Regarding Galileo and his "martyrdom"

[Battlehymn Republic]

I've read the novel 1633: Galileo Affair (part of the Ring of Fire/Greenville series), and it paints a very interesting view of Galileo and the Catholic Church at the time. Instead of being in trouble with a Dark Ages-styled RCC, the RCC was just sick of his hot-headed and brash demeanor.

I do know that Galileo was at times stubborn and did somewhat insult the Pope, but is the view accurate? According to the novel, the RCC had its own astronomers, some who believed in the same heliocentric view. They just didn't like Galileo.

[dworkin]

IIRC Galileo's main sponser was the Pope. He also presented heliocentrism as a satirical play starring a layman, a wise man and an imbecile. Anyone with a grain of brain could tell who the wise man (Galileo) and the imbecile (Pope) were. This was distributed everywhere.
Understandably, the Pope was pissed.

[kheegster]

He wrote his work Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, as the title suggests, in the form of a dialogue, with the geocentric view being taken by a character named Simplicio, which is a name which can be taken to mean 'simpleton'. Simplicio gets owned in the debate, and worse, Galileo put in to Simplicio's mouth some of the Pope's main arguments.

Not a very good way to curry favour with the most powerful man in your land.

[Il Saggiatore]

He wrote his work Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, as the title suggests, in the form of a dialogue, with the geocentric view being taken by a character named Simplicio, which is a name which can be taken to mean 'simpleton'. Simplicio gets owned in the debate, and worse, Galileo put in to Simplicio's mouth some of the Pope's main arguments.

Not a very good way to curry favour with the most powerful man in your land.

An aristotlean philosopher named Simplicio had actually existed in the late Middle Ages, if I remember correctly.

Anyway, Galileo was not exactly kind to his critics.
The book Il Saggiatore *cough* is an example of that: imagine Darth Wong's debating style, but without the explicit language.

[Darth Wong]

Is the idea of this thread to suggest that it's OK to persecute someone for his opinion if he was disrespectful? How would this refute the fact that Galileo was a martyr for science?

The fact is that the clash between science and religion was inevitable; if Galileo did not fire the salvo, someone else would have had to. And yes, sooner or later someone would have had to point out that science need not respect the gibbering bullshit of religious authorities.

[Il Saggiatore]

The fact is that the clash between science and religion was inevitable; if Galileo did not fire the salvo, someone else would have had to. And yes, sooner or later someone would have had to point out that science need not respect the gibbering bullshit of religious authorities.

This is actually the main contribution of Galileo to us: he argued that our knowledge of the natural world is not subjected to the authority of philosophers and theologists, but is determined by what can be observed and experimented.
It is from this position that one can understand why Simplicio seems to be ridiculed in Galileo's Dialogues.

[Shroom Man 777]

Besides, Galileo wasn't martyred, he was just told to STFU. Wasn't it Bruno who got burninated?

[Il Saggiatore]

Besides, Galileo wasn't martyred, he was just told to STFU. Wasn't it Bruno who got burninated?

Galileo was already old when he was imprisoned and forced to retract the statements defying the Church's authority.
After he retracted he was placed in house-arrest. This was not just a slap on the wrist.

Bruno was burned at the stake because he did not retract his heretical statements.

[Shroom Man 777]

I know what the Church did to Galileo was bad, mmmkay? I was just saying that, technically, he wasn't a martyr.

[Il Saggiatore]

I know what the Church did to Galileo was bad, mmmkay? I was just saying that, technically, he wasn't a martyr.

You mean, he was not killed.

[Shroom Man 777]

Yes. Which is the (or at least, one of the) definition of 'martyr'.

I'm just nitpicking - and confused, since you people are saying he got martyred while all I know was that he was told to STFU.

[Il Saggiatore]

Yes. Which is the (or at least, one of the) definition of 'martyr'.

I'm just nitpicking - and confused, since you people are saying he got martyred while all I know was that he was told to STFU.

Effectively he is a martyr.
If he had not retracted his statements, he would have been at least imprisoned for the rest of his life.
If he had been younger (like Bruno), he probably would not have retracted.

He was an old man forced to retract his work under the threat of imprisonment and excommunication.
The trial ended his career as a researcher, at least publicly (it seems he kept working on on a couple of books).
He was used as an example by the Church.

No amount of nitpicking changes the fact that he was a martyr for modern science: he was punished for defying the the authority of religion over science.

[Il Saggiatore]

I've read the novel 1633: Galileo Affair (part of the Ring of Fire/Greenville series), and it paints a very interesting view of Galileo and the Catholic Church at the time. Instead of being in trouble with a Dark Ages-styled RCC, the RCC was just sick of his hot-headed and brash demeanor.

