Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

---

Older talk archived at:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

---

Miscellaneous new topics

"Galileo was tutored from a very young page." Is that a typo, or did I miss something? 84.73.212.248 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism: where did these quotes come from??? I am trying to write a paper, and it seems like these quotes probably shouldn't go in: "born in HEY! and got his balls cut off in 1563." "During this time he explored sexual intercourse and made many landmark homosexual activities...such as...the invention of anal stimulation" "In 1611, he screwed michal jackson in Rome, where he joined the homos united and..." I dont have the factual info to change this myself, could this maybe be changed soon?

(Have to have some kind of heading to get the text in a readonable place.)

Removed the lead paragraph from Astronomy, as follows:

In 1600, astronomers were engaged in a great debate between the Copernican system (the planets revolved around the Sun) and the geocentric system (the planets and Sun revolved around Earth). In 1604, Galileo announced his support for the Copernican school of thought, but he lacked the means to reinforce the opinion.

This, along with another passage, expresses the point of view that Galileo's work in astronomy was, at least in large part, inspired by a project to prove Copernican ideas. There is no evidence of this in his writings or other documents. The other POV is that before 1610 he didn't devote a great deal of attention to the controversy (which was, in fact, not at all hot in 1600 - 1609), but took a strong interest when the new evidence started showing up. Perhaps a section on his philosophical opinions and the history of his thoughts would be a good idea. But to "Teach the Controversy" in a lead paragraph to a section on what he actually did wouldn't work. --Dandrake 01:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's like eating popcorn, isn't it? Also took the same POV idea out of the article lead:

He believed in Copernicus' theories leading him to search for evidence that the Sun was in the center of the solar system and not the Earth.

--Dandrake 01:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Darn! I ended up doing a sizable vandalism repair while not logged in. Damn I'm stupid!

Anyway, the various repairs during the orgy of vandalism around last Dec. 12 left a couple of gaps, like the Physics heading and the entire Mathematics section, and some of the structure of the scientific part of the article. At least, I haven't found anything in the Talk page or the submission notes of the time to indicate that there was any non-malicious intent behind the changes. --Dandrake 03:03, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Any grounds for the claim (see change by 169.233.76.32) that Galileo might have managed to defy the Inquisition at the scene of his condemnation without any consequences? If "some believe" he might not have got away with it, where is someone who thinks he might have? Dandrake 06:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Galilei is often referred to as 'Galileo'. But if you refer to Newton, you don't say 'Isaac' either, so I feel Galileo is incorrect, allthough I was informed (by an American acquaintance of mine) that it is the common name that's used in the United States to refer to Galilei. I don't feel free to change all occurences of this name but hope someone else will. --62.131.177.93 1:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not change them. Not till you've corrected, in chronological order, the references to Alighieri, Buonarotti, da Vinci (easier there, since Americans are less likely than Italians to first-name him), and -- darn it, I've forgotten Raphael's last name. Then, with Galileo done, you can go on to Dutchmen, like van Rijn.

By the way, if you encounter a reference to Michalngelo Buonarotti, it's probably to Michelangelo's nephew. Neither the first name noe the last, nor both together, will uniquely identify which is which, but the convention does. Funny coincidence time: which Galilei is one referring to? By saying Galileo, you avoid ambiguity with his famous father.

Usage is not alway consistent. I like historical ones. Italians have first-named a lot of their famous people, and it seems to me respectful, rather than otherwise, to follow their choices. By the way, with reference to the United States, could you provide some data on usage elsewhere? The only pattern I've noticed in English-language usage is a seeming tendency for the surname to be preferred by people who disapprove of Galileo. Hmm, maybe that supports my point about being respectful. Dandrake 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point or anything, but I got curious about this, because the great Galilei question pops up every so often. So I tried a quick and dirty sampling of UK usage: Google for anything containing either "Galileo" or "Galilei", and not containing "satellite", and coming from a .UK domain.

Not "satellite"? Well, I was trying not to bias it in favor of the Galileo navigation system, which gets a lot of pages. BTW I don't think that pan-European project was named by Americans. Of course this search omitted a lot of pages about Jupiter's moons, but I don't think that will bias the sample either way.

For each page found, Google showed the title and two context lines containing either of the matched terms. These fell into four classes: (1) only "Galileo Galilei" is named; (2) like (1), but at least one of the names is also used by itself; (3) only "Galileo" appears; (4) only "Galilei" appears. Quibble-proofing disclosure: References in which "Galilei" is preceded by "Vincenzo" are omitted.

In the first 100 finds, there were several of (1); also many of (2), always with Galileo as the name used by itself; many of (3); none of (4). I admit that I could have missed something, and invite anyone to check the result and post a correction. Meanwhile I don't find evidence that "Galileo" is an Americanism. --Dandrake 22:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Point is clear. Being respectful, I first mentioned the point here before I started editing all occurences that I thought were less inaccurate. The only persons being named by their first name that I could think of were the biblical ones but you tought me better. Thanks. I won't change the names then, and be happy with that. --62.131.177.93 0:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to ad information about Galileo, accurate information, but now the page is locked! oh well... but here's my opinion about him: Galileo Galilee will be remembered as the man who cared more about uncovering the truth than he cared about his life. He will also be remembered as the man who started modern science .Most of all, though, he will be remembered as a great man who accomplished more than anyone could have possibly asked him to.

Who was Galileo?

Was he a crusader for the truth against a Catholic Church that turned a blind eye to the truth? A rebel rousing annoyance who was just persecuted because he kept obnoxiously bringing up his ideas? Just some scientist who had the right scientific breakthroughs at the wrong time?

Galileo as astrologer

Galileo was definitely an astrologer because he produced astrological charts and made (wrong) predictions like the one for the Great Duke of Toscane. He predicted that the Duke very ill would live a few more years but he died exactly 22 days later! What is important is to decide if he was sincere or not. His opinion on astrology and astrologers can be evaluated through the second part of his letter to Monsignor Piero Dini (21 May 1611). In this letter he is mocking on contemporary astrologers and on the very principles of astrology. On the influence of the 4 main Jupiter satellites, he argues that if they don't have an astrological influence because their light is to weak and their movement vis-a-vis Jupiter is too small, how is it then that the (crucial) ascendant and Medium Coeli exert influence when they have no movement nor light!

This is yet another sad indicator why wikipedia is a doomed project. Galileo wrote treatises on astrology, he made astrological charts, he taught astrology to medical students, yet there is a "debate" about whether he was actually an astrologer and whether this should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Good luck to all of you, and to anyone ever taking this project seriously. This is just another example of the intellectual bankruptcy of "NPOV policy" and how what really gets put on the page is just the collective wisdom or prejudice of the mob majority.

You won't get very far by making personal attacks and referring to people as "morons" in your edit summaries.

A moment of frustration. There are people who go beyond the position you advocate below...saying that Galileo had "no use" for astrology or that he had nothing to do with it. This is patently false, and anyone who thinks so is a moron, and I have no problem saying so.

I have just started editing and writing a couple of articles in Wikipedia, and I have slowly begun to see that this project is indeed "doomed." i.e. Most of the articles are written by people who clearly have a great interest in their subject, but no expertise. I have a PhD in History of Science, and reading the stuff on this talk page is so demoralizing. People here generally get so hung up on issues of semantics or nomenclature, when the substance isn't even there to begin with. What upsets me the most is that when I want to look up something with which I am unfamiliar--to learn something--I am haunted by the notion that the author(s) have so many mistakes in the article. This makes the articles on politics, current internationsl affairs better--because on the Talk Pages you can really get a feel for what the real disagreements are--and learn alot more than in the body of the article itself, oftentimes. And--last and least--the grammar in almost all the articles here is not even at grammar-school level; that really destroys any confidence one can have. And I hesitate to even make minor edits or rewrites on an article if I don't think I really know enough. I'm not going to give up, but this entire encyclopedia ought to have as its motto "caveat emptor." 66.108.4.183 18:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Most of the references to Galileo and astrology come from astrologers themselves, perhaps wishing to appropriate a famous name for themselves. But even if true these would not be significant enough to describe Galileo as an astrologer.

That's not the point. The point is -- a bricklayer is someone who lays bricks, a teacher is someone who has students and delivers lectures, a farmer is someone who sells crops, a painter is someone who splashes oil on a canvas, etc., etc. The point is that if Galileo's astrological activities are insufficient to even warrant describing him as an "astrologer", then hardly anyone from that time period qualifies! You may think he was a reluctant astrologer, or an astrologer who eventually developed ideas that led to the downfall of astrology as we know it, but it's just intellectually dishonest to not even acknowledge that it's accurate to say he was a working astrologer, or that astrology was one of his activities (and not just "to put food on the table"...that doesn't explain drawing horoscopes for family). He was very active in doing things that were known as defining what an astrologer was at that time -- so it's just dishonest not to acknowledge this. Look, I don't believe in astrology, and I believe Galileo had lots of expressed doubts about it, but this hardly justifies stripping any and all mention of astrology from this article. I don't think this is a case of astrologers "appropriating" a famous name for themselves, as much as scientists "disappropriating" a label that they would rather not see connected in any way to one of their founding icons.

Galileo did not make any notable contributions to astrology, that is, he was not notable as an astrologer. His claim to fame comes entirely from his scientific work. He didn't publish books or articles or writings of any kind on astrology, or make "discoveries" in the field, or found any schools of thought, or influence or teach any astrological disciples, or make his mark in any way in that field.

Yes, to a certain extent the modern clear dividing line between astronomy and astrology was much less clear in those days, and Kepler was certainly known to dabble in the "music of the spheres" and similar stuff. Galileo may have been expected by his patrons to provide horoscopes for them. So what? The fact that astrology and astronomy were not always sharply distinguished in early times is already mentioned in detail at Astrology#Relationship to astronomy and science; it's hardly necessary to repeat this fact in every single article about every single astronomer of a certain era. In the Kepler article it probably warrants a mention. In Galileo, it probably doesn't. -- Curps 03:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem goes beyond mentioning the word "astrology" or acknowledging that astrology/astronomy were bound up together historically. The problem is that the article gives almost no mention of astrology at all! And when it does, it's always in the POV of the 20th-century scientist, not really a historian trying to puzzle together historically people's motivations and the turn of events of things. I understand that scientists want to present their diluted version of history, but science is not history, and to get an accurate historical picture of things, you can't look at everything through 20th-century glasses, which is what this article does.

If you search books on amazon.com you will find a book or two that say Gallileo's work helped discredit astrology. "Astrology: A History" by Peter Whitfield, for one. I'm not interested in astrology so I recuse myself beyond this note. Jok2000 13:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

There's no mention at all in this article of Galileo's children. In fact, aside from one line about his father, Galileo's personal life is unmentioned in this article. ?????--Firsfron 01:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth (all from Dava Sobel's Galileo's Daughter):

Galileo had three illegitimate children, all by Marina Gamba (d. February 1619) (she did not live with Galileo):

• Virginia, b 13 August 1600 d. 2 April 1634. She became a nun at San Matteo d'Arcetri, taking vows, and the name Suor Maria Celeste, on 28 October 1616.
• Livia, b. 18 August 1601, d. 14 June 1659, who became a nun at San Matteo d'Arcetri, taking vows and the name of Suor Arcangel on 28 October 1617
• Vincenzio, b. 21 August 1606, d. 16 May 1629, legitimized 25 June 1619, married 29 January 1629, Sestilia di Carlo Boccherini. He had three children, Galileo, Carlo, and Cosimo

Galileo's parents were Vincenzio (1520-1591) and Giulia di Cosimo Ammannati (1538-1620); his siblings included Benedetto, Virginia, Anna, Michelangelo, Livia, and, perhaps, Lena.

:- Nunh-huh 01:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The date you list for Vincenzio's (Galileo's son) death cannot be right. He was married at age 23, and had 3 children, yet died just four months after his wedding? No way. Also, "Suor Archangel" isn't right.

The rest of this could go on the page, if a free source can be found.

