Talk:Galileo Galilei

Neptune

Referring to Neptune, the article now says "its motion". Actually, writing in Latin, Galileo said "sed videbat remotiores inter se". Thus, he treated Neptune's motion as a possibility, not a certainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy

"On 25 August 1609, he demonstrated one of his early elescopes, with a magnification of about 8 or 9, to Venetian lawmakers."

Should be "telescopes" not "elescopes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkit (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Now fixed.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawking's sentence

I feel this sentence should be removed/changed: According to Stephen Hawking, "Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science." I know Hawking's a popular scientist and science popularizer but since when is he an authority on history of science? Although the sentence is quite true I think it should be changed for something like "Most historians of science consider Galileo, more than any other single person, as responsible for the birth of modern science". I should be able to find a nice reference. (79.168.249.26 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

So you want to take a statement from a non-historian and attribute it to a historian? The statement was in the article twice, so . I really don't see how he was any more scientific than dozens of other famous scientists, but go ahead and find quotes if you can. Roger (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Galileo and astrology

I am a historian who has published both a peer reviewed article ( “Natural Philosophy or Science in Premodern Epistemic Regimes? The Case of the Astrology of Albert the Great and Galileo Galilei”)on Galileo as well as a book chapter in my volume "Rational Magic" dealing with Galileo. I would like to add a bit more about Galileo's astrology but I see this is a "semi-protected" page and though I am a registered user, I can't edit it. Suggestions? Scotthendrix1970 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Scott Hendrix

Either

1. Post you proposed addition here and ask for someone else to add it; or
2. Perform 10 minor edits and wait 4 days. You will then be "autoconfirmed" and be able to add it yourself.

There has been a recent discussion (here) of the article's coverage of Galileo's astrology, which it might be worth your while having a look at.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Resurrection of earlier discussion

I'm a bit concerned about this sentence: "His multiple interests included the study of astrology..." It gives a false impression that Galileo actually wasn't strongly critical about it. While there is really a lot of evidence from multiple sources for his negative attitude towards astrology.

This reference gives a review on that issue: [1] --Kanishev (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference you cite is a very nice find. Many thanks for posting the link to it. However, its conclusion seems to be based on the glaringly unwarranted assumption that Galileo's attitude towards astrology remained the same throughout his life. I'm aware that a similar opinion seems to be held by several other reputable Galileo scholars (Stillman Drake, Michael Sharratt and Maurice Finocchiaro, for instance) whose writings seem to indicate that they believe Galileo never gave much credence to astrology. However, there is certainly also a respectable group of scholars (including John Heilbron and William Shea) who do not share that opinion.

As it happens, I'm currently reading Heilbron's recent biography of Galileo, which has a much more extensive discussion of Galileo's astrology than is usual in similar such works. Given the evidence Heilbron provides, his conclusions seem to me to be eminently sensible:

"The degree of Galileo's commitment to astrology is as hard to divine as his politics. That he subscribed to it in the form in which he deployed it in his daughters' nativities seems likely" (p.94).

"The report of the archbishop [i.e. the letter of Ascanio Piccolomini's discussed in Bucciantini and Camerota's article that you have cited] probably accurately reproduced Galileo's final considered opinion about astrology. He had placed some credence in it when he cast birth charts for himself, his daughters, and his students, .... . But experience had exposed its shortcomings .... "(p.326, emphasis mine).

In other words, according to Heilbron, it's likely that Galileo initially accepted astrology—at least in the form in which he practised it when erecting and interpreting horoscopes of himself, his family and his friends—but eventually became so disillusioned with it that his attitude turned hostile.

You say "there is really a lot of evidence from multiple sources for [Galileo's] negative attitude towards astrology". It would be helpful if you could provide more details of these sources. The problem with the only such sources I'm aware of—such as Drake, Sharratt and Finocchiaro, mentioned above—is that they simply state an opinion without attempting in any way to explain how it can be reconciled with a large amount of primary source material—as presented in Heilbron's biography—that appears to contradict it. The very earliest indication I'm aware of from primary sources that Galilieo was ever critical of astrology is the well-known passage from the Dialogue, written between 1624 and 1632. In all of his earlier scattered correspondence on or references to astrology that I'm aware of he seemed to take it for granted that it was a perfectly legitimate activity.

I nevertheless agree that the sentence you object to is misleading. In context, it would seem to imply that astrology was something which Galileo made a special object of study in the same way that he did with the motion of falling bodies and the structure of the solar system. But, as far as I know, there's no evidence for that. The only reliable sources I have seen discuss the matter suggest that Galileo's study and practice of astrology was nothing more than what would be expected of any professional mathematician of the period.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have to go with Heilbron here. Galileo was a practicing astrologer, who carried out this trade for more reasons than simply a desire to make a bit of money or gain the patronage of the Medici family. 25 surviving genitures drawn in his own hand provide testimony to that fact, including those drawn up for close family members and friends. These genitures were always composed with the greatest of care, as can be seen by the corrections he made to the math throughout. Did Galileo still accept the validity of astrology as a predictive discipline late in life? Perhaps not. But he certainly did when he was younger, and these beliefs may have made positive contributions to the development of his mechanical philosophy. Some details can be found here: http://teorievedy.flu.cas.cz/index.php/tv/article/viewPDFInterstitial/72/99 For the PDF, click on the final link on the page, marked klikněte zde
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthendrix1970 (talk • contribs) 12:27, February 2, 2012‎ (UTC)

Dates

In the article on Sarpi, the attempt on his life is dated to 1607. In the timeline, it is said to have been in 1606. It is not clear if the attempt was for scientific reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.124.253 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed

Thank you for picking this up. According to John Heilbron, in his book Galileo (p.180), the (first) assassination attempt took place on October 5th, 1607. The motives for the attack were almost certainly political rather than anything to do with Sarpi's scientific work or opinions.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)