of torture for heresy had not been present, I would have spoken
freely.
After the previous discussions of "coercion," I don't know what that word
means any more, so my long statement above will have to suffice.