--Firsfron 03:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

NB: The headings here, added after the fact, are not very accurate, but they at least allow some way of jumping down through the text. Dandrake 02:34, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Old telescopes

I have some facts about Galileo and the telescope that people might be interested in. The first telescopes were very unclear and had very narrow fields of vision. Most people could not see anything of any significance when they first looked down the telescope - Galileo would even offer lessons to show people how to find stars with a telescope, and then interpret what they saw. Hence, it was very easy (even legitimate) for Galileo's opponents (I'm talking individuals here, not institutions) to dispute the truth of his claims - they just said that the telescope was unreliable, what people saw wasn't actually the heavens but something in the telescope itself, or even that the telescope was a magical object. As with most 'scientific' discoveries, acceptance was due to a consensus, rather than 'proof'. A good article may be van Helden, A. "Telescopes and authority from Galileo to Cassini", in Osiris 9 (Instruments), pp 9-29 for those who wish to know more. It may also give an interesting aspect to the Church/Galileo dispute raging on above - so far, all the arguments have been interesting but, on the whole, far more vitriolic (dare I say childish?) than I expect from academics! Any chance of keeping the whole thing more relevant and less personal? User:131.111.243.37

It's true that the early telescopes were very poor. One of the reasons that Galileo was the first to observe and publish anything significant was that his telescopes were better; Kepler at the Imperial court couldn't at first get an instrument good enough to check Galileo's claims. People who had inferior instruments were reasonable enough in being skeptical for a while, but there may be limits to reasonable skepticism there. Refusing to look (as actually happened) would be an example of exceeding the limits.

Is the belief that it might be a magical object to be considered legitimate? In the context of the magical thinking of the time, perhaps so; but if one is talking about contributions to science, I don't think so. And the suspicion that the effects were illusory invites the same sort of objection: if you want to know if the instrument shows reality, you can check it against earthly reality for starters. Failure to do so is the sort of thing that Galileo is credited with struggling against.

The statement that what happened was consensus rather than 'proof' almost begins to verge on the sort of thing you'd find in a postmodernist journal along with Sokal's article on hegemonic physics. Is the current acceptance of telescopic observations, including Galileo's, based on consensus rather than proof? It is a consensus: people who make the observations get the same results, and if any claim not to, they are properly dismissed as unreliable. But having said that, what has one said that everyone didn't already know about science? At what point would you say that the agreement on Galileo's results became proof rather than consensus? Am I asking too many rhetorical questions?

Having got a little insulting there, I'll say that I've skimmed through the now-archived discussions, and I agree that much is unscholarly and unhelpful. If either side is worse than the other, I didn't read carefully enough to notice. But Galileo remains a subject of major controversy and strong feelings. How, really, does one achieve NPOV here? (One can, though, get the available facts as right as possible, using verifiable modern scholarship (which is indeed a bit of a dig at White.))

Dandrake

For more on these topics look at:

Albert van Helden "The telescope in the seventeenth century", ISIS 65, 1974: 39-58; "The invention of the telescope", Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 67,4, 1977: 1-27.

Yaakov Zik "Galileo and the telescope", Nuncius 2,1999: 31-67; "Science and instruments: The telescope as a scientific instrument at the beginning of the seventeenth century", Perspectives on Science, 9,3, 2001: 259-284.

Albert Van Helden and Yaakov Zik, “Between discovery and disclosure: Galileo and the telescope”, in, a cura di Beretta M., Gallluzzi P., Triarico C., Studies on Scientific Instruments and Collections in Honour of Mara Miniati, Bibilioteca di Nuncius Vol. 49, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 2003: 173-190.

Better than Ptolemaic?

"When Galileo was defending the copernican model, it was not scientifically superior to the Ptolemaic system." That's true but Galileo was the first to observe the satellites of Jupiter (a mini-solar system). IMO this led him to the conviction that small things should turn around around big things even if the real scientific basis requires Newton theory of gravity. Ericd 20:37 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

I've changed the statement that Galileo based his argument about the Moon's imperfect sphericity on "the occultation of stars", because most of the sources I've just looked at (admitted just some random webpages) suggest that it was his observations of shadows cast by lunar mountains that led him to this conclusion. If anyone knows that this is wrong, feel free to reword. -- Oliver P. 10:32 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, you're verifiably right. Galileo described his methods in some detail in The Starry Messenger, including his calculation of the height of lunar mountains. This source, which may be considered more reliable than random websites, is available in translation: Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. ed. & tr. Stillman Drake, Doubleday Anchor, 1957, still in print. (Full disclosure: The coincidence of surnames is not coincidental. But the royalties will not put my kids through school.)

Dandrake 02:35 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

GNU FDL infringement!

Argh! I've just found this biography of Galileo at the "Malaspina Great Books" website, and it's suspiciously similar to our article. In fact, they acknowledge on the page that their article is "Adapted from Wikipedia". However, they seem to be claiming copyright of the article ("This database is maintained by Malaspina Great Books ©1995-2003"), and I can find no mention of their releasing it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Clearly they are infringing the terms of the licence. What should we do about this?

Hmm... Investigating further, I see from Talk:Ernest Hemingway and Talk:Woody Guthrie that this has come up before - as early as last year, in fact. The Malaspina site has "adapted" hundreds of our articles, with acknowledgment, but without releasing their material under the GNU FDL. It seems that nothing has been done about it, though. Not that I can talk: I could win a world championship in apathy, if there was one... :) But I think something should be done... -- Oliver P. 10:32 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In attempt to save the evidence, I am going to go through and copy the text of all of the articles containing the string "adapted from wikipedia." In case they decide to remove them. Could someone else help me maybe, by starting at the end of the search results? The page will be found at meta:Malaspina Great Books: GFDL infringement. Just create a sub-space (like meta:Malaspina Great Books: GFDL infringement/article_name), and put the text there, and link to it from meta:Malaspina Great Books: GFDL infringement Thanks. MB 14:30 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've submitted a few bot-friendly links to the http://archive.org crawler suggestion box. So as long as he doesn't have a robots.txt KEEP OUT sign, they should be archived within a few days. -- Tim Starling 15:01 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cool. I decided that was a bit much anyhow, and I just saved the search results (since they all show that those pages contain the string "adapted from wikipedia.") See meta:Malaspina Great Books: GFDL infringement if you need to see them. MB 15:05 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I doubt he means any harm. Pizza Puzzle

Probably not. -- Tim Starling 15:01 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters if he means any harm. He is profiting off of our work (his site contains links to bookstores where he gets a cut). So, I would say he owes wikipedia some money, and he definately needs to either release those articles under the GFDL, or remove them. I'm just trying to cover our bases just in case. MB 15:05 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If Malaspina had simply noted that the bios were released under the GFDL (with the appropriate text), then nobody would owe anybody any money. Thus I doubt that we can get any from the site just because those notices weren't there (but IANAL). And given the links to Wikipedia, I believe that Great Books acted in good faith. We just need to point out the correct way to use the GFDL. -- Toby Bartels 15:50 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Note: This has been posted to wikiEN-L, so there may be discussion there that can't be found here. -- Toby Bartels 15:50 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Old business

En garde.

Having started the process of improving (as I think!) the organization of G's scientific work in the article (still missing a couple of categories), I'm looking at the physics. I modified the reference to experimental work in "dynamics", because Galileo's approach to the science of motion was kinetic, not dynamic. That is, he studied how things move, without developing any theory of the forces acting on them. Is this non-neutral? Maybe it needs some expansion and due hedging in the article. If you can find examples of his emphasizing the causation of motion by forces (as Descartes and Newton did), please cite. Copy to René Descartes, please, since he considered Two New Sciences to be of little value precisely because it didn't speak of the "causes" of motion.

Likewise, if anyone can find a sense in which G's work in physics "paved the way" for Kepler's, please explain. Even chronologically, it's hard for work published in 1638 to have paved the way for someone who had died 8 years before. (G had done experiments 30 years earlier; but they were unpublished to such an extent that their very existence was disputed during much of the 20th century.)

Galileo, to be sure, is the sort of subject that can hardly be named without starting a flame war. (At least one can walk into a Galileo clinic without fear of being shot down.) A weighing of contrary views is necessary, and it is not always easy to know what is actually controversial and what is Flat-Earth stuff. It will be no secret that I consider some aspects of Galileo's life and works to be less controversial than some people do. But need we hedge and double-hedge everything?

"... is often credited with being one of the first..." Perhaps the matter of being one of the first can be established on the same sort of basis as Thomas Jefferson's being one of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence. The moderates might say that G is "widely believed" to have been one of the first to exploit the experimental method and to insist on mathematical descriptions; while the radicals will say he is "generally" believed to be that. But until someone shows who doesn't believe that G was "one of" the first, I incline to a still more radical view: he was one of the first.

In fact, I know who might dispute the point: an expert in the history of science in Islamic civilzation. I personally woud be delighted to see a serious presentation of experimental and quantitative work in physics in the great age of Islam. Then we could present this point accurately and not vaguely, with a link to real information on earlier work. Till then—till we get something better than the irrelevant screed that an anonymous one-shot contributor put in History of physics recently, and briefly— we're stuck with the European historical record we've got. (Will the Chinese now pick up the gauntlet? All the better.)
Dandrake 23:02 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Being a newcomer, I have only recently got around to reading the Archives in any detail. It would be uncool to revive all the slanging matches from whenever that was—

yeah, I can read the archive history, but it sure is nice now that people are sometimes signing and dating their entries—

but there's a pretty remarkable amount of stuff that ignores facts, goes against that which can be established on firm evidence (if you don't like the word "facts") or simply ignores the possibility of establishing anything on firm evidence. The latter is particularly unfortunate in an encyclopedia. So here, in honor of Leo Szilard, whose posthumous memoirs use the term, is "my version of the facts" relevant to stuff that at this moment is in the Archives.

In Archive 1 we find "When Galileo was defending the copernican model, it was not scientifically superior to the Ptolemaic system. Copernicus still tried to use circular orbits, and as they failed, had to use epicycles and other resources of Ptolemaic kinematics. Only after Kepler's work (that was largely ignored by Galilei) was incorporated in the theory, and Newton's law of gravity gave a sound physical basis to the whole system, was the heliocentric model undoubtedly superior."

When Galileo was defending the Copernican model, it was already superior, or at least sufficiently arguably superior to be worthy of serious and unfettered argument. There is no need to give an inch on this point. It was arguably not superior in Copernicus's time, and I stress "arguably". Now why would anyone assume that nothing relevant had been discovered in the interim? The popular stuff on Galileo is full of things that supposedly bore on the argument, and the anti-Galileo crew like to argue about them (speciously); so it's hard to see how anyone can claim ignorance here. Conveniently, the Galileo article now contains some brief comments on how new astronomical discoveries affected the argument.

I see in a later post, "Sunspots? No one even knew about sunspots' existence, much less their motions, until 1612, and Kepler had put forth elements for an elliptical orbit of Mars in 1609, with the other planets following thereafter, so there wasn't any time for an early Copernican system to explain sunspots. User:Shimmin " What Kepler has to do with it is not obvious. What is perfectly obvious is that the status of the argument for heliocentrism in Copernicus's time is irrelevant to the merits of the case for which Galileo was put on trial.

We also find, 'Also, despite what is said, the Church did not approve the Ptolemaic system as real. It simply stated that both were simply devices to predict positions. It was Galileo who tried to force an acceptance of the Copernican system as "real."'

Well, "...that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun stands still in the center of the universe without motion from east to west is contrary to Sacred Scripture..." This is Cardinal (Saint) Bellarmine, letter to Galileo, 1616. What part of contrary to Sacred Scripture don't you understand? Or are we to believe that the Church held to Scripture only as a convenient device, not as describing reality?

