460. Trial and Error: Galileo and the Inquisition
The philosophical issues at the heart of the notorious condemnation of Galileo and Copernican astronomy.
Themes:
• M.A. Finocchiaro (trans.), The Galileo Affair: a Documentary History (Berkeley: 1989).
• M.A. Finocchiaro (trans.), The Essential Galileo (Indianapolis: 2008).
---
• R.J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial (Notre Dame: 2006).
• R.E. Butts and J.C. Pitt (eds), New Perspectives on Galileo (Dordrecht: 1978).
• H.D. Rutkin, “Galileo Astrologer: Astrology and Mathematical Practice in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,” Galilaeana 2 (2005), 107-43.
• S. Drake, Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography (Chicago: 1978).
• S. Drake, Galileo: a Very Short Introduction (Oxford: 2001).
• R. Feldhay, Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue? (Cambridge: 1995).
• M.A. Finocchiaro, Galileo and the Art of Reasoning: Rhetorical Foundations of Logic and Scientific Method (Dordrecht: 1980).
• M.A. Finocchiaro (trans.), The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (Berkeley: 1989).
• M.A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs (Dordrecht: 2010).
• M.A. Finocchiaro (ed.), The Routledge Guidebook to Galileo’s Dialogue (London: 2014).
• M.A. Finocchiaro, On Trial for Reason: Science, Religion, and Culture in the Galileo Affair (Oxford: 2019).
• H. Gatti, “Giordano Bruno’s Ash Wednesday Supper and Galileo’s Dialogue of the Two Major Systems,” Bruniana e Campanelliana 3 (1997), 283-300.
• O. Gingerich, “Galileo, the Impact of the Telescope, and the Birth of Modern Astronomy,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 155 (2011), 134-41.
• J. Heilbron, Galileo (Oxford: 2010).
• N. Jardine, “Galileo’s Road to Truth and the Demonstrative Regress,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 7 (1976), 277-318.
• P. Machamer (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Galileo (Cambridge: 1998).
• T.F. Mayer, The Roman Inquisition: Trying Galileo (Philadelphia: 2015).
• M. Piccolino and N.J. Wade, “Galileo’s Eye: a New Vision of the Senses in the Work of Galileo Galilei,” Perception 37 (2008), 1312-40.
• J. Renn (ed.), Galileo in Context (Cambridge: 2002).
• M. Sharratt, Galilei: Decisive Innovator (Cambridge: 1999).
• W.R. Shea, Galileo’s Intellectual Revolution (New York: 1977).
• W.R. Shea, “Galileo and the Church,” in C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Berkeley: 1987), 114-35.
• W.R. Shea and M. Artigas, Galileo in Rome: the Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius (Oxford: 2003).
• R.S. Westfall, Essays on the Trial of Galileo (Notre Dame: 1989).
Comments
Galileo
Good episode. It is, historically, a remarkably complex case. Ultimately it comes back to Pope Urban VIII. The argument of Pope Urban VIII (Simplicio) had to be included. There was no way Galileo could get around it; and there is no way that Pope Urban VIII could be satisfied in doing so short of Galileo abandoning his real beliefs. Galileo was caught between the rock and the hard place, and no amount of finesse could save him though he believed it could.
Modern scientific method
I don't think your description of the modern scientific method you were using to compare against Galileo is entirely accurate. Coming up with a hypothesis that you later falsify with evidence is certainly a part of science, but it's not all of science by any means. You can for instance draw conclusions from new data without going through a pre existing hypothesis.
In reply to Modern scientific method by Joshua Hillerup
Scientific method
That's definitely right, nonetheless we philosophers and historians of science use the term of art "scientific method" to refer not to everything that scientists do, but to a specific methodology that is often traced back to Francis Bacon, and has this hypothesis-test structure. We'll see more about this when we get to Bacon and other 17th century philosophers of science!
In reply to Scientific method by Peter Adamson
Ah, ok. It sometimes comes…
Ah, ok. It sometimes comes up as criticism of scientists if something they do doesn't fall under that particular method, and it can get pretty infuriating at times.
backward and ignorant
"routinely considered to be backward and ignorant"
Hmm, that's a rather broad generalization. I'd accept "routinely considered to be wrong." But, to consider a phrenologist, for example, or a proponent of phlogiston theory to be "backward and ignorant" is the sort of attitude I'd expect you, of all people, to consider, if not "backward and ignorant," then at least "wrong." So I think you are making a sweeping criticism of unspecified thinkers, something I criticize as not up to your usual standard. If you had specific individuals in mind, then I'm sure you'd examine their views with sympathy and nuance, in historical context, as you always do, not least in this episode (which was excellent, as usual).
In reply to backward and ignorant by Scott
Backward and ignorant
Oh I'm surprised you got that out of the opening of the episode: this was one of those classic "this is how people all too often think about the situation but in fact it is much more complicated" openings. So I certainly didn't mean to be endorsing the judgment that outdated scientific theories were backward and ignorant, I would have thought this was clear from the context.
Theory of the tides.
Galileo's theory of the tides was even more wrong than you indicate; it was totally disproved by the empirical evidence. His theory would have produced one tide a day, always at the same time. In reality, of course, there are two tides a day that travel round the clock by a given interval per day, in sync with the phases of the moon. Instead of rejecting the well established theory of the link between the tides and the phases of the moon, because it cause wasn't known; tables of the phases of the moon and tide tables were even published together in nautical almanacs. A real scientists should seek to find that cause.
In reply to Theory of the tides. by Thony Christie
Tides
Yikes, that's pretty damning! Didn't Galileo try to answer this kind of objection by arguing that the overall effect of the tides he described is then modified by local conditions?
In reply to Tides by Peter Adamson
Yes, it's called arm waving!
Yes, it's called arm waving!
Tides
When it was pointed out to Galileo that there were two tides a day in the Mediterranean, (a sea he lived next to nearly all of his life and it had to be pointed out!) he did indeed try to explain it away by the shape of the sea. It’s a known philosophical method known as as hand waving.
In reply to Tides by Thony Christie
Tides
With emphasis on the "waving" in this case!
Add new comment