Talk:Galileo affair

The Earth

From Earth:
"In general English usage, the name earth can be capitalized or spelled in lowercase interchangeably, either when used absolutely or prefixed with "the" (i.e. "Earth", "the Earth", "earth", or "the earth"). Many deliberately spell the name of the planet with a capital, both as "Earth" or "the Earth". This is to distinguish it as a proper noun, distinct from the senses of the term as a mass noun or verb (e.g. referring to soil, the ground, earthing in the electrical sense, etc.). Oxford spelling recognizes the lowercase form as the most common, with the capitalized form as a variant of it. Another common convention is to spell the name with a capital when occurring absolutely (e.g. Earth's atmosphere) and lowercase when preceded by "the" (e.g. the atmosphere of the earth). The term almost exclusively exists in lowercase when appearing in common phrases, even without "the" preceding it (e.g. "It does not cost the earth.", "What on earth are you doing?")." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 4 May 2013

"Proof" of Heliocentrism

The article makes the following statement:

Galileo began his telescopic observations in the later part of 1609, and by March 1610 was able to publish a small book, The Starry Messenger (Sidereus Nuncius), relating some discoveries that had not been dreamed of in the philosophy of the time: mountains on the Moon, lesser moons in orbit around Jupiter, and the resolution of what had been thought to be very cloudy masses in the sky (nebulae) into collections of stars too faint to see individually without a telescope. Other observations followed, including the phases of Venus and the existence of sunspots.

None of these findings, which were difficult at first for other astronomers to verify, proved that the Earth moved, or directly contradicted either Aristotle's model or Christian doctrine.

(emphasis added)

Why is it necessary to state that Galileo's initial telescopic findings did not prove that the Earth moved? This is not how science works. Proof is a nearly impossible hurdle. What Galileo's observations did do was make an extremely powerful argument for the Copernican system, in which the Earth did move. The key elements of this argument were that the phases of Venus were consistent with the Copernican system, but inconsistent with the Ptolemaic system, that Jupiter and its moons form a Copernican system (with the Jovian moons obeying the same period-distance relation as the planets), and that the celestial bodies are imperfect, like the Earth. While some of the philosophical difficulties that Galileo's findings created are mentioned, the sentence I bolded above makes it seem as if Galileo's observations had little direct connection with the question of whether the Earth moves. This is along the lines of the argument one hears that until the detection of stellar parallax and Foucault's pendulum, in the 19th Century, the question of Earth's motion was not settled. The question was largely settled by the end of the 17th Century, without the need of these "direct" demonstrations. The article should give more emphasis to this point. Maybe the bolded sentence should be replaced by a few sentences explaining the implications of Galileo's observations for the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, which wasn't referenced anyway. This article could probably benefit from a more in-depth section describing the historiography of the affair: such a section might also deal with the issues you raise more directly. -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement is necessary because of the widespread belief that the observations proved the motion of the Earth, and that the Church refused to look in the telescope to see the obvious. Perhaps the article could mention the later evidence, but I suggest putting this good sentence back in. Roger (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The question isn't whether Galileo's observations proved or did not prove heliocentrism. It's rare in science that anything is "proven" in a definite sense by observation. What Galileo's observations did do was to lend very strong support to the heliocentric view. They directly contradicted one of the predictions of the geocentric theory, which is that Venus should not show the entire set of phases. They also showed that Jupiter and its moons formed a Copernican system, with the same period-distance relation as the planets orbiting the Sun. From a modern perspective, even assuming ignorance of physics but merely a scientific mindset, Galileo's observations, combined with existing arguments for heliocentrism, would be considered very strong evidence.

This is an important point to make. Saying that Galileo couldn't prove heliocentrism gives the impression that at the time, the evidence favored neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism. This is not true - in Galileo's time, the evidence swung very drastically away from Ptolemy's model and towards heliocentrism. It also gives the impression that the Church's opposition to heliocentrism was due to scientific objections, when the objections were more theological and political.

What we need is not a statement that Galileo didn't prove heliocentrism, but rather a more in-depth explanation of what exactly the importance of his observations and arguments were to the question of the Earth's motion. I can write such a section, but it will take time. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions about "how science works" are not relevant here. At the time, a critical issue in the Galileo affair was whether he had proof of heliocentrism. If he believed that he did not have proof, then he could have published the arguments for and against, and avoided trouble. If he had proof sufficient to convince Church officials, then they would have been forced to accept it and to re-interpret the Bible.