Bellarmine did believe that it should be permissible to teach Copernican ideas as a convenient device. In this, the man who burned Bruno was a moderate; the Dominicans wanted Copernican ideas banned absolutely. But at no time during the controversy did he or the Church treat the moving sun and immobile earth as a mere device. Whether Galileo went too far in asserting the truth of heliocentrism is another question, but maybe not one of any significance to the Galileo article.
Submitted by dandrake, whose login had, curse the hasty timeouts in this system, expired before the Save page button had been hit-- 209.204.169.149 02:38 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Recanation and sentence

Making some effort to keep this to things that could be relevant to the improvement (or maintenance) of the quality of the article, and not wanting to turn it into a general debating society:

Ed Poor asked, and this surely is relevant to what the entry ought to say,

What exactly was he "forced to recant"? The mobility of the earth?

What were the terms of the "life-long house arrest" and when did it start? Was he guarded, told not to leave his estate, or what?

And I don't think this has been clearly answered. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html has the full text of the recantation, along with the indictment and other things. (Since they don't cite a printed source. I've briefly checked that text against a scholarly printed source, and it's good.) Excerpts:

"...I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, ..." and later, "...wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies,..." So, yes, he did have to recant the motion of the earth and its orbiting the sun and all that.

The house arrest is, I think, well described in Galileo's Daughter. It started the moment he was sentenced. At first he couldn't even go home: he was required to stay and do penance during some months at the home of the archbishop of Siena. Actually that was a good thing, as the archbishop was a very friendly host. In general, his sentence was far from imprisonment in a dungeon, and he was, most of the time, not ill-treated. But it was house arrest: a famous example is that when he wanted to go to see a doctor when suffering from a hernia, he couldn't do that without formal permission. And he didn't get permission.

As to his sentence, there is one point on which the article is not hostile enough to the Inquisition. I don't want to rewrite the whole Inquisition section—too much work, when White is unreliable and his critics are all wet, in my extremely humble opinion—but if anyone did, this would have to get proper treatment and not the passing mention I put in a few days ago: Publication of any and all of Galileo's books was banned. Not just the Dialogue, but everything he had written before, and anything he might write in the future, regardless of any possible relevance to the Faith. This was done essentially in secret, and Galileo didn't even find out about it till later, when he wanted to publish a book on physics. Any revision of our ideas of whether the Inquisition worked to suppress the advancement of learning will have to include this.
Dandrake 04:26 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Galileo's lack of judgment?

I make the obligatory claim that the following entry is not just my bit of a society-wide flame war, but a matter relevant to the contents of the article: the entry on Galileo treats of Galileo and the Inquisition; it should do so; who did what to whom, and on what basis, is relevant to that treatment; certain things are asserted in that matter which can be checked against evidence.

In an unsigned comment that I won't take the trouble to track in the page history, /Archive 1 contains this text:
'"Lack of judgment" might be a bit strong, but if you actually read the Diologio[sic], you will understand exactly what whoever said that is talking about. It was more than a scientific treatise; it was also a rather vicious satire.'
NPOV time: I have read it, more than once, and I find no such thing at all. To be sure, the thing I read was a mere translation (the only full modern English translation there is); but then, the translator, having read the original Italian, also perceived no such thing [personal communication].

Going on, 'The speaker in the dialogue who represents the Aristotelean viewpoint is named Simplico (meaning buffoon or simpleton),...' This flat assertion could be made only by one entirely ignorant of the classical philosopher Simplicius. This isn't some profound obscurity dug up by Galileo's apologists to twist his meaning. Simplicius was well known and much admired around 1600, by people like Colombe and Cremonini (widely regarded as the real-life models for Simplicio). The young Galileo studied his work.

By the way, does it mean simpleton in Italian? I'm not an expert and don't happen to have a good dictionary handy, but I note that Babelfish never heard of simplicio, and the word for simple is semplice with an e.

Now, you may argue that Galileo was making a wicked pun here. Great, go ahead and argue it. Just don't omit relevant facts to hoodwink the non-specialists into thinking it's simple and indisputable.

Picking up, 'and this character is not only portrayed as a fool, but at many points directly parodies various church officials. For example, his final lines are a direct quote from Urban VIII...'
Two problems here: "many" and "parodies". The example given is the one that's always given, and I'd like to see a few of the others. And it's not a parody: it's what Galileo was directly ordered to insert in the text in order to get the license to publish the book. Church authorities claimed he hadn't put enough in.

Now, you or I might think that if we're ordered to insert the Church's official view, it would make sense to deliver it through the character who represents the conventional view throughout. And we might think it wise to give the Church the very last word. (Well, Salviati gets to express his approval of this "admirable and angelic doctrine", and even expand on it a little bit; that's pretty much like the last word, IMHO.) But when Galileo does it, it's a nasty satire?

It is widely believed (I'm not sure of the documents here) that the Pope thought he was being mocked. But his opinion on Galileo's intentions is not more conclusive than another man's, assuming that he was not speaking ex cathedra. There is not a shred of positive evidence of Galileo's having such an intention: nothing in G's papers, no dark hints in the words of anybody who knew him, nothing. It's one opinion, and not an opinion generally held, now or in Galileo's lifetime.

By the way, if a book really and clearly insulted the Pope, do you think it likely that his nephew would take a moderate line and even vote against the Inquisition's sentence?

Dandrake 19:52 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Brecht

Brecht wrote a play in which the main character is called "Galileo". It is, I suppose, no reflection on Brecht's thought or ethics that the play has little resemblance to the life of Galileo Galilei, because his theory of drama didn't have much to do with historical realism. But to apply the word "knowledge" to anything derived from that play is a bit much, so I de-applied it. Dandrake 02:04 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

To user 210.54.108.162:
You appear to be a serious contributor (from your New Zealand edits), and you'd be welcome to discuss the question whether the Pope's position is a copout. But since that opinion is by no means universally held, simply dropping the word into a paragraph is not really NPOV at all. Dandrake 06:56, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Cannonballs

---

Isn't it true that

• Galileo never actually performed the canonball experiment from Pisa (ambiguous here, contradicted at Classical mechanics)?

Well, the author of the Classical Mechanics piece seems to accept that the experiment was performed; but one can find plenty of people to assert the contrary. Hence this article's position that it is "not generally believed", which is about as weak as one can get. I really don't know on what grounds anyone positively asserts that it was not performed; grounds to believe that it was are in the article. Dandrake 07:43, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

• Galileo was actually in deeper trouble for proposing the immutablity of atoms, which irritated those who believed it contradicted with transubstantiation, and the Pope allowed him to confess to a lesser offense as a plea bargin?

There is a book about that, Galileo Heretic. The theory is surely even further from being unanimously accepted than the story of the cannonballs. As far as I know, the charges filed against Galileo made no mention of atomism, but treated only of heliocentrism. The bargaining between the hierarchy and Galileo didn't start till after the charges were filed, and Galileo (after being examined under oath) had raised a very strong defense against a major part of the charges. If there's any evidence of atomism coming up in the bargaining or in the trial or in the preparation of the charges (working backwards here), someone should present that.

Though Galileo showed a good deal of sympathy for ideas of atoms as proposed in classic times, I know of nothing at all in his work, published and unpublished, that would support an inference that the miracle of the Eucharist could not be real. There still may be something somewhere; maybe someone can help out here. But is there anything in the Vatican records to support the idea that powerful officials were concerned about Galileo's position on this? Contrast this with the treatment of Copernican ideas, which were attacked early and often after 1610, at all levels in the hierarchy; Vatican records from 1616 and 1632 make it quite clear that the Popes of those times had a strong position on the matter. Dandrake 07:43, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

I don't remember any references to these two statements, unfortunately. Paullusmagnus 14:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Satellite observation

Hi! I've added a pic of a Galileo publication to the article. If you click on the pic, you get what the source says is a translation of the manuscript. Since I don't know any Italian, can anyone say if the translation is of that manuscript? Thanks.
Adrian Pingstone 10:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The English text is definitely from the Sidereus Nuncius. The manuscript page isn't clear enough to be checked against the text by a person whose knowledge of Italian is below rudimentary; but I've found a reference for the page. It's Galileo's first known notes on observing moons of Jupiter, from January 7, 1610, jotted down at the bottom of an old draft of a letter. See Galileo at Work, p. 149. This was a few days before he recognized them as moons; here they're perceived as three tiny stars in an odd configuration.

So the caption is not strictly right. We should probably give a translation of the actual text of the page. That's not hard to get, but I probably can't do anything till next week. Dandrake 21:14, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Just a minor point but I'm not sure why you say the words are not clear on the manuscript. Perhaps you didn't notice that I provided a Larger Version link at the bottom of the caption? The manuscript is then very readable (IMHO).

Adrian Pingstone 22:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just meant that for me to make out the words, with a less than rudimentary knowledge of Italian, it would have to be really crystal-clear, preferably reduced to type! Anyway, I can probably dig out a usable translation next week.Dandrake 03:55, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding you.

Adrian Pingstone 09:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Secret Societies

Did anyone know that Galileo was the head of the Illuminati, one of the most famous anti-church/pro-science organisations in those days? There is a book named Angels & Demons (German title: Illuminati) by Dan Brown which deals with a plot of the Illuminati order against the Catholic Church.

No, I didn't know it, and I see no reason to believe it. Since there was no particular connection in that time between anti-church and pro-science, it would be interesting to see any evidence of an anti-church position on Galileo's part. The documentary evidence, in things like his letters and his friends' letters, points the other way. Dandrake 00:13, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Last I checked, Dan Brown writes fiction, anyway. --Fastfission 02:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Galileo was also a strong supporter of the Catholic faith and Church. He sought to unify religion and science. He was never anti-church.

Footnotes

Footnotes are, for me, one of the most vexatious subjects in Wikipedia. We can't agree on a single standard; there's no way of auto-hyperlinking them; and of course hardly anyone uses them because it's more fun to free-associate what I think I know than to document how I know it. But for this article, since we're trying to make one that's well founded in what's known, would anyone mind if the style gets changed consistently to one that's more maintainable??

What I have in mind is to replace the [1] [2] [3] system, which would be fine if it created hyperlinks, with the bulky scientific style; e.g., (Einstein, 1905) referring to an alphabetical list of documents at the end. The [4] style has drawbacks in maintainability and in conflicting with the [] notation for non-Wikipedia hypelinks.

Reactions? Better ideas? The suggestion needs a little time to settle down, especially with watchlists diabled today. Dandrake 19:50, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the point <g> I've inserted text that requires 2 more footnotes before the existing one, which would require renumbering the old ones, which I haven't done pending changes in format. Dandrake 20:50, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree the format should be changed - manual renumbering is a PITA. As a policy wonk, I also think we should have clearer rules on that issue.—Eloquence

Changed all the references, unless I missed something, to the common science-journal format like (Darwin, 1859). I think the treatment of the footnote to White, which seemed to have picked some ambiguity between the plain footnote notation [1] and the Wikipedia meaning of [1] works out all right. Comments and suggestions that it should all be done differently are solicited. Dandrake 07:09, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is possible that Galileo Galilei belonged to the secret society the Illuminati, everything fits the profile, a scientist that couldn't express his discoveries openly for fear to the chrurch forms a secret society in which they could be protected and also exchange important information. You also have to remember that Galileo Galilei was christian, so it was not an anti-christian society at first, it became anti-christian when the chrurch started hunting the scientists after Galileo's arrest. [201.128.194.149 forgot to sign this note]

The Trial. Again?

Every time more detail goes into the account of the trial, still more detail goes in, to give context and all that. I'm the first to concede that the section as it stands is repetitive, not well organized, and probably over-long. But I'm not sure what to do about it. Maybe I'll try taking a hatchet to it, or a chainsaw. If anyone tries it, including me, there should be a notice here about the project. Dandrake 07:40, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

How about just replacing it with Eddie Izzard's summary? "Galileo said 'The earth goes around the sun!', and the pope was overjoyed at the truth of his words, and locked him up for twenty years. That pope is known to history as Pope Shit For Brains, the Ninth."