I do know that Galileo was at times stubborn and did somewhat insult the Pope, but is the view accurate? According to the novel, the RCC had its own astronomers, some who believed in the same heliocentric view. They just didn't like Galileo.

Apparently I did not really pay attention to the opening post.

The Church went after Galileo because he supported the position that theology and philosophy do not overrule observations and experiments when it comes to understanding the natural world.
He defied the Church's authority, and the Church punished him for this.

[Darth Wong]

One thing we have to keep in mind is that standards of obnoxious behaviour change. Today, the idea that scientists must bring all of their ideas before religious authorities for approval would be considered utterly absurd and dangerously stupid. But back then, it was the order of the land, and anyone who disagreed with this policy was considered "arrogant" and disruptive to society. So yes, the church no doubt thought that Galileo was an arrogant prick. The problem is that their idea of "arrogance" was bullshit. Anyone who did not submit themselves completely to Church authority was "arrogant" in their eyes.

And BTW, it would not in any way reduce the magnitude of the Church's crime even if Galileo was arrogant by modern standards. You can't imprison someone or threaten to burn him at the stake for being arrogant; that mentality alone is yet another indictment of the medieval church. To deny that they had a Dark Ages mentality is self-delusion at best, and an outright lie at worst.

[Il Saggiatore]

One thing we have to keep in mind is that standards of obnoxious behaviour change. Today, the idea that scientists must bring all of their ideas before religious authorities for approval would be considered utterly absurd and dangerously stupid.

Ah yes, the approval on books (imprimatur is the term, I think).
Isn't it ironic that Kopernik's book was not blacklisted at the beginning, because somebody put a disclaimer on it, saying that it was just a theory (for computations) and not a fact?

[tharkûn]

The Church went after Galileo because he supported the position that theology and philosophy do not overrule observations and experiments when it comes to understanding the natural world.

Actually no when Galileo first sent out his letter to Castelli that the Bible must be interpreted in light of experimental evidence, the Inquisition found no fault with it. The problem was that the Church followed Brahe (who had Luna, the stars and Sol revolving around earth ... and everything else revolving around Sol). Galileo's problem wasn't that he was Copernican - Kepler was a Copernican with church backing - but that he pissed off the authorities and that his science was spectatularly wrong. He never managed to answer the question of parralax (that the universe was orders of magnitude larger than previously thought), nor could he correctly predict the periods of planets (he used circles instead of elipses), and his ideas about tides, comets, and a host of other concepts were demonstrably wrong - in short all the evidence at hand supported the Tychonian model and Galileo's arguements aren't nearly as convincing as those of Kepler.

What was done to Galileo was despicable, but it had far more to do with personal vanity than science. Kepler published far more radical theories, but he wasn't locked away because he had years worth of hard evidence and massive amounts of predictive value in his work. Indeed Kepler was an admitted heretic in a Countereformation court. Both Kepler and Galileo held Copernican views, both thought the scriptures should be interpreted in light of scientific observation, and both published those views. Only Galileo was locked away, largely because he insulted the highest official in the Catholic Church.

[Il Saggiatore]

The Church went after Galileo because he supported the position that theology and philosophy do not overrule observations and experiments when it comes to understanding the natural world.

Actually no when Galileo first sent out his letter to Castelli that the Bible must be interpreted in light of experimental evidence, the Inquisition found no fault with it. The problem was that the Church followed Brahe (who had Luna, the stars and Sol revolving around earth ... and everything else revolving around Sol). Galileo's problem wasn't that he was Copernican - Kepler was a Copernican with church backing - but that he pissed off the authorities and that his science was spectatularly wrong.

How did he piss them off?
By telling the Church that it has no business telling scientists what is true about the natural world.

He never managed to answer the question of parralax (that the universe was orders of magnitude larger than previously thought), nor could he correctly predict the periods of planets (he used circles instead of elipses), and his ideas about tides, comets, and a host of other concepts were demonstrably wrong - in short all the evidence at hand supported the Tychonian model and Galileo's arguements aren't nearly as convincing as those of Kepler.

His observations of the Medicean System (the major satellites around Jupiter) and of the phases of Venus, were not exactly in support of the Tychonian model.

Galileo's research was not restricted to astronomy: before he started observations with his telescopes, he dedicated himself to experiments in dynamics (that's where ballistics came from).

What was done to Galileo was despicable, but it had far more to do with personal vanity than science. Kepler published far more radical theories, but he wasn't locked away because he had years worth of hard evidence and massive amounts of predictive value in his work. Indeed Kepler was an admitted heretic in a Countereformation court. Both Kepler and Galileo held Copernican views, both thought the scriptures should be interpreted in light of scientific observation, and both published those views. Only Galileo was locked away, largely because he insulted the highest official in the Catholic Church.

