Talk:Galileo

I think we need to discuss some points at issue.

• I cannot understand why RSchlafly keeps editing out the statement about the order for Galileo's book to be burned - every source I have checked gives this as a fact. What evidence is there that this did not happen?
• I also cannot understand why he disagrees that the common understanding of the period was that the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the universe - what is the evidence that this was not taught at the time?
• It's also true as far as other sources tell me that other books than Galileo's dealing with Copernican theories were added to the Index of Forbidden Books. Galileo's theories were denounced from the pulpit and to the Medici by the Dominicans, so I don't understand why that should have been taken out in his edit.
• I also think the point about Galileo's work, however inaccurate in some respects by modern standards, being the first commonly-accepted example of the use of the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, observation and falsifiability is quite central, and can't understand why this should have been removed in RSchlafly's edit. Please can we discuss these before any further edits are made.--Britinme 15:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Saying that the book was burned implies that the only copy was lost. It was not. Copies were readily available to other scholars.RSchlafly 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Copies of the book were burned, according to several reputable sources. It's obvious that some survived, but the point was that some were burned at the instructions of the Church. Unless you can come up with some reasonable evidence that they weren't, this point should go back in.--Britinme 18:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

So how many copies were burned? Who owned those copies? RSchlafly 20:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The Bible was just one of many reasons for thinking that the Earth was at the center. Any statement that it was the only reason, or even the main reason, is just wrong.RSchlafly 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Would you like to come up with some evidence for that statement? It is a widely held view, and if you are going to dispute it you ought to be able to cite some evidence in support of your position.--Britinme 18:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The main reason was the success of the Ptolemaic system, and that had nothing to do with the Bible. RSchlafly 20:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It is okay to say what was being banned or denounced, as long as it says what was really being banned or denounced. RSchlafly 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I think I made it clear that what was being denounced was the treating of Copernicus' theories as if they were real rather than hypothetical.--Britinme 18:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it clear enough now? RSchlafly 20:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that Galileo invented the scientific method is just nonsense. RSchlafly 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, Bacon's version of the scientific method, although certainly revolutionary for his period, was not based on mathematics and measurement in the same way as Galileo's. However, we can compromise on the wording and say Galileo 'is often regarded' is the inventor of the scientific method. I don't think Bacon was concerned with falsifiability, which is fairly central to Galileo - after all, he started by questioning Aristotle, using experiment and observation to do so.--Britinme 18:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

No, it is not okay to say that Galileo is often regarded as having invented the scientific method unless it also says that it is false. There are a lot of goofy stories about Galileo, and we don't want to just repeat myths. RSchlafly 20:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Surely the scientific method is traditionally credited to Roger Bacon, some centuries earlier? (I.e. I'm agreeing...) Dpbsmith 15:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

He thinks it's anti-Catholic, but it's also factual... I checked the sources and did my own research. Is that how it works on Conservapedia? Censor the unpleasant stuff?-BillBuck 15:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

You bet it is. Check out the history of the McCarthy article. --PF Fox 15:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, that's exactly how it works. The thing to always remember is that the sysops have the block and ban controls and will happily revert any edits they don't agree with and, if you protest, block you. Far from being a well run community site, it's a totalitarian ego project and I'd suggest you do something more productive with your time. --Rob Roy 15:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

BillBuck just reverted all my edits, without explanation. If something is incorrect, then post your evidence here. It is not acceptable to just insert a bunch of anti-Catholic myths without evidence.