I'd rather see more detail. We can always move it to a separate article The trial of Galileo Galileo and summarize the section if it gets too long.--Eloquence* 07:50, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Another way to do this would be to for the "Church controversy" or "trial" section to contain a summary of only those details that are verifiable from primary sources, and then move interpretation of these events to a later section entitled "Galileo in historiography" or somesuch, which would be about what historians have had to say about the whole affair. Shimmin 15:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The separate article would be a good idea. Certainly there is a large body of verifiable thingies (one doesn't want to say facts) concerning the trial; what one almost always gets is third-hand reinterpretations, and Wikipedia could do better than that. (And think of the hot edit wars we'll get when the article Examination of intention gets written. Still, it would be useful to do.) Dandrake 18:39, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

BTW does anyone have a good source concerning Galileo's defense on May 10? I don't think I've seen that text, which looks to be worth reading. Dandrake 19:43, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) (Found a good source. Dandrake 04:16, May 10, 2004 (UTC))

The sort of rewrite I envision wouldn't so much shorten the section as totally reorganize it and replace a certain amount of material; probably the result would be longer yet. The more I learn, the more I like the idea, but I'm not at all sure I can make it happen. BTW, if one does cut a huge chunk out of an article and make a new one out of it, what happens to the edit history? Does it stay with the old article, forcing anyone who really, really cares about the ancient history to go back there for the history of what the new article started with?

Anyway, I can't resist putting in interesting new stuff. For instance, that Barberini probably didn't refuse to endorse Galileo's sentence. I don't know whose side that argues for, but that question is less interesting than the information. Dandrake 04:16, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

How long he lodged at the Holy Office: He was examined on April 12 and held for more questioning; after the April 30 session he was sent back to the Tuscan embassy. So says the Tuscan ambassador in a letter of May 1. That means that everybody else is wrong, saying that it was 22 days. I dunno. But the May 1 letter is in Favaro's collection, as is a confirmation from Inquisition records. See Fantoli's book, p 319. Dandrake 04:37, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Father of astronomy

Tsk! Here I try to be polite to the Kepler fans, who tend (not without reason) to be sensitive to snubs and to apparent over-reaching on behalf of other great scientists, and Anthony zaps it as original research. <g> How many little philosophico-scientific bastards did Galileo sire, anyway? But it's OK with me. In fact, I'd have to cop to hiding POV under weasel words, anyway. Dandrake 19:53, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Was Galileo an astrologer?

Somebody has recently added that Galileo was an astrologer. Is that true?

-- Sundar 08:05, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Those times, about every astronomer also did astrology. After all, that was what makes you paid. If you were, say, a duke's court astronomer, then the duke would often ask you for horoscopes. But it might be a bit unfair to mention this in the article at some prominent place. At least to my knowledge, Galilei did not write any treatises about astrology. Simon A. 09:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is precisely the point I wanted to make. Sundar 13:04, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Before he became a celebrity, Galileo was professor of mathematics at the University of Padua. Astrology was one of the disciplines that a professional mathematician of that day would be expected to be knowledgeble of, so much so that up until the early 1600's, the word mathematician was used to mean an astrologer (which makes sense, given the amount of computation needed to determine the positions of the planets at a given date and time). Similarly, Kepler held the office of Imperial Mathemetician to two Holy Roman Emperors, a position in which his chief duty was to cast horoscopes. Kepler certainly did take the auspicious properties of the heavenly bodies seriously, and his published writings refect this.

I don't know enough to say whether Galileo also took astrology seriously, or just did it to pay the bills, but a brief look around found a few references to papers published about Galileo and astrology, some apparently based on some of his correspondence and other posthumously published material. Someone who knows more could fill us in there.

However, I don't see why it would be unfair to call Galileo an astrologer, even prominently. It was a serious scholarly pursuit in the early 1600s, and if he studied it, he studied it. It isn't unfair to call Kepler an astrologer; it isn't unfair to call Newton an alchemist and theologian. Many scholars tend to have somewhat rambling interests, and if centuries after the fact some of those interests no longer seem respectable, it is nonetheless disrespectful to the time they lived in to censor their lives to better reflect how we would like to remember them. Shimmin 18:12, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough; but I don't think the analogy to Newton is very good. Newton really was interested in occult stuff (as we'd call it) and actively pursued things that we regard as a waste of his precious time. Galileo devoted extremely little attention to astrology, so far as one can tell. His dedication of Sidereus Muncius to the current Medici has a lot of astrological talk; it's also obsequious to a degree that a modern can hardly read without disgust. It's not clear that the former is any more sincerely Galileo's opinion than the latter. How much active interest he took in astrology and heavenly signs might be judged from his not having heard of the 1604 supernova till days after it appeared, and his not bothering to observe it till 18 days after. And then his interest was, according to the documents we have, in parallax: was it farther away than the Moon? It was, like Tycho's star before it, which was one in the eye for Aristotle. So I think that a listing as "astrologer" in the intro is misleading, not representing anything he paid serious attention to in his mature life. Dandrake 22:50, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the astrologer reference in the article... before reading this. Nevertheless, unless someone (such as the original editor) disputes with Dandrake, I guess I'll leave it out. Brutannica 06:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good. I just logged in with the idea of cleaning up the Intro characterizations by an actual principle, but it turns out that the astrologer item was the only one that would have gone, and it's already done.

The idea, which I think should be applied to aevery article in Wikipedia, is that a wikilink characterization appears in the opening if and only if it's significant. Duhh. In a biographical article this would mean that it's significant to (a) the person's contemporary fame or (b) the reasons for the person's historical fame or importance. A rule of thumb would relate this to (c) how much treatment the thing in question merits in the main text. Astronomer, philosopher (his job title), and physicist clearly work; astrologer is irrelevant on all counts. Dandrake 21:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. But then what about articles that have significant references in their intros, but don't discuss it any further in their bodies? (I'm thinking of Michael Faraday here...) Brutannica 02:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the rule I just invented, they have a problem, which must be solved by deleting references or adding relevant information to the article. I Have Spoken. And seriously, I'm adopting that rule for any article I take a serious interest in. Dandrake 21:42, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

If you are going to say that Galileo was an astronomer, then you are aware that astronomy and astrology were the same thing until about 1750. So I think the astrology heading should stay.

I can see that you think that. Instead of engaging in an edit war, it would be more productive to work towards consensus. For instance, I'll set up a poll below.

No, I don't 'think that' Galileo was an astrologer, it is a proven fact that he was! So why not acknowledge the truth--just because one of the greatest scientists who ever lived also studied and used astrology in conjunction with astronomy. It isn't an insult to his other work or myriad of achievements in mathematics, physics, technology, philosophy, optics, free speech, etc. Who cares--as stated before: astrology was a very scholarly subject in the 1600s; but it is the truth so it should be in the article. Why not put "Galileo was an astronomer/astrologer..."? Because he studied and used both, that is only fair. I am a scientist myself, but I have wide ranging interests, so why is it hard to acknowledge that maybe more than a few great scientific geniuses of the past studied astrology, alchemy, numerology, phrenology, mysticism, etc.-- these subjects are considered offbeat and bizarre in today's world so that this information is left out of the textbooks to paint an idealized, modern portrait of the pure, rationalistic, pseudoscience hating scientific genius? I THINK: There needs to be a word coined for the combination astronomer/astrologer--because remember most if not all of the early European astronomers were also astrologers--but everywhere in modern print they are ONLY called astronomers. Basically the reason many of them turned to astronomy was to produce ephemerides that were more and more accurate, thus improving their astrological methods. Maybe astronogy or astrolomy would work? I like astrolomy better--reminds me of Ptolemy--hey wait a second! He was of course an astronomer--and an astrologer! They considered them one in the same! Just like Galileo, Kepler, Brahe, etc. WAKE UP--so why not state the facts--science is all about facts right?

Science isn't all about facts. Science is about the study of the natural world and the production of models that represent reality. By the way, if you're going to opine, sign your post; otherwise, shhh! Adraeus 22:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Astrologer poll

Should Galileo be listed as an astrologer in the article's introductory paragraph? Please sign and date for your vote to be counted.

Note: This vote is now closed. See the follow-up vote below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes

1. I am convinced by the evidence set out below that he practiced astrology and this should get a mention in the article. I think it needs more evidence of belief before we can say he was an astrologer Lumos3 08:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
   • I'm a little confused. You voted "yes", that he should be listed as an astrologer in the introductory paragragh. . . but then you indicated he shouldn't be listed as an astrologer. Would your vote more accurately be "no" to the question in the poll, but with the caveat that his practice of astrology be mentioned in the article? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
2. I vote yes. There's clear evidence that Galileo was able to draw up astrological charts, ergo he was an astrologer. This in no way undermines his achievement as a scientist and it is hopelessly anachronistic to try to divide the two fields in this period. (Just for the record, I think astrology is a load of old crock). The Singing Badger 13:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. Yes. The first hit on Google for "Galileo astrology" is a whole volume of a journal devoted to "Galileo's Astrology". Take a look around the journal site; it appears to be a proper peer-reviewed journal. Look at the abstracts; apparently Galileo also made a horoscope for Cosimo II de Medici. His horoscope for his daughter also features in the Galileo project. To answer the one argument accompanying a No vote: It's not just a question of what he made notable contributions to; it's important to know what his life was like. He didn't make notable contributions to Catholicism, yet the article rightly mentions he was a devout Catholic. He made no notable contributions to the art of dropping out of university for financial reasons, yet the article rightly mentions this aspect of his life. On a more general note, the portrayal of Galileo as the forebear of the currently dominant reductionist trends in science is IMO problematic; mentioning that he was an astrologer would be a welcome correction to this one-sided view. Fpahl 21:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
   • I read that Galileo was reluctantly involved with astrology primarily to earn extra money. So his primary field wasn't astrology; thus, he wasn't an astrologer by trade, but he was an astronomer, physicist, inventor, and mechanical engineer. He probably wouldn't want to be remembered as an astrologer either. I don't see anything wrong with mentioning that he involved himself with astrology in order to increase his value, but listing Galileo as an astrologer seems exaggerated. Adraeus 22:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
     • I am reluctantly involved with engineering, primarily to earn extra (or any) money. I am, without question, an engineer. To conclude from his reluctance and monetary motives that, "So his primary field wasn't astrology," is leaping to conclusions you already hold in the worst kind of way. --GoldenRing 03:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
4. I vote yes. The man undisputedly "did" astrology, ergo he is an astrologer. Breaking this link is denying a fundamental of the English language, the formation of descriptive adjectives from verbs. Is it worth mentioning in the article? Yes. It was indivisibly part of what he did and who he was, as was the case with all astronomers at the time. The assumption that seventeenth century astronomy was the same as twenty-first century astronomy is one easily made, which is all the more reason to point out that they are not the same. Censoring the word 'astrologer' because it offends certain historical viewpoints is nothing other than unashamed POV. --GoldenRing 04:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

5. I vote yes. There is evidence not only that Galileo was an astrologer, but that he took the practice very seriously. Rather ironically, one of the first issues raised against Galileo by the Church was his belief in astrology:

Q: You said before that in the nativities that this Galileo makes, he calls his predictions certain; this is heresy. How then can you say that he is a believer in matters of faith?

A: I know that he said that and that he calls his predictions from the nativities certain, but I am not aware that this has been declared heresy.[2]

That article is the best I've yet found in summing up Galileo's astrological practice. Serendipodous 10:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No

1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 01:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)</sup>
2. Brutannica 07:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. Nunh-huh 02:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) - made notable contributions to astronomy; made no notable contributions to astrology

not surprising, since the idea of a "notable contribution to astrology" is an oxymoron. How can one contribute to nonsense?

