OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Iggiboo:
But then again, the Church had no evidence beyond "We Say So"

Exactly.

The Church was only science because they condemned all real scientists as heretics.

[Rigelian]

That said, the "church fathers" who condemned Galileo were not condeming without reason. Their challenge was that his data was simply not rigourous enough to overthrow the overwhelmingly accepted science of the era, which indicated that the earth was indeed the centre of the universe. If his data had only been massaged the right way, it might have even been convincing (however, this is not to say that the other scientists/church fathers would have accepted or denied the data - that would be so hypothetical that it would only amount to hopeful interpretation or even slander either way).

You are saying that Galileos theories were rejected on scientific grounds? Not so; they were rejected because if accepted as literally true they would have contradicted already-stated church doctrine. The church was quite prepared to allow Galileos methods to be used in navigational charts etc, as long as they were only viewed as mathematical constructs that conveniently reached accurate conclusions.

It did happen later, that someone (his name eludes me at the moment) did massage the data in an approriate way. By attaching said Galilean data to eliptical orbits rather than Galileo's circular orbits, did the concept of a helio-centric solar system finally make good scientific sense. Until that point, helio-certrism was accepted on the basis of a faith that the simpler (though unsubstantiated) system was more likely to be correct. Note: this is not an Occam's razor arguement, because Occam's says that "all things being equal, the simplest Version is likely the more accurate". In this case, the simplest Version was not equal, because the math was way to difficult preceding the elipse.

But even with the complication of the elliptical orbit (and the oribit of the earth is not dramatically elliptical) the heliocentric explanation was way superior to the alternatives. Take the retrograde motion of Mars for example; this is easily explained by the Earth 'catching' up Mars because of our shorter orbital period. Previous explanations had required ludicrously-contrived and complex scenarios with multiple interconnected spheres and who knows what else. The heliocentric explanation certainly did meet the Occams razor test there.

Galileo provides us with another analogy (taken from the Dava Sobel book). When Galileo did his experiment with a heavy and light ball dropped from a tower, there was of course a slight difference in the time taken to fall, the heavier ball taking slightly less time. Galileo correctly attributed this to air resistance. What frustrated him at the time was that his doubters, who had predicted the heavy ball falling several times faster than the lighter, siezed upon this small difference as disproving Galileo entirely. I put it to you that the elliptical/circular orbits fall into this Category. Incidentally I think it was Kepler who got it right in the end.

Though Galileos support of the Copernical heliocentric theory is well-publicised, what was just as significant was his discovery of moons around Jupiter. This had massive theological implications, because of the distinction between the 'pure' heavens (with planets, stars etc) and the 'base' earth.

The real conflict was between the old world view, based on argument from authority, and Galileos groundbreaking approach which placed the EVIDENCE above all other considerations. This is why he is regarded as the father of modern science. Today it seems ludicrous to us that noone had (for example) thought to test whether heavy and light objects would fall at the same rate. It was just too intuitively obvious to them to even question it.

There is a play by Bertold Brecht about the life of Galileo, in which a group of church elders arrive at his house to debate his theories. Regardless of the (dubious) historical accuracy of this, the key scene is where Galileo is begging the churchmen to just look through his telescope and see the moons of Jupiter for themselves. They refuse, preferring to sit down and have a theological debate about the perfect spheres or some such. This actually gets a laugh from the audience - how could they be so stupid? But it is a superb illustration of this complete shift in perspective.

In the modern scientific system, if a theory is contradicted by the evidence then it is WRONG. Simply wrong. No matter that Plato or Aristotle (or Newton or Einstein for that matter) believed it to be true. The argument from authority is back where it came from, and where it belongs - in the realm of superstition and religion.

[Chronon]

Rigelian and JimBob, excellent points on Galileo - I see that you have read some of the latest historical work on his life. Most of which, by the way, supports your argument that events were much more complex than good Galileo versus bad Church.

You have nicely laid out the general terms of the disagreement between Galileo and the Church, but I would like to add that it wasn't strictly a case of "we say so" versus overwhelming scientific evidence. There was some criticism of the heliocentric model that I would consider legitimate from a scientific and mathematical perspective. Yes, Galileo had the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, and the explanation of Mars' retrograde motion in his favor. But, since he continued to use Copernicus' circular orbital model, he could not explain why planets appear to speed up and slow down in their orbits (elliptical orbits solved this problem, but Galileo ignored Kepler's work), nor could he find stellar parallax. The idea behind parallax is that IF the Earth were moving, then we should see changes of position in stars relative to one another as we move across the heavens. With the instruments available at the time of Galileo's trial, no one could see parallax. Galileo's counter-argument was that the stars are so far away that the motion would be imperceptible. As it turns out he was right, but he could not prove it at the time.