PF Fox is a McCarthy hater, who wanted the McCarthy article to include a bunch of attacks on McCarthy. If you check the history there, you'll find that I personally made sure that the article include a summary of PF Fox's criticisms of McCarthy. RSchlafly 15:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry I reverted without explanation, RSchlafly, but since you removed much of the previous editor's work, or modified it heavily, without comment, I figured it was proper for me to do the same. I treated your unexplained changes as mere vandalism, so of course I reverted them after finding them to be erroneous, and I assumed no further discussion was necessary.-BillBuck 18:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I corrected a number of errors, and left in what was not in errror. If you think that something is now in error, then please explain here. RSchlafly 20:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Things to correct

Dont know why this page is locked, couldn't find any edit wars from the history, but never the less, here are some changes i would hope to be made to this article. Firstly, i would like to get the sentence: "but this was commuted to permanent house arrest with a generous Church pension." to be canged so that it wouldn't anymore claim the pension to be generous. There is no info that it would have been generous on the citation (40 scudies after some investigation from other sources). And in current form it now makes it look like Galileo was awarder with house arrest not punished. Allso would like to return the mention about the part of the punishment that ordered the dialogue to be burned. Dont know why it was removed on first place. Timppeli 21:21, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Edit

I've mainly tried to remove propaganda (from either side): a great mind was being slandered and ridiculed to censor the Church's past mistakes (a different Church, hundreds of years ago), history must never be censored, imagine a German user censoring the Holocaust article, to make it look like it wasn't so bad after all.

Instead of ridiculing a legendary scientist, instead blame the pope of his time for his narrowmindness and intolerance, contrary to Jesus' teachings.

Middle Man

I disagree with most of your edits. Examples:

• "Ptolemy's theory was increasingly elaborated" - How is this relevant to Galileo?
• "proposed heliocentric system did not claim to represent the reality" - Where does Osiander say that?
• "belief in a moving earth was widely held at the time to be contrary to the Bible, and consequently Galileo’s support of Copernican theories was denounced" - No, the success of the Ptolemaic system was the main reason.
• "books that dealt with the Copernican theories" - Why did you take out the line about Copernicus's book being corrected? The corrected book was not banned.
• "It also didn't help that he mocked the Pope in the form of a fictitious character named Simplicio." - Why did you remove this?

Please justify these edits. RSchlafly 14:07, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The burning of Galileo's books

I have now done some research into this, and come up with two contemporary sources that say this happened. One is Antonio Badelli, writing in June 1633, quoted in [1] “Galileo was made to abjure Wednesday morning in the Minerva Convent in the presence of all the Cardinals of the Congregation and they burned before his eyes the book where he deals with the motion of the earth.” I found this in another couple of sources in the original Italian: Testo della sentenza, Roma, 22 giugno 1633. Il Galileo fu abiurato mercordì mattina nel Convento della Minerva alla presenza di tutti i Cardinali della Congregazione del Santo Uffizio, e gli abbruciarono in faccia il suo libro, dove tratta del moto della terra.

Another source is Descartes, who learned of the condemnation of Galileo's book as he was arranging to publish Le Monde. He wrote to Mersenne: I had intended to send you Le Monde as a New Year gift...but in the meantime I tried to find out in Leiden and Amsterdam whether Galileo World System was available, as I thought I had heard that it was published in Italy last year. I was told that it had indeed been published, but that all copies had been burned at Rome, and that Galileo had been convicted and fined. I was so surprised by this that I nearly decided to burn all my papers, or at least let no one see them. For I couldn't imagine that he--an Italian and, I believe, in favor with the Pope--could have been made a criminal, just because he tried, as he certainly did, to establish that the earth moves...I must admit that if this view is false, then so too are the entire foundations of my philosophy, for it can be demonstrated from them quite clearly. And it is so integral to my treatise that I couldn't remove it without making the whole work defective. But for all that, I wouldn't want to publish a discourse which had a single word that the Church disapproved of; so I prefer to suppress it rather than to publish it in a mutilated form.

This was quoted in several different sources, but I took this one from [2] as being a solid academic reference. I found it in many other sources as well, including but not limited to: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I omitted sources that were obviously anti-Catholic, and I omitted many sources where the main subject of the page or the book was not either scientific or historical and the assertion was simply made in passing in another context. --Britinme 22:23, 4 May 2007 (EDT)