1. Adraeus 03:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe

1. Shimmin 14:42, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• Absolutely So--author of the above paragraphs in is favor. 09-19-04
  • Please sign-in and sign your posts for your vote to count. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 12:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry for reverting. I hadn't read this yet. Brutannica 07:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• My "maybe" vote above will become a yes if someone can provide, from Galileo's published works, examples of his contributions to the art of astrology. (For example, Kepler, in his "Conversations with the Starry Messenger", an open letter to Galileo in response to Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius included speculations on the astrological significance of the newly-discovered satellites of Jupiter. This is the sort of thing that is well-documented in Kepler's works, but to my knowledge, not so well-documented in Galileo's.) Shimmin 14:42, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

• The lone supporter continues to make reversions, against consensus. I'll revert. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 04:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

• The man cast horoscopes for royalty to make extra money. His astronomical discoveries were used mostly at the time to create more accurate ephemerides for use in astrology. Along with his friend and colleague Johannes Kepler, Galileo was the last of the long line of distinguished astronomer-astrologers to flourish in the courts of Europe before the two disciplines parted company in the western world in the mid seventeenth-century. So why not give the man due credit for what he deserves! The fact that he studied astrology is not even mentioned in the entire article--you don't have to put it in the heading, but at least somewhere in the article. He may have been a reluctant astrologer, but an astrologer nonetheless. Stop distorting the facts in favor of an elementary textbook, politically correct view. When Galileo taught at the University of Padua his duties were mainly to teach Euclid's geometry and standard (geocentric) astronomy to medical students, who would need to know some astronomy in order to make use of astrology in their medical practice.

• If you vote "Yes," place your name up there. Otherwise, shhhh! (unless you vote nay/maybe) Adraeus 19:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I found this on the web -- "Galileo Galilei, as courtier was also expected to meet the astrological needs of the prince." http://www.nd.edu/~dharley/HistIdeas/astron-astrol.html UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME Also, at the very top the page it shows a horoscope that HE MADE for his daughter, Virginia. I would say that this info from a website at Notre Dame is authoritative, correct? And do not forget the fact that Galileo was trained in MEDICINE, and astrology was used ALL OF THE TIME in standard medical practice duing this time period and throughout the Middle Ages, by the Romans, and indeed for all of written history.

• If you vote "Yes," place your name up there. Otherwise, shhhh! (unless you vote nay/maybe) Adraeus 19:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• It doesn't have to be listed in the introductory paragraph, just somewhere in the article to be TRUTHFUL--you people are a bunch of liars if you don't include the fact that he was an astrologer somewhere in the article; who cares if it is in the first paragraph or somewhere in the middle of the article.

Working toward Astrology consensus

Acheiving consensus is turning out to be harder than I'd thought. I'd like to propose the following:

Proposal: Galileo's activities in astrology will be mentioned in the article, but not in the opening paragraph. He won't be refered to as an "astrologer" per se, but his contributions to astrology and his astrological work will be refered to in detail.

And so here's the new poll:

Although this may not be my first choice, I'm willing to accept the above proposal to achieve consensus.

1. Willing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:36, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
2. Willing. Sundar 03:59, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
3. Willing. Fpahl 09:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. Willing. Adraeus 20:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5. Willing. Shimmin 21:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
   • Actually, the journal abstracts that someone else linked to above are worth reading. Apparently, in 1604 a young Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for the most part because of a somewhat profligate lifestyle, but during the course of his trial the issue of his horoscopes came up; the court questioned whether including a person's projected date of death in a horoscope implied a sort of "astral determinism" which was incompatible with the Church's doctrines regarding the interplay between divine omniscience and human free will. Shimmin 13:13, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
6. Willing. The Singing Badger 00:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC). Seems to me there is enough material on this talk page for an entire section about Galileo's astrological work, and the debate over its importance.

The above proposal is unacceptable to me.

• If he cast charts and interpreted them for WHOEVER, he was an astrologer/astrologist--whatever you want to call it. Did anyone even bother to check out this link? --------http://www.nd.edu/~dharley/HistIdeas/astron-astrol.html

• At the top of the page it clearly shows an astrological chart that GALILEO CAST for his daughter--come on people. What more proof do you need? Stop these lies and white-washing of history.

• Dear anonymous user – I sympathise very much with your effort to get Galileo's astrological activities mentioned in the article. I voted Yes for the original proposal and find it valuable. However, I also understand that some are worried that referring to Galileo as an "astrologer", especially in the introductory paragraph, would put too much weight on this aspect of his activities. He is not referred to as a "mathematician" anywhere in the article, despite having been a professor of mathematics at one point. Yet mathematics was probably more central to his notable contributions than astrology. While I agree with you that there is a real danger of the history of science being "white-washed" to make Galileo appear more like today's scientists than he was, you're going too far in accusing people with a different opinion of "lies". If you try to understand what's important to them, I'm sure we can come up with a solution that's acceptable to everyone. If you can't accept the above proposal, please indicate this clearly by a numbered vote (by adding "#~~~~" underneath the corresponding heading), and make an alternative proposal. For instance, perhaps we might agree that there should be a section titled "Astrology" – this would make it clear that this was a non-negligible aspect of Galileo's life, without labelling him an "astrologer". Many here seem to feel that this occupational description should be reserved to more central pursuits of his life. Fpahl 10:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• If I cook grilled cheese sandwiches, does that mean I'm a professional cook? No.
  If I drive occassionally, does that mean I'm a professional driver? No.
  If I put ice in a cup of water, does that mean I'm a chemist? No.
  If I sing in the shower, does that mean I'm a singer? No.
  If I construct a wooden doll house for my daughter, does that mean I'm a carpenter? No.
  To the anonymous ones, if you think your "vote" means anything, register an account and sign your username. Adraeus 20:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus

Alright, let's edit the article to include some of this info. Who'll step up to the plate first? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:29, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, since no-one from the anti-astrology camp seems keen on doing it, and our anonymous pro-astrology friend keeps anonymously editing contrary to the consensus decision, I guess I'll have to do it. I might not get around to it over the next couple of days, though, so bear with me. When I do, I'll probably create a separate section on astrology -- if someone isn't happy with that, please say so. Fpahl 19:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At this point there is no information whatsoever on astrology in the article. This article has had huge numbers of changes and I'm not sure how it was removed, if it was ever added. Ken Arromdee 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Consensus comments

• Galileo reluctantly involved himself in astrology. The fact that Galileo made greater contributions to astronomy indicates that he did not share astrological beliefs of the time; thus, he was not an astrologer.
  • If there is evidence that Galileo's practice of astrology was reluctant, then this could and should be mentioned in the article. Your argument from his contributions to astronomy is wrong. The impression that there is a contradiction between a belief in astronomy and a belief in astrology is a modern one. Whether this impression is correct or not (I don't think it is), it is far from obvious that Galileo must have had it. Fpahl 21:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Astronomical science and astrological belief differ greatly. I suggest you read a few academically credible books focusing on Galileo Galilei's life and scientific contributions. Adraeus 00:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • They certainly differ greatly. That doesn't mean they contradict each other. I'm quite familiar with Galileo's scientific contributions from my degree in physics, but thanks for the suggestion. I've also read a book by him and one about him, but I suspect you might not consider the latter "academically credible" ;-). Fpahl 02:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • It seems you missed the point initially since I never said anything about contradiction. I did infer evolution however. When someone goes against the status quo, like Galilei and Darwin did, to provide for a foundation of what they perceive as right and correct, it is obvious that {that someone} does not accept tradition. Galilei went against the status quo by supporting astronomy over astrology even while placating his employers and investors with traditional astrology. Transition--evolution--is not contradiction. Adraeus 08:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Going against the status quo is not all-or-nothing. No-one can question all assumptions of their time all at once, and it's not clear to me what gives you such confidence that Galileo questioned this particular one. If it's not evidence in his writings, I feel it can only be an impression that there is, if not a contradiction, at least significant friction between astrology and astronomy (which, to me, also seems to be implied in your formulation "supporting astronomy over astrology"). Consider the following analogy: Today, someone might find the current distribution of wealth unfair and become a famous political activist against it. She might, however, believe in property rights, and might run a small business of her own to finance her activities. Imagine now that some centuries into the future, people decide that property rights were actually a bad idea and responsible for a lot of strife and hardship, and invent a much better social system without them. They might see our political activist as an important initiator of the change that eventually led to this development. But they would be wrong in saying that, since she questioned the status quo, she couldn't possibly have believed in property rights, and she only very reluctantly ran a business, and it would be inappropriate to call her a businesswoman. Property rights are so deeply regarded as self-evident in our times that many people who question all sorts of things about the status quo don't question them. Similarly, it seems quite plausible to me that Galileo might not have questioned the practice of astrology, and might not have foreseen that his own work would lead to a development that would eventually dislodge it. (Perhaps we should move this discussion outside of the vote – feel free to do so if you add to it.) Fpahl 09:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • I'll get back to you later. I just woke up. Understand this though: 1->2 does not equal 1. A person who climbs from step 1 to step 2 is not still standing on step 1. Adraeus 18:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • Will you not listen to what is being said and learn to question your own prejudices? Astronomy and astrology today are (for many people) seen as incompatible. In Galileo's day, astronomy was the study of how stars and planets moved, and its main use was to develop astrological charts. There is nothing inconsistent about this; there is not even any suggestion of progress from one to the other. The belief that the planets and stars influence lives on earth is quite independent of ideas on how the stars and planets move. We, of course, believe that the stars and planets do not influence life on earth (at least not in the astrological sense), but that was not the belief of Galileo's day. His astronomy was undoubtably good; he undoubtably used his discoveries for astrological purposes. Nor is Galileo the only example of this: Keppler made great scientific contributions, practiced astrology, and was a commited Christian. Many people today regard all three as mutually incompatible, but he saw no problem with holding all three views together. As has already been observed, Newton studied kinematics, optics, economic and monetary theory, theology and alchemy (someone said ocultics even!) These are not necessarily incompatible (although theology and ocultics seems to bend this!) but we think so today.

Early career

The "Early career" section doesn't mention what he taught at these universities. Could someone who knows this add it? Fpahl 10:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

O.K. Brutannica 02:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New picture

So, the article lost its portrait; I assumed that this was maybe due to a lack of rights tagging, and replaced it with the Ottavio Leoni portrait since this could be used under the {{PD-art}} tag. However, I later found that the problem was that someone had trashed the Infobox_Biography template, and once I'd fixed that, either image worked fine, and the previous image, Galileo2.png, turned out to be properly rights-tagged anyway.

But in the meantime, the Leoni portrait has grown on me. I kind of like the contemporary painting of the younger Galileo over the later engraving we had been using. What are other people's preferences?

(above posted by not signed by User:Shimmin)

The Infobox_Biography template was not "trashed". It was changed, and all articles except this one were adjusted as a result. This page was protected until today, and could not be fixed. Please watch your words, and check your facts. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

I personally prefer another one, with Galilei looking slightly up. It's painted by Justus Sustermans. If not that, then the Leoni portrait. Brutannica 02:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know the one you're talking about; it's a great portrait. If you can find a hi-res version of it, feel free to replace and/or supplement the Leoni protrait with it. Shimmin 12:31, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't do that... I know nothing of picture-posting policy, or I would be scouring the Internet for maps and pictures to brighten some of these articles. Brutannica 05:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found a few. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Adraeus 04:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The colored Susterman portrait of Galilei looking upward is a 19th century copy. [10] Adraeus 04:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some videos... [11] Adraeus 04:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sentence of condemnation of Galileo

The following was found at the referenced site. [12] I think this is the full sentence. [13] And many more interesting documents... [14]

---

The formal condemnation of the Inquisition Tribunal was read to Galileo (1564-1642) in Rome on June 22, 1633:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the Sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that you first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in our presence you abjure, curse and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you. And, in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from delinquencies of this sort, we ordain that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo be prohibited by public edict. We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance."

---

Adraeus 04:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for more references and better organization

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information.

In this case there is one citation in footnote format and several inline citations. Can someone track down the full citation information for those and collect all the references in a ==References== section? Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

I changed the following recently changed sentence

Galileo did everything the church requested him to do, following (so far as most people can tell) the plea bargain of two months earlier.

which previously had said "we" can tell. I really don't understand the "most people". Does the author of the change have access to some special information that disproves what most people can discern? If so, please share.

So I've made the phrasing more direct: there is evidence to this effect, and that's what we have. If there is any other, it will be good to hear about it. Dandrake 22:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Church controversy: new changes.