If you want to add a paragraph with a 21st century appraisal of the evidence, then that might be a useful addition, but it is still important to say whether Galileo had proof at the time. I say to restore the sentence. Roger (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If Thucydides411 wants to write his section, he should do so on his own web-site. He might explain why Pythagoras and others put forward systems with a moving earth before any telescope was introduced. He might also note that the theory of relativity treats heliocentrism and heliostaticism as untrue or meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepersleeper123123 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Galileo rejected Kepler's laws, which were brought to his notice in 1612 by Prince Cesi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepersleeper123123 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sleepersleeper123123, it's not really clear what you're getting at here. Are you arguing that Galileo didn't properly take into account General relativity, which was discovered 300 years after his death? And what does Galileo's failure to appreciate the laws of Kepler (who greatly admired Galileo) have to do with this either? -Darouet (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There are still no sources being discussed in any of this, and Roger your addition just places unsourced content back in the article. In this context Thucydides411's "opinion" is just as relevant as yours, and I'd have to agree with him: the objection that Galileo didn't "prove" heliocentrism is erroneous. I'd add that it's misleading, since it gives the reader the impression that from a scientific perspective, Galileo's writings and observations had little or no merit compared to contemporary alternatives. That's false.

There is a long history of accusing Galileo of failing to provide "proof," e.g. in mathematical terms, of a physical phenomenon understood through scientific inference. The implication is always that the Church was justified in rejecting Galileo's ideas, or even persecuting him, because he failed as a scientist. Stillman Drake, the wonderful essayist and writer on Galileo, addresses the point directly in his first volume on Galileo:

"It is still often said that definite proof of the earth's motion had to await detection of stellar parallax early in the 19th century and invention of the Foucault pendulum a little later. Such statements may titillate lay readers, but to scientists the Newtonian law of gravitation afforded irrefutable proof from observations. Stellar parallax is hardly more conclusive proof of the earth's annual motion than was Jupiter's shadow as used by Galileo, which latter is merely harder to explain to lay readers… scientific proof is usually not a single striking fact, but the agreement of a great variety of deductions and facts."

The brilliant historian Maurice Finocchiaro discusses the issue in his book "Retrying Galileo." Finocchiaro writes,

"[Lazzari] was clear that one was not dealing with mathematical proof. The relevant concept was, rather, multifaceted (it 'proceeds from an assortment of things taken together'); indirect ('by means of pure observation it had not been possible to infer their laws and to calculate and predict them'); predictive ('in the world occurred the things that by sitting at a table with pen and paper one had shown from the adopted system'); and systemic and explanatory ('everything is explained simply and wonderfully, and everything corresponds to everything else… And is this fit not a kind of certainty and demonstration that this is the true system in the world?')… And we can add that Galileo had begun to struggle with and move toward such a concept; he did this theoretically by starting to articulate the concept in his 'Considerations on the Copernican Opinion' (1615) and practically by constructing in the Dialogue an argument that possessed such features to a considerable degree."

What would be appropriate would be to document, in the section on historiography, the history of the accusation that Galileo didn't prove heliocentrism. Drake and Finocchiaro are a good place to start. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Both of those quotes say that Galileo did not have proof. The reader can understand that Galileo could have legitimate arguments without having proof.

Apparently there is a history of different opinions about which arguments are more persuasive. I would disagree with Finocchiaro, and say that stellar parallax is more convincing that Jupiter's shadow. But the article does not mention either one, so that opinion is irrelevant unless someone wants to add a section surveying post-Galileo opinions.

Maybe also the Church was unreasonable to expect Galileo to produce a proof. Nevertheless it is a historical fact that proof was a big ussue to the Church, and Galileo could not produce one. The sentence should go back in the article. Roger (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that proof was a big issue to the Church. That's certainly not how historians I have read describe the conflict. There are essentially two problems with this view. First, Cardinal Bellarmine, and the Church, most likely would not have accepted any "proof" that relied on agreement between theoretical predictions and observations. Owen Gingerich, an expert on Copernicus, writes,

Why is it that we today find the so-called proofs of the earth’s motion — the stellar parallax and the Foucault pendulum — so convincing when they could not have been guaranteed to convince Bellarmine? The answer is that the required new physics has arrived. We are post-Newtonian, and it is in the Newtonian framework that these fundamental experiments provide persuasive evidence. In fact, the Newtonian achievement was so comprehensive and coherent that the specific proofs were not needed. Thus there was no dancing in the streets after Foucault swung his famous pendulum at 2 a.m. on Wednesday morning, January 8, 1851, nor had there been grand celebrations in 1838 after Bessel had announced the successful measurement of an annual stellar parallax. The Copernican system no longer needed these demonstrations to win universal acceptance. -- Owen Gingerich, "Truth in Science": [1]

Gingerich argues throughout the essay that Galileo was one of the first people to advocate a modern scientific view, in which the strength of a theory lies in its ability to explain many different phenomena in a coherent manner, rather than in formal proofs in the style of mathematical theorems. This is why heliocentrism was widely accepted by the end of the 17th Century, even without the "proofs" - stellar parallax and Foucault's pendulum - which are commonly mentioned. Gingerich specifically argues that even had the stellar parallax been observed, one could simply have added cycles to the stars, "saving the appearances" without abandoning geocentrism, and that this would have appealed to Cardinal Bellarmine. Gingerich's argument is very much in line with the arguments put forward by both Finocchiaro and Drake, which Darouet quoted above.