Galileo challenged directly the authority of the Church in science and defied the Church's admonitions.

Unfortunately I do not have any sources at hand, at the moment.
However, free electronic versions of the Galileo's wroks (in original) can be found here.

[Dark Hellion]

Galileo pissed the church off by being one of the most amazing assholes in all of history. He was belittling to his opponents, regardless of their skills in debate and the science they had at hand. Think of how pissed you would be if someone said to you in a debate "well, that is a good point, but you're still a stupid motherfucker."
Was the church wrong, defintely, was Galileo absolutely idiotic in his repeated antagonisms of the church, absolutely.
One should note that most of the important church officials agreed with him on heliocentricism, including the Popes nephew. He lost on his own incompetance with dealing with authority, not on the merits of his arguments.

[tharkûn]

How did he piss them off?

Called them idiots, insulted the dignaty of the most powerful man in the Catholic religion. This is the Countereformation, defaming the pope is a quite serious matter in its own right.

By telling the Church that it has no business telling scientists what is true about the natural world.

BS. The Inquisition read his views on the places of science and religion when his letter to Castelli was given over by his opponents for the express purpose of getting him trouble, they did nothing.

His observations of the Medicean System (the major satellites around Jupiter) and of the phases of Venus, were not exactly in support of the Tychonian model.

Um the Tychonian model gives phases of Venus, it is only an epicycle which keeps Venus from going from between the Earth and Sol as well as behind Sol from earth that had phase problems. The numbers on the Tychonian system, just dropping the moons into a circular orbit around Jupitor fit better than Galileo's attempt to place them on circular orbits on another circular orbit.

Quite frankly both of those bits of evidence have absolutely nothing on the biggest problem with Galileo's circular heliocentrism - parrallax. If the earth revolves around Sol then the relative position of the stars should change. Brahe actually worked out the numbers and concluded that either the universe was geocentric (kindof) or the stars were at an unimaginable distance. Without the conceptual understanding of vacuum and light-years, the balance of evidence was with the Tychonian model, which is what Inquisition held to be true. Kepler had far superior evidence that could not be explained away by adding small devices into the Tychonian model - but then he didn't fall into the trap of assuming circular orbits. Once Kepler's laws of planetary motion come out the debate is over and the Inquisition has no problem with it.

Galileo's research was not restricted to astronomy: before he started observations with his telescopes, he dedicated himself to experiments in dynamics (that's where ballistics came from).

Which got him into zero trouble with the establishment. His optics were impressive and his acceleration experiments while wrong in concept (for instance his theory of motion ended up attributing the tides to the motion of the earth) were correct in detail.

Galileo challenged directly the authority of the Church in science and defied the Church's admonitions.

No he didn't. He waited until his personal patron was head of the church, elected to ridicule that man. Several members of the Inquisition themselves were Copernican and as noted other astronomers had no problems being Copernican and publishing their work. Galileo got hammered because he insulted the guy in the big hat, was not on terribly secure scientific footing (the Inquisition actually made scientific arguements against him at one point), and had deplorable timing. It was terrible what was done to him, but it happened more because the Catholic Chruch was vain than because of his science.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I read up to Mike Wong's first post asking about the idea of this thread.

My point for this thread was to confirm my suspicion that Galileo's persecution wasn't the big climatic religion vs. science confrontation everyone thinks it to be. As I've said, the Church had its own astronomers, some who also believed in the heliocentric system.

As with the Scopes Monkey Trial, perhaps people think it to be a purely science vs. crazytalk martyrdom of science.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Galieo was an asshole? To which I ask you- so fucking what? It doesn't matter if he was a jerk; he was RIGHT.

[tharkûn]

It doesn't matter if he was a jerk; he was RIGHT.

Yes and no. His theory about comets was laughable. His astronomical model was less accurate than the one he attacked. His theories about motion and especially the tides were off base.

He was very right about optics and acceleration. He was right about the center of the solar system as well as the 'non-pristine' nature of the heavens.

What Galileo got right about astronomy he did so inspite of the evidence, not necessarily because of it.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Exactly. My point isn't that Galileo was an asshole; the Church was showing their own stubborness and stupidity themselves by punishing him. My point is that it seems that Galileo wasn't the posterchild of a scientist-victim in a witch trial as everyone thinks he is. The RCC had their own astronomers, too, albeit more dogmatic ones.

Did no one else read that? Or the 1633 book?

[Stormbringer]

Exactly. My point isn't that Galileo was an asshole; the Church was showing their own stubborness and stupidity themselves by punishing him.

Pissing off a 1600s ruler was a good way of having bad things happen; that's a universal fact of life back then. Gallelio's run in with the Church came in a large part because he publically ripped on the Pope and other officials, the science was in large part incidental.

It's not right what was done but then again he didn't get in trouble because of science. And he wound up where he did because of his own ego, vanity, and hubris not because of his dedication to science.

My point is that it seems that Galileo wasn't the posterchild of a scientist-victim in a witch trial as everyone thinks he is. The RCC had their own astronomers, too, albeit more dogmatic ones.

For that matter, the Church's own astromoners had actually made similar observations, they didn't speak up because the G man ripped on their (accurate) work in defense of his own incorrect work. I mean the man publically savaged them something fierce. So they weren't inclined to defend him, they pretty much said he was wrong and left it at that.

[Il Saggiatore]

Galileo got into trouble because he challenged the Church's authority on science.
Questioning the Church in one field, opens the door to questioning its authority in other fields, which is something the Church could not allow.

Galileo challenged the Church by supporting the Copernican model as a fact, not just a useful theory.

From this page:

His Holiness has directed the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to summon before him the said Galileo and admonish him to abandon the said opinion; and, in case of his refusal to obey, the Commissary of the Holy Office is to enjoin him, before notary and witnesses, a command to abstain altogether from defending this opinion and doctrine and even discussing it....

Friday, the twenty-sixth. At the palace, the usual residence of Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo, having been summoned and being present before the said Lord Cardinal, was, in the presence of the Most Reverend Michelangelo Segizi of Lodi, of the order of Preachers, Commissary-General of the Holy Office, by the said Cardinal, warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion and admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter, before me and before witnesses, the Lord Cardinal being present, the said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsover, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey. Done at Rome, in the place aforesaid, in the presence of R. Badino Nores, of Nicosia in the kingdom of Cyprus, and Agostino Mongardo, from a place in the Abbey of Rose in the diocese of Montepulciano, members of the household of said Cardinal, witnesses.

(bolding mine)

Galileo: I was in Rome in the year 1616; then I was here in the second year of His Holiness Urban VIII's pontificate; and lastly I was here three years ago, the occasion being that I wanted to have my book printed. The occasion for my being in Rome in the year 1616 was that, having heard objections to Nicolaus Copernicus's opinion on the earth's motion, the sun's stability, and the arrangement of the heavenly spheres, in order to be sure of holding only holy and Catholic opinions, I came to hear what was proper to hold in regard to this topic.
Holy Office: Whether he came of his own accord or was summoned, what the reason was why he was summoned, and with which person or persons he discussed the above-mentioned topics.
Galileo: In 1616 I came to Rome of my own accord, without being summoned, for the reason I mentioned. In Rome I discussed this matter with some cardinals who oversaw the Holy Office at that time, especially with Cardinals Bellarmine, Aracoeli, San Eusebio, Bonsi, and d' Ascoli.
Holy Office: What specifically he discussed with the above-mentioned cardinals.
Galileo: The occasion for discussing with the said cardinals was that they wanted to be informed about Copernicus's doctrine, his book being very difficult to understand for those who are not professional mathematicians and astronomers. In particular they wanted to understand the arrangement of the heavenly spheres according to Copernicus's hypothesis, how he places the sun at the center of the planets' orbits, how around the sun he places next the orbit of Mercury, around the latter that of Venus, then the moon around the earth, and around this Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn; and in regard to motion, he makes the sun stationary at the center and the earth turn on itself and around the sun, that is, on itself with the diurnal motion and around the sun with the annual motion.
Holy Office: Since, as he says, he came to Rome to be able to have the resolution and the truth regarding the above, what then was decided about this matter.
Galileo: Regarding the controversy which centered on the above-mentioned opinion of the sun's stability and earth's motion, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index that this opinion, taken absolutely, is repugnant to Holy Scripture and is to be admitted only suppositionally, in the way that Copernicus takes it.

(bolding mine)
Copernicus's opinion was Osiander's disclaimer on his book, namely that the Copernican model is merely a useful theory, not a fact.
And this was decided already in 1616.

Galileo, however, did not take Copernius's theory only suppositionally.
He defied the Curch's authority by saying that true knowledge about the natural world does not come from the opinions of authors, but from observations and experiment.
If observations of the natural world contradict the Bible, the observations overrule the statements in the Bible.

Galileo was probably a prick, his theories might have been wrong, but he challenged the Church and the Holy Scripture as a source of true knowledge about the natural world.
He did not insult the Pope, he dedicated his books to him.
Galileo ridiculed the armchair scientists and the philosophers that state their opinions about the natural world as a fact, without lifting their eyes from their books (this did not include Aristotle himself).

Even though some Church officials might have agreed with him, Galileo's defiance could have undermined the Church's authority in other fields, something that could not be allowed in the Counterreformation climate.