Anybody interested in review of this large change? It's highly POV, of course, and details like an encomium to Bellarmine's theological status can easily be edited, as can serious inaccuracies, such as the mention of tidal theory in conjunction with the events of 1616. But of course there's more to it than that. Left to myself, I'd probably judge a simple reversion to be better than leaving it in, but maybe we can do something still better. And the anonymous editor might decide to participate rather than making one edit to Wikipedia and disappearing forever. (see [15] ) Dandrake 20:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Very well -- alone! I'm beginning to clean up this very large drive-by edit (check the editor's contrib list, indexed above). As a preliminary, cleaning up the prologue, which has been inaccurate for years: no one has presented a shred of evidence that Tycho was already replacing Ptolemy among the Jesuit astronomers by the time Galileo started drawing fire. It's often asserted, but never supported. Surely Clavius never advocated Tycho. Fantoli says, in a book translated by a Jesuit, that the change came later, when (and because) Galileo got in trouble. --Dandrake 00:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The article has a Huxley quote that has become rather popular:

Even Thomas Huxley, the man who invented the term agnostic and whose nickname was "Darwin's bulldog", said of the Galileo affair, "The Church had the best of it." [1]

This is cited in various places on the Web, always without a reference to the source. Typically, the passage above has a link—to a secondary source without context. It almost makes you think that people who write on the Web don't understand what a source is.

Can anyone provide a genuine reference for the Huxley quote? I've already asked in soc.history.science, but I'm not confident that anything will come up in that completely degenerate newsgroup. If no one can identify it, then it will have to be removed because it's impossible to determine what was meant in context, or even whether the quote is genuine. --Dandrake 06:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The article also asserts,

Bellarmine himself had had some of his own work placed on the index.

I can't readily find a source for this. The Wikipedia article on Bellarmine seems to say nothing about it; it does not contain the word index or ban; did I miss something? Google finds me http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=337 which says only that Sixtus V threatened to put the writings on the Index. In this and the above matter, the assertion will be struck if no one can defend it. --Dandrake 00:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Removed the Huxley quote since nobody can find where it came from or what its context might have been. Likewise, the claim that Bellarmine got on the Index. Dandrake 19:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has ever come up with a source for the Huxley quote -- surprise! -- but I ran across this other opinion of Huxley's, likening the churchmen who suppressed Galileo's work to "Canutes of the hour enthroned in solemn state, bidding the great wave to stay." Reaction to Darwin's theory Doesn't belong in the article text, but it illustrates a most interesting concept of getting the better of it, don't you think?

Much of the long justification of Bellarmine's position has been replaced with a consideration of Bellarmine's significance to the case. Material concerning that worthy's thoughts on science and theology would be a very useful addition to the article on Bellarmine, and I hope someone with a better knowledge of the subject puts it there. Oh, and of course, the inaccuracies should be fixed before that's done; I'd be glad to help. --Dandrake 20:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

JoshuaZ: you reverted my edit from yesterday on NPOV grounds. I feel this may have been a little hasty? I was trying to make readers aware of the wider context of the controversy; I haven't particularly got an axe to grind. The 30 years war that was decimating Europe just then is not mentioned anywhere in the section for example. It seems to me very likely, and worth drawing to people's attention, that Reformation politics may have had at least some relevance to Galileo's trial. In any case, there is certainly some extra complexity there that the article as it stands does not even allude to. Because there is no hook anywhere in the article as it stands, and because the new ideas need more than one sentence to summarise them adequately, I introduced a new paragraph. If I try again, with more effort to achieve NPOV, will you agree not to revert, at least not immediately? You comment that the contribution seems to be very minority, but Redondi's book was very influential in Italy (and also was very scholarly), there is new supporting material, and at least the Rice Galileo Project (which is one of the cited external links) treats it seriously. On the extra Scripture references, the whole point was that the trial revolved on the meaning of Scripture, so to double the number of references to Scripture seems relevant to me (as is the fact that multiple interpretations were available even then, although I suppose Kepler's opinions - being a Protestant - may not be relevant?). C.jeynes 01:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am not sure why the paragraph has a NPOV problem. It summarizes published material that gives additional context for the trial. If it is too much detail for this article, then maybe it could be moved to Galileo affair. JoshuaZ, can you explain the NPOV problem? Roger 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV concern is that the opinion isn't (as far as I am aware) that common an opinion and so seems to have an undue weight problem putting it in this article. I would have less (or no) issue to put some form of it in Galileo affair which goes into more detail on the subject and so can more reasonably have such minority opinions. JoshuaZ 06:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough C.jeynes 10:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei and Neptune

What year did Galileo observe Neptune? The entry for Neptune (planet) says: "Galileo's astronomical drawings show that he had first observed Neptune on December 28, 1612, and again on January 27, 1613; on both occasions Galileo mistook Neptune for a fixed star when it appeared very close (in conjunction) to Jupiter in the night sky" but the entry for Galileo Galilei says: "Galileo observed the planet Neptune in 1611, but took no particular notice of it; it appears in his notebooks as one of many unremarkable dim stars." -- Mark Mathu July 30, 2005

Cultural imperialism

Please, before anyone else makes attempts to "standardize" (oops, did you mean standardise?) spelling, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English and note that this particular article has (a) no particular connection to British subject matter (b) American-standard spellings since long long ago.

It's a well-considered policy. It has the extra benefit of providing incentive to contribute new articles, in which process one can determine the style that will apply to the article from then on. --Dandrake 23:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Core of Galileo's Church Controversy

I've proposed additional thoughts in the opening paragraph to this section with the intention of clarifying the foundations of the Galileo-Catholic battle.

At its core, this battle originated from the Catholic orthodox leaders taking a literalist viewpoint of the Bible, versus a more symbolic or metaphysical point of view. The new thoughts have been added without being judgmental about either POV -- literalist/orthodox or symbolic/metaphysical.

A reference for metaphysical interpretation of the Bible has been added.

Added a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia

I just added a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia. The material there is excellent and should be a must-read for anyone interested in the Galileo Affair.

The new link entry reads:

Galielo Galilei, in the Catholic Encyclopedia found online on New Advent, an orthodox Catholic website

God bless!

Manny Amador 11:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Two recent drive-bys

The assessment of the Leaning Tower story keeps shifting. The claim that it is generally considered false is stronger than the claim that it is not generally accepted as true. If you want that text, give some justification for it, such as to be persuasive. You will not find it easy. Till then, it reverts.

Does techne look for the causes of ALL things? And if Aristotle said so, are we sure that his "all things" meant just what a modern reader would mean? Discuss.

Dandrake 00:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Galileo's Fallacies

I added the section about his poor science and false claims. I added sources directly from Galileo's works, references to his knowledge of how relative motion actually worked, his incessant desire to prove Copernicus right, even though he was a novice on the subject compared to Brahe and Kepler, and a proper account for his intentional misleading in his Theory on the Tides, so if anyone takes it this section down, I would like to see come evidence to support that decision. Thanks --JHMM13 16:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Your section is extremely POV in its flat assertions of which very few are generally accepted. If you used soureces, how about some references? With some amount of work we can perhaps edit it into a shape that will Teach the Controversy. Dandrake 01:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone give us an actual source for the quote in which Galileo tells "Sarsi" that he discovered all the new things in the sky? What we have now is a reference to a secondary source called Zinner, without any bibliographic data on the latter. If no one can tell us where in Il Saggiatore the quote appears, then there is no telling what the sentence meant in context.

By the way, I just finished going through The Assayer (in English translation) and failed to find any such assertion. Granted, I find that whole comet controversy awfully tedious and did no more than scan the entire 185 pages rather quickly. Perhaps I have overlooked something obvious; it wouldn't be the first time that has happened. If so, the data will be easy to supply. If there is no proper traceable citation, however, then the piece of text is useless in supporting any claim about Galileo's behavior. Dandrake 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The bit about Galileo's deliberately faking his theory of the tides, because he had a perfect understanding of inertia, would surprise a lot of historians of science, like Koyré, who argued that his knowledge of inertia was vague and inaccurate, with ideas of some kind of "circular inertia" persisting throughout his career. You cannot both be right; the converse, however, is possible. Dandrake 07:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the following text, pending confirmation of the quote:

You cannot help it, Mr. Sarsi, that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither malice nor envy can suppress:: (Il Saggiatore quoted by Zinner, p. 362)

The passage appears many times on the Internet, but never with a genuine citation. Those few which give any kind of attribution invariably give one of 2 secondary sources. This is useless for finding the context of the passage; it does not even allow one to be sure that the passage is in the Assayer and not some other place (or that the text has not at some point been mangled and then taken seriously by writers borrowing from each other, a practice all too common in what is supposed to be scholarship). Someone with access to Zinner might look up his citation, which will give the precise source, if his book is a scholarly work worthy to be cited in its turn.

Just below the cursor as I write this, there's the Wikipedia boilerplate about verifiable sources. We need one for this passage. (It would help if anyone could even tell us where "Sarsi" challenged Galileo's priority for his observations, since the passage obviously would be in reply to such a challenge. All I can find is his slighting of Galileo's contribution to the telescope, to which Galileo replied with asperity but without any such outlandish claim as above.) Dandrake 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph pending clarification:

In his Dialogues, Galileo often stated arguments through the use of one of his characters, Salviati, that severely put down his opponent's positions without proving his own, a common argumentative tactic of Galileo's when it came to Copernicanism, considering Copernicanism was mired with eccessive epicycles and faults, so it had no conclusive evidence.

I don't understand why rebutting another scientist's error is a fallacy when one fails to provide a satisfactory alternative at the same time. An alternative is nice; I'm sure that the person who exposed the error in the 19th-century proof of the four-color theorem would have quite delighted to announce a workable alternate proof; but it's not mandatory. Perhaps a little expansion of the claim, particularly with examples of the misbehavior, would produce something that at least could be discussed. As it is, to use the fine scientific phrase, it's not even wrong. Dandrake 22:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the whole section "Modern claims of scientific errors and misconduct." In brief, I'm removing it for a general lack of NPOV and citation.

The breakdown:

Although Galileo is generally considered one of the first modern scientists, as evidenced by his position in the sunspot controversy, he is often said to have arrogantly considered himself to be the sole proprietor of the discoveries in astronomy.

He said that he discovered the "Copernican" system of astronomy? Removed because it cites no sources, and really needs one if it's true.

Furthermore, he never accepted Kepler's elliptical orbits for the planets, holding to the circular orbits of Copernicus, which still employed epicycles to account for irregularities in planetary motions. (The circle was considered the "perfect" shape.) For this reason, Galileo's "heliocentric" theory is incorrect, since there is, by definition, no geometric "center" to an elliptical orbit. (Nor, strictly speaking, do planets move in elliptical orbits; as they gravitationally interact with one another, they constantly change paths.)

I added a small blurb on Galileo and Kepler, pretty much just a copy of what I took out. The part about "Galileo's heliocentric theory" being incorrect is rather obsurd. The "heliocentric" theory is regarded as fact by the scientific community, laymen at large, and Wikipedia's own entry on Heliocentrism. It is true that there is no exact center of an orbit (especially one in which the points of the elipse change over time), but the gist of the theory is that the planets are orbiting *around* the sun. Scientists still refer to it all as "Copernican astronomy," though the details of the theory have all changed.

Galileo attributed tides to momentum, despite his great knowledge of the ideas of relative motion and Kepler's better theories using the Moon as the cause. (Neither of these great scientists, however, had a workable physical theory of tides; this had to wait for the work of Newton.) Galileo stated in his Dialogue that, if the Earth spins on its axis and is traveling at a certain speed around the Sun, parts of the Earth must travel "faster" at night and "slower" during the day. This is true in the Sun's frame of reference; but it is by no means adequate to explain the tides.

I chopped this up. It is worth mentioning the theory of the tides, but this paragraph is very condescending, without a source other than the writer's. Without Newton's work with gravity and physics, using the moon to explain the tides is only a little better than using some vague motion of earth's rotation. Kaktrot

Catholic bias to article

I find the point of view taken on the section entitled "Church controversy" absurd. It is ridiculous to suggest that the church in any way was justified in prosecuting Galileo. My claim that the article has a Catholic slant is buttressed by the fact that the author has included the ludicrous opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger which suggests that Galileo received a fair trial. Equally, suggestive of a bias towards the position of the church is the disparaging remark about Bertholt Brecht.