Second, the Church's rejection of the Copernican model had political dimensions which outweighed the Church's intellectual objections. Galileo began promoting Copernicus' model at a time when the Church was especially sensitive to challenges to its theological interpretations. As Bellarmine pointed out, the view that the Earth moved prima facie conflicted with scripture, so the question of heliocentrism was not just a technical one, but a question of the interpretive authority of the Church.

I propose that we add a paragraph or two to the article discussing more technically how Galileo's findings bore on the question of heliocentrism. This is much more informative than merely stating that he didn't prove heliocentrism, in the way one might prove a mathematical theorem. In addition, I agree that some discussion of the historiography of the "proof" question would be a good addition to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Again you launch into speculation and opinion about later events. Gingerich's essay starts with Bellarmine saying that the Bible would have to be re-interpreted if Galileo had proof, and then speculates about what might have convinced Bellarmine. Apparently Gingerich thinks that the Newtonian framework would have been more convincing than stellar parallax. The essay might be a useful footnote if a section is added on later astronomical findings. But the article is on the Galileo affair, and Gingerich says that Bellarmine wanted proof, and Galileo did not have it. The article should say so. Roger (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you read Gingerich's article all the way through. If you had, you would have seen that Gingerich is specifically arguing that nothing that we now consider "proof" of heliocentrism would have been acceptable to Cardinal Bellarmine, including stellar parallax. If you read other historians' interpretations of Bellarmine's letters, you'll see that they generally say that Bellarmine did not think that any proof could be given that would contradict the Book of Joshua. Because scripture is the word of the Holy Spirit, it is true by virtue of who said it. Even though he says that absolute proof would require a reinterpretation of scripture, Bellarmine essentially rules out any sort of physical proof by saying that merely "saving the appearances" is not enough. Again, we can discuss the historiography of the "proof" claim in a separate section. Plenty of historians have commented on it, and some have already been quoted above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger, this has become pointless: we now have three sources writing that the "proof" Catholic authorities demanded during Galileo's time, or the "proof" spoken of by later church apologists, has nothing to do with scientific inference. If you're not interested in the scientific process or what Galileo achieved, I don't see why you're bothering yourself with this article. -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No, none of the 3 sources say that. And Thucydides411, Ginerich never says that nothing we now consider proof would have been acceptable to Bellarmine.

Gingerich says, "Why is it that we today find the so-called proofs of the earth’s motion — the stellar parallax and the Foucault pendulum — so convincing when they could not have been guaranteed to convince Bellarmine? The answer is that the required new physics has arrived." So maybe stellar parallax would have convinced Bellarmine, and maybe not, as Bellarmine did not have the required new physics. The combination of those experiments with the Newtonian framework is very convincing to later scientists, and probably would have convinced Bellarmine as well.

Again, speculation about what might have convinced Bellarmine is irrelevant. Bellarmine wanted proof and Galileo did not have it. All the sources say that. You cannot explain removing correct material from the article. Roger (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger/Schlafly, you don't understand the Gingerich article. I very much doubt you even read it, beyond the snippet I quoted. You've managed to put nearly the exact opposite of Gingerich's argument into his mouth.