Moreover, and perhaps even more problematic, was that there was a third option beyond the heliocentric and geocentric models: the Tychonic system. Tycho Brahe, perhaps the greatest observational astronomer of the time, had created a system that could explain all of Galileo's findings and still "save the appearances" and keep the Earth at the center of the universe. His system had the Earth at the center, the Sun revolving around the Earth, and all the other planets (except our moon, of course) revolving around the Sun. An ingenious system, really, and dynamically speaking it was the equivalent of the heliocentric model. So, Galileo's detractors could point to more than just theological problems with his work.

But it was, as Jimbob and Rigelian have pointed out, the theological problems that really got him in trouble. Especially his insistence that the Bible be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. This was a clear intrusion on Church turf, and Urban VIII could not allow that to pass without some kind of punishment.

The other example, Giordano Bruno, is more compelling because he was burned at the stake (instead of being put under house arrest). But here again the story is more complex. It was really his refusal to accept the Holy Trinity, more than his scientific theories, that rendered him a heretic.

One Last point...(I'm almost done, I promise ) Copernicus was actually a member of the Church (administering church property in Poland), and the reason that he was investigating astronomy was Calendar reform. The existing Calendar did not predict Easter well, and the Pope wanted to revise it in line with the actual motions of the planets. So, it was a religious reason that spurred Copernicus to work on the problem.

Sorry for the length of this post - I got carried away. This is one of my favorite historical topics.

[Fyron]

If the Church simply disagreed with Galileo's mathematics, then the Pope would not have threatened to excommunicate Galileo if he did not publicly renounce his works.

[Chronon]

I hope that my post did not imply that the only issue was mathematics. My point was that Galileo had not conclusively proven his argument; there remained some "scientific" ammunition for his adversaries - enough so that his views could be attacked on more than just theological grounds.

But, as was said earlier, the real issue was the Church's refusal to give up authority in the realm of physical reality, and Galileo's ill advised attempt to push the Church in that direction by making his view about biblical exegesis public. When he argued that the Bible should be read metaphorically, that was a clear intrusion into the Church's philosophical domain.

Getting back to your main argument that the Church held back science, I think the story is much more complex than the simple narrative given in the old textbooks. Yes, there was some conservatism in the Church, and yes, the condemnation of Galileo was a big mistake (one that has only recently been corrected). But, it is impossible to separate science from Christianity in the early modern period (1500-1789), because the vast majority of the leading figures in the history of science worked within a Christian framework (including Newton, whose work brought God back into the picture because of the mysterious, almost supernatural, force of gravity - it was not a strictly mechanical or material phenomenon). So, I do not think it is really useful to say that the Church held back scientific progress in any systematic way. The two are inextricably connected, and it is only our 21st-century perspective that creates such a clear cut dichotomy between church and science.

In any case, I imagine that neither one of us will convince the other. I have enjoyed the discussion, though. So, since I've contributed to a digression, I should probably wrap this up and bring the thread back on topic.

I have always found your SEIV advice useful, and I would most certainly would rate you a five (if I were able). Thanks again for your contributions to the forum.

[ March 09, 2003, 20:48: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Fyron]

that was a clear intrusion into the Church's philosophical domain.

The Church does not have a philosophical domain. It does not provide logical arguments for why it is right, it just says that what it says is right, period. So, there is no philosophy about it.

But, it is impossible to separate science from Christianity in the early modern period (1500-1789)

My argument was that the Church held back advancement during the European Dark Ages, not during this period. I just could not think of any specific examples of people during the European Dark Ages that were persecuted for thinking for themselves.

[ March 09, 2003, 21:20: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Chronon]

Since we're off topic, I thought I should open a new thread for this discussion. You'll find it here

[Fyron]

This thread is already 100% off topic. Opening a new thread is redundant.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Chronon:
the Tychonic system. Tycho Brahe, perhaps the greatest observational astronomer of the time, had created a system that could explain all of Galileo's findings and still "save the appearances" and keep the Earth at the center of the universe. His system had the Earth at the center, the Sun revolving around the Earth, and all the other planets (except our moon, of course) revolving around the Sun.

Wow, amazing. I had never heard of this guy, though I was familiar with his concept.
When did he live?
Where was he from?

And can his theory be the correct one?

[Captain Kwok]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Wow, amazing. I had never heard of this guy, though I was familiar with his concept.
When did he live?
Where was he from?

And can his theory be the correct one?

No, his theory cannot be correct, although I don't have enough time to explain why at the moment.

However, he died from an infection after his bladder burst (That's why you should never hold it ) while he was making observations one night.