I understand that that is how the church saw that matter at the time. But the fundamental question for the authors of the Wikipedia article is: is the article written from a 21st century point of view, in which we may expect to be critical of the church's position, or are the authors trying to justify the church's 17th century dogmatic stance?

I would like to see the section in question labelled as not neutral.

Please sign your messages. Galileo was not only given a fair trial based on the terms of the law, but, after committing perjury on the first day of the trial (April 12) that his Dialogues did nothing but refute Copernicanism, he was given a second relatively simple slap on the wrist. He was verbally threatened with torture (a threat that carried no sway and was considered a formality when no torture equipment was in the room like in Galileo's trial), and after four times repeating that, since Cardinal Bellarmine's 1616 edict, he had never held the Copernican point of view, which was an absolute lie. Everyone knew it was a lie too, but they didn't want to really punish him, they just wanted to hurt his overlarge ego and let everyone else know that even Galileo falls under the power of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the opinion of many Galileo biographers and historians such as Arthur Koestler that Galileo was given a very fair trial that slanted in his favor if anything, based on the laws of the time. --JHMM13 07:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

May I point out that we are living in the 21st century, and that the definition of "fair" trail is not relative. The point still remains that Galilei was persecuted for his scientific beliefs, and that any enlightened person living today should consider this regretable, to say the least. If you insist on judging Galilei, as his persecutors did, from the point of view of Christian orthodoxy, then I cannot consider you as impartial.

I repeat that I do not consider this section as neutral, and belive that it should be labelled as such.

Here's a belated and fractional answer to both of the previous posters. And may I join in urging everyone to attach an identification to remarks posted here? Put a block of four tilde (~) characters at the end, and the software will replace it with identity and date. If at all possible, register a user name; it really takes almost no time and is extremely non-intrusive; more on this if you have any qualms.

First, then, it's necessary to consider the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) rule which is supposed to guide Wikipedia. [removed rhetoric that I now think too inflammatory] Points of view that one does not like (even things that one may consider pernicious nonsense) are to be represented if in fact they are held by some parties to a controversy. It is a painful rule to work with, but Wikipedia could not survive wihtout it. What is not allowable is to represent them as Fact. "It was a proper trial" is BS. Sorry, I mean POV. "Cardinal Ratzinger said it was proper" is true.

Ratzinger's opinion could be cut out of the article at any moment -- you could do it yourself -- but the change would probably be reverted right away, on the claim that one point of view was being forced on the article. And I'd support those claims, because Ratzinger's expertise in Catholic theology and canon law make him extremely well qualified to represent the views of Church people (though not all of them) on the controversy. What's needed is for other views to be expressed clearly, so that the reader knows what the issues are and can maybe make a judgment. The alternative is to start one's own encyclopedia and make sure it gets thing right, and don't think that idea isn't appealing. But reality intervenes.

It's very important not to think in terms of "the author of the article" in dealing with Wikipedia. There is no one author, particularly for an old article on a controversial subject. Please go the history page for the Galileo article and look at the number of revisions by different people. Go back and click on the date of some ancient revision, and look at what the text used to be. This is the work of many people, and they do not agree with each other! In fact, the church controversy section is pretty awful in my opinion -- I quite agree with you there. It is rambling and incoherent and self-contradictory and unscholarly, the work of people with different opinions cramming their stuff in and adding whatever tidbit they read the other day, with no real effort (as sometimes miraculously happens in some articles) to reach agreement on a presentation.

Please try to read the article as if you were a stout defender of everything the Church did. I am sure you would find it biased in just the opposite direction. Look at all the text from A. D. White; sure, there are disclaimers about his claimed prejudices, but his rhetoric is all there anyway.

If the text does not adequately present the case for Ratzinger's having been wrong, the best thing to do is to improve the text in that direction.

On the matter of Brecht, I agree that the present text is not good. I may be prejudiced, though, having written much of what was there last year. Personally, I think it has been mangled. Nonetheless, it's not false as to basic facts, just as to emphasis. Brecht's presentation is not even vaguely historically correct, nor was it ever intended to be. Ask any academic expert on Brecht what he was trying to do in his plays; it was not to make documentaries. Fat bishops laughing uproariously about Galileo's silly ideas? Not the reaction of the Church in actual history. (In fact, it's a bit like Martin Luther's reaction to Copernicus; but it appears that that was dinner-table conversation and not a considered theological judgment.) Galileo pretending to be the original inventor of the telescope so he could hog all the glory and the profits? Fantastic (literally) nonsense.

Hmm, so far I've responded to only the first poster, and it probably sounds hostile, because i need to clarify what goes on in Wikipedia. I try not to write postings that are even this long, because the posting mechanism is too unreliable; so I'm going to cut this one off, and in the next I'll reveal how much I really agree with poster number 1. Dandrake 06:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC) [emendations Dandrake 01:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)]

Now, as to the substance of the complaint. If the whole affair was conducted perfectly in agreement with the Church's own rules as of the seventeenth century, that is relevant and should be in the article. It should not be presented as established and generally agreed fact, because it is not: the Church's actions have been criticized from inside the Church as well as outside it. But the question is encyclopedic and belongs in the article.

It is not, however, the end of the matter. We are indeed living in the 21st century, and we have judgments to make about scientific and religious issues, and the history of those issues is relevant. To leave it with "The Church obeyed its own contemporary rules" would be unworthy of the nineteenth century, not to mention the eighteenth.

The conception of the relation between the Church and scientific research has changed a great deal since 1633. Many people in the Church itself would agree with this; citations upon request. It would be ludicrous not to pay attention to the changing interpretations in an article on Galileo. But the article is not that ludicrous.

If you're up for a small research project, backtrack in the history section to the end of last July, and see the amount of attention devoted to Cardinal Bellarmine, without any indication that anyone today might wonder how expertise in theology would qualify someone to tell scholars what they would be allowed to believe on a question about material things, on pain of severe punishment. Note that this omission has been corrected:

• Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the most respected Catholic theologians of the time, was called on to adjudicate the dispute between Galileo and his opponents, including both religious zealots and secular university professors. The appointment shows the world view that prevailed before the Scientific Revolution: a leading theologian was assigned to tell scholars what views they were allowed to "hold or defend" concerning the workings of the physical world.

I think (though again, I'm prejudiced) that that starts to put the issues in perspective. Likewise, the article points out that the official formal registered judgment of the Inquisition said nothing whatever about Galileo's supposedly violating a direct order not to teach heliocentrism (tha article also tells why they could hardly do that, since the allegation had been proved false); nor did it pay any attention to whether his claims had any scientific force, as would have been required by the wise Cardinal Bellarmine's position. Please consider whether the modern apologists fo rthe Inquisition are likely to be happy about these passages.

Also, please keep up the ciriticisms. The article always needs improvements, and it needs them severely in this section. Contribute your own text if you like; but if you prefer to discuss major changes here first, good on you. Dandrake 07:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a small criticism. The NPOV in this article sways both ways, and the problem is that too many people hold that it was one side or the other that screwed up in the whole trial of Galileo mess. That basic tenet is the problem, because both sides did things wrong. Initially, Galileo's statements (which were more of a support of the Copernican point of view than anything else in this whole case) and observations were verified by the Vatican's astronomers and were no cause for alarm within the Holy See. Great, everyone's happy. The problems occurred when Galileo began to publicly re-interpret and question scripture. Why was this a big deal? Because he was doing this on the heels of the beginning of the Reformation, that's why. Basically, Galileo was taking something he knew well, astronomical context, and he was forcing it into a realm in which he was clearly not an expert, theology. The Church's mistake here was the overreaction of making him renounce the entire belief that they would have accepted perfectly well before had he not begun calling bishops out and publicly ridiculing the pope. It was vindictiveness, plain and simple, at that point.

As a reference for this, I give you a well researched article by George Sim Johnson, based on a comission that Pope John Paul II arranged to put a definitive storyline together for this whole mess. http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html 129.42.208.182 19:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring the controversy

Long ago there was a discussion, with a consensus among the few participants, of refactoring the Church Controversy and moving it into a separate article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galileo_Galilei#The_Trial._Again.3F The arguments are no less right than they were then; and now the whole thing has been challenged on its quality (and it's about time).

I have started a Procrustean, not to say Draconian, approach. The long and disorganized section has been replaced with a short summary of events, together with a pointer to a new Main Article, Trial of Galileo. That article has been intialized, first with the full old text (to get it into the History) and then with a copy of the summary from this article. It's now fair game for the effort to create a proper, coherent page, based on primary sources where possible. (But all the old text is there to crib from.)

Let us try to keep the section in this article to a minimal length, treating, so far as possible, only of essential factual matters that are generally agreed on. (That'll keep it short!) --Dandrake 01:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Character sets

I just had to do a nasty little edit to reverse a change made by an editor's browser (mine, Firefox on a Macintosh) which took all the dash characters and automatically replaced them with some ugly gibberish. If the dashes had been represented by ampersand-n-d-a-s-h-semicolon, giving rise to "–", this wouldn't have happened.

I don't know whether people are trying to "simplify" the text by replacing those ugly html strings – character provided by their browser's particular character set; or some damn officious browser is going that for them; but it stinks. You CANNOT assume things about how other people's browsers will handle character sets, but you can and must assume they'll handle plain html.

Oh well, even if such things are done right, that wouldn't solve the problem with the multilingual stuff at the bottom of the article.Dandrake 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No one questions it- must be true.

My question is in response to the following:

"However, Galileo did perform experiments involving rolling balls down inclined planes, which proved the same thing: falling or rolling objects (rolling is a slower version of falling, as long as the distribution of mass in the objects is the same) are accelerated independently of their mass."

Galileo "proved" that falling objects accelerate at the same rate independent of their masses. However, the above should not be confused with the concept that objects will hit the ground at the same time. When Galileo mythically or not dropped objects from the tower of Piza the Earth actually moved on a micro scale a sliver of an atom towards the object.

I suppose that just because we can't measure this movement doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Please comment.

Michael McNett 03:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the connection between the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the third paragraph there. I mean, if you drop two objects together, and they accelerate in exactly the same way, then they'll hit the ground together whether or not the Earth moves up a little to meet them, no?

Anyway, it's true that the Earth does move toward the falling object; Newton's law of gravity implies that, and Relativity doesn't change the conclusion. In fact, Newton's laws of motion, even without his specific formulation of gravity, require that dropping the ball won't cause the center of mass of the Earth-ball system to move; hence, if the ball falls, the Earth must rise by an amount given by the ratio of the masses. Naturally, Galileo didn't apply this reasoning; it's amusing to speculate what he'd have said if asked whether the Earth moved in that experiment.

Hmm, maybe I now see what you're saying: If you drop 2 objects of different masses from different points at the same time -- or drop them at different times and time the fall of each very carefully -- then the heavy one will hit the ground faster, because both accelerate at the same rate, but the heavy one lifts up the Earth a trace faster. This is true in principle. Like the parabolic trajectory, the equal time of fall makes some assumptions that are true to a really really good aprroximation. The trajectory assumes a uniform gravitational attraction, while in fact the acceleration is slower at higher altitude, making the trajectory really the tip of an extremely elongated ellipse; the equal time of fall assumes an effectively infinite mass for the Earth. Each of these approximations is a whole lot closer to the truth than the explicit assumption of no air resistance, though. Dandrake 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if you drop two objects at the same time I predict that the earth would tilt (albeit an infintismal measurement) toward the object with greater mass. Therefore the "heavier" object would hit the ground before the "lighter" one.

Picture a pure vacuumed universe. We have nothing but object A (The earth) and B (A bowling ball). If we place them in this universe and instruct no movement upon them they will accelerate toward one another. Object B accelerating much faster (unless your reference point is from object B). The acceleration should be 9.8 m/s2.

Picture another pure vacuumed universe. We intruduce object B (The bowling ball) and object C (The moon). We do the same experiment as before and find that the the objects move together with an acceleration of 1.62 m/s2.

If we do this experiment at the same time with a frame of reference in both universes at B we would find that A and C have different accelerations.

This would appear to contradict Galileo.

True the use of a gravitational constant is useful in advancing our sciences. However, I expect that the theory that objects fall at the same rate onto a heavenly body is flawed in that our experiments are dealing with objects with similar mass and therefore giving an as of yet unmeasurable difference in acceleration.

If we stand on the sun and drop a golf ball and the very heavy planet Jupiter. Jupiter would win Michael McNett 12:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But this discussion is largely irrelevent for the Galileo article, since universal gravitation wasn't yet an issue. If the passage can be changed to indicate something less strong than "proved", that's always a good thing in any history of science article. But we shouldn't try to introduce anachronistic concepts.--ragesoss 18:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Epicycles?

"Furthermore, he never accepted Kepler's elliptical orbits for the planets, holding to the circular orbits of Copernicus, which still employed epicycles to account for irregularities in planetary motions."

I strongly believe the epicycles were employed to account for retrograde motion, which was evidence that the planets revolved around the sun (as opposed to the Earth) and not evidence that planets moves in ellipses instead of perfect circles. I could be wrong, however, so I'm reluctant to actually change it. Also, does anyone know of a MATHEMATICAL formula that accounts for the position of an object that is a satellite to a satellite? (eg: the position of the moon around the sun?) User:Tarayani 2:23, 09 Jan 2006 (EST)

Galileo basically never took the time to learn Kepler's system. Epicycles were used in Ptolemy's system to both explain retrograde motion and irregularity (i.e., the fact that the orbits are actually elliptical). Copernicus still used epicycles and deferents, because even though heliocentrism explained retrograde motion in a natural way, it still didn't account for the irregularities of motion. Copernicus rejected Ptolemy's equant, replacing it with the Tusi-couple. Galileo didn't modify Copernicus. As it stands, the sentence is pretty much correct, although it could use more detail.--ragesoss 18:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

His Son

On other sites, it lists the birth of Galileo's son as in 1525. Being as how Galileo was born in 1564, it seems quite impossible that his son was born in 1525. When was his son REALLY born (as in, what year)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.124.63.215 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-22 15:50:45 (UTC) he was born in 1606

Middle finger

What article about Galileo is complete without mention of his middle finger. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

Galileo Galilei was an Italian astronomer, physicist, and mathematician, who was born in Pisa, Italy on the 15th of Febuary, 1564. Although most mathematicians become famous after their death, Galileo was famous through his entire life as a mathematician and astronomer ending on the 8th of January, 1642. His father, Vincenzo Galilei, was a well known flute player, composer, theorist, singer, and teacher coming from a string of doctors so encouraged and forced his first son of seven, Galileo, into the University of Pisa as a medical student. Galileo had no interest in his medical studies so took mathematics and natural philosophy on the side beginning his mathematics career. After much persuasion Vincenzo agreed to allow him to take classes in Euclid and Archimedes. The young mathematician began a career in teaching at the university and writing his first book, The Little Balance which described the Archimedes’ method about finding specific gravities using a balance. Galileo came to Florence in 1583 to study at the University of Florence under the court mathematician Ostilio Ricci. During this time he wrote De Motu describing how to find the rate of descent of falling bodies using an inclined plane. On his recent trips to Florence, Galileo meets a young woman by the name of Marina di Andrea Gamba with whom he never married but had two girls and one boy after his father’s death in 1591.

As of now, I am unsure if this is vandalism. However, it certainly was added in in appropriate areas, with repeated lead content and was added twice by 24.8.226.51. I'm not sure if this information is accurate and verifiable, but I'll put it here for the convenience of other editors. AndyZ _t 23:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The bottom of the church controversy section

"In modern terms, we consider Galileo's views on heliocentricity to be no fundamental advance. The Sun is no more the center of the universe than the Earth is (indeed, the question has no meaning, as apparently all locations can be equally regarded as the "center" of the universe). The Catholic Church held to the prevailing scientific opinion of the day, which was that the Earth was the center of the universe. Thus, for moderns, the key issue of this controversy was not the objective correctness of the theories being debated, but rather the morality of institutions (or persons) using physical force to shape acceptance of scientific beliefs."

This paragraph should be removed. I consider heliocentrism to be a more accurate theory than geocentrism, simply because having the sun as the 'center' of 'our little place' is more accurate than having us at the center. While this is a well articulated arguement i think it should, in no way, be considered canon for the article as it offers one persons' opinion or view on the matter and forms no basis for encyclopedia material.

What's more "accurate" about having the Sun at the center of "your little place" than the Earth? You live on the Sun, maybe? The rest of us are editing from someplace else. Geocentricity is a POV, but so is heliocentricity. Unless you're a plasma being who's gained access to Wiki, I happen to think geocentricity is more natural for both of us. However, the modern view of physics is that the universe doesn't have a center. Unless it's your navel.Sbharris 05:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

True, the universe doesn't have a center, but that doesn't mean that any POV is as good as any other. For any regular periodic motion there is a preferred frame of reference where all fictitious forces disappear. In modern physics this is called the center-of-momentum frame. When this frame is used for the motions of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets, all the planets will have elliptical orbits with focal points inside the Sun (or very close to the Sun in Jupiter's case). The Sun is almost motionless in this frame, so "heliocentric" is a perfectly valid label for the most accurate description of the solar system. --Shastra 09:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So you say that the heliocentric model is more accurate because it more closely approximates the center of momentum frame. How does that relate? Momentum had not even been discovered yet, and Galileo contemporaries would have measured accuracy in terms of how well the models explained the observed planetary motions as seen on Earth against the backdrop of stars. Yes, there are sometimes reasons to prefer the heliocentric but there are also reasons to prefer the geocentric in some situations. Roger 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Galileo knew about momentum, but that's not my point. Of course there are reasons where accelerated frames are appropriate. When I pour wine into a glass while traveling on an airplane, a frame that is co-moving with that airplane is the most appropriate for coordinating my movements. But when looking at the motion of the planets, a heliocentric or center-of-momentum frame is the most appropriate. It doesn't matter if you know about galactic motion or not, or if you realize that a co-moving frame works better for local experiments. Galileo understood this principle of switching between viewpoints (he did invent the fundamentals of the Galilean transformation after all), but the Catholic Church authorities had no clue at all. --Shastra 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes the heliocentric frame is more appropriate. And sometimes the geocentered or Milky-Way-centered frames are more appropriate. Modern physics allows you to choose a convenient frame. Roger 19:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed this:

The Catholic Church held to the prevailing theological opinion of the day, which was that the Earth was the center of the universe.

It would be more accurate to say that the Church held to what had been the prevailing scientific opinion for 100s of years. But the article is about Galileo, and the sentence doesn't really fit anyway. Roger 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I see now that User:JoshuaZ has put the sentence back in, without any explanation here on the discussion page. I still say that the statement is confusing and misleading. It is tacked onto a paragraph, without much relation to the paragraph. It refers to "the day", even tho the paragraph discusses events over a period of 100s of years, and it is not clear when "the day" is supposed to be. It is not clear why the geocentric opinion is said to be "theological". Is it trying to imply that the Church used scientific arguments to reach a theological conclusion, or theological arguments to reach a scientific conclusion, or what? Answering this gets off-topic too much. I suggest removing the sentence. Roger 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sr. F Bacon

I removed the last point in the comparison GG-Bacon (which I tend to think is unnecessary as a whole): it stated that the Baconian method is 'too complicated to be useful for modern scientists', which is untrue. Similar approaches are used especially in 'modern' branches of biological sciences- see molecular biology (knock-in/out, partial gene transfer, RNA interference etc), pharmacology (esp. pre-clinical testing), and (before the shiny magic boxes of mol.bio came around) psychological assessment in broad screening studies. The point naming GG as the father of modern science was valid so I just placed it below the whole thing. Duagloth 09:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the chart comparing Galileo and Bacon, as I don't think is it appropriate to the article. A more subtle and informative comparison should be possible merely by reading the entries for both Bacon and Galileo, and there isn't enough space in the article for such checklist comparisons between Galileo and other scientists or philosophers. If there is an intellectually significant controversy about the relative achievement of these two it should be described, without a chart, in more detail (citing arguments appropriately) or given an article of its own. ThaddeusFrye 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Having done this I do feel a little bad, since some information was lost by this deletion, and someone did work on that chart. I hope someone will add a section on Galileo's "Scientific Method," which might include a paragraph in which G.'s ideas (after being described in their own right) are comparted to those of Bacon or others. Did Galileo describe or employ a "method" as such? It's an interesting question. ThaddeusFrye 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cracow

As far as i know Galileo studied in Cracow. There is no reference to this part of his life in article.

And the Greatest was?

Galileo? Einstein? Newton? Archimedes? Gauss? Someone else? The intros of the articles on Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein quote praise by famous scientists. Of course one can always find a famous guy saying something positive about another famous guy. For symmetry reasons, similar praise could be added to the Galileo intro. For example, in his book A brief history of time, Stephen Hawking writes that Galileo has probably contributed more to the creation of the modern natural sciences than anybody else. Physicists 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Church controversy"?!

Could someone explain to me why is this section named "Church controversy", as if there's something controversial here. If it is, I'd like to know what exactly is the controversy. More fitting name would be "Persecution by the Church", and the only reason why I'm not changing it on the spot is that this is a featured article. GregorB 13:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there's controversy. Isn't that why you want to change it? Calling it "persecution" would suggest that Galileo was being unfairly singled out, and it give an anti-Church point of view. Roger 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So when Nikolai Bukharin goes to FA status, we'll have a "Show trials controversy" section, because calling it "persecution" would suggest he was unfairly singled out, and we would not want an anti-Stalin POV, wouldn't we? GregorB 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article on Nikolai Bukharin does not call his trial "persecution". We try to just give facts, not opinion.

The section doesn't refer to his trial being controversial, it refers to the fact that the dispute between Galileo and the Church was, by defintion, a controversy: there were two positions, with arguments for each side. The resulting persecution is not the main subject of the section, the dispute is. That there is or has been controversy over the interpration of Galileo Affair is not what the section title refers to.--ragesoss 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So, when Galileo was threatened with torture, that was really just a particularly clever argument by the Church? What about the fact that one side - and one side only - risked imprisonment or death for expressing dissent? The Bukharin parallel may appear extreme, but what's the difference? Submit - or else! (True, in Bukharin's case the "or else" part was missing.)

According to Wikipedia, persecution is "persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group". To say that Galileo and others like him weren't persecuted is to say that they were treated fairly. GregorB 12:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you might want to write an article on the history of free speech, or something like that. I suspect that you'll find lots of people who were subject to some treatment that you consider unfair. It is better for an encyclopedia article on Galileo to just stick to the facts. Roger 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, and I quote: "that you consider unfair". Forgive my sarcasm, but I'd thought that putting people on trial for their beliefs is by and large considered unfair - but it seems it's just me. When you say "stick to the facts", I hear whitewash. I'm not interested in writing an article on the history of free speech; I think I've made my point, and the rest is up to Wikipedians. GregorB 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger, is this your blog? For a moment I thought that whitewash bit was perhaps a little too harsh, but now it appears to me that I got it right. GregorB 21:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess -- you don't like kigs, popes, fuedalism, etc. I happen to think that it is unfair for someone to be tried without rights to a jury trial and not to testify against himself. What do you want to do -- go thru all the historical WP entries and declare what you think was or was not unfair? Roger 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Galileo Galilei

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

where did he go to school?

i need it for my science report. HELP! =]

Where was he Burried ?

Its says "Galileo was reburied on sacred ground at Santa Croce " presumably he was buried on non-sacred ground before that but that whole piece seems to be missing. I checked the "affair" page as well but not netioned there either

Father of Science?

He is great and all, but would he really be considered as the "Father of Science"??? Considering that there were way more scientists before him, NPOV, right?

I agree. He was a great scientist, but there is no consensus that he is the "father of science". Roger 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)