I'll go further and say that you don't understand the pieces of evidence at play in debate between Copernicans and defenders of Geocentrism in Galileo's day. The statement, "Bellarmine wanted proof and Galileo did not have it" is not at all accurate. Galileo had several different forms of evidence, which, when taken together, were very compelling. One of those pieces of evidence (the phases of Venus) directly contradicted Ptolemy's model. Another crucial piece of evidence validated Copernicus' prediction of Jupiter's distance from the Sun (Jupiters' moons falling in its shadow at the predicted times), but was inconsistent with Ptolemy's theory. Beyond this directly observational evidence, there were several arguments from mechanics, and the way in which Galileo's discoveries pointed to a new, coherent view of physics. When you say, "Galileo did not have [proof]," you're ignoring the many pieces of evidence he put forward, and you're implying that the way in which scientific propositions are defended is through logical proofs, which is not at all the case. This is what the (now three) articles by historians of science, cited above, discuss at length. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I am ignoring your usual ad hominem attacks. I quoted Gingerich to support my position. You do not. You make your own arguments based on your own opinions, but you do not address what is actually in the sources. Roger (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want other users to accuse you of not reading or understanding sources, or of lacking knowledge in the subject areas you're editing on, you should make an effort to read and understand the sources, and to edit in subjects where you have some basic level of knowledge. You've mischaracterized Gingerich's arguments, only repeating back to me a section of the article that I quoted for you earlier, in the process directly contradicting much of Gingerich's argumentation. That leads me to believe that you're not reading the sources, but simply giving your own gut response to each argument. Gingerich is very clear that Galileo did have evidence for the heliocentric position, and that no apodictic proof was necessary. Other historians, like Stillman Drake, go into greater depth on the state of evidence at the time. If you read about the evidence Galileo put forward, you'll see why Drake considers it a red herring to say that Galileo had no proof. Galileo had not only the greater internal consistency and theoretical simplicity of the Copernican system on his side, but also its prediction of explain a number of newly observed phenomena (Venus' phases and the eclipses of the Jovian moons, both of which provide geometric measurements of the relative Sun-Venus vs. Sun-Earth distance, or Sun-Jupiter vs. Sun-Earth distance) that were incompatible with Ptolemy's system. If you think the balance of sources has a different view on Galileo's evidence, it's on you to demonstrate so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

More ad hominem attacks. More speculations. More diversions into later opinions. You say "Gingerich is very clear that ... no apodictic proof was necessary." He does not say that. If I am wrong, show us the quote, and drop the personal attacks. He does differ from other authors about what the best proof is, but never says that no proof was necessary. Of course Gingerich had other later opinions, about what was proof and about whether proof was necessary, and those later opinions do not diminish the fact that Bellarmine wanted proof and Galileo did not have one.

As Gingerich explains, Bellarmine was not the only one wanting proof. Gingerich says, "There is needed, Hooke declares, an experimentum crucis to decide between the Copernican and Tychonic systems, and this he proposed to do with a careful measurement of the annual stellar parallax." He goes on to say that the Church removed Copernicus from the Index when a claim of stellar parallax was announced. All of this supports the reasonableness of Bellarmine in demanding proof, even if you personally subscribe to a philosophy of science where proof is not required. Even if you philosophy is superior, it is a historical fact that Bellarmine wanted proof, and Galileo did not have it. So please stop removing documented facts from the article. Roger (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a related question, Roger. Much of biological science today revolves around the theory of evolution by natural selection. Do you think we have proof of that? -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page defines "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." And "Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain more common in successive generations of a population." Yes, there is overwhelming proof of that, and has been for a long time. But my opinion is not important. We go with the reliable sources. For motion of the Earth, Gingerich's opinion is that proof depended on the Newtonian framework. Other authors have other opinions, but they all agree that Galileo did not have proof. Roger (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hijack

The two articles, on Galileo and the Galileo affair, have been hijacked by two editors, as a tag team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNMarshman (talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion has been made by Off2riorob that Darouet and Thucydides411 are sock-puppets or the like. This was in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNMarshman (talk • contribs) 11:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Off2riorob was indefinitely blocked for harassment, and didn't pursue his allegation that was, in any event, false. You User:RNMarshman, or User:BlackWhiteSea-snake, or any other user may make that allegation, but you should probably read WP:BOOMERANG first.

Also, I reverted this edit you made which removed sourced content I had added, and left this complaint on your talk page, because your removal and opinion were not supported by sources. You might have better luck engaging on this topic through discussing and engaging with content. -Darouet (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The tag team originally consisted of Darouet, Thucydides411 and Erichaim, but Eric has become inactive, leaving the other two.

Someone should check the edits from this tag team, as they appear to be driven by a dubious philosophy about how science works, instead of what the sources actually say. Roger (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Darouet has said, "Claudius Ptolemy ... whose geocentric system was adopted by the Catholic Church...". It will be interesting to see Darouet's proof that Ptolemy was mentioned at all.

Darouet goes on to say "the observations of Copernicus". I want details of Copernicus's observations, such as Right Ascension and Declination. Copernicus himself noted that he made very few observations. Proof is needed that the unspecified "observations" were apparently in favour of his heliocentrism and heliostaticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNMarshman (talk • contribs) 12:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If the details are not forth-coming, I will be forced to delete the caption and picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNMarshman (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you fix the caption, rather than removing it? Copernicus came up with a model, and Galileo's observations supported it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just replaced "observations" with "work." It's clear that Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moon and the phases of Venus helped demonstrate that Copernicus' heliocentric model was correct, but I'm not certain how crucial Copernicus' observations were to his discovery… according to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers ([2]), "Copernicus must have realized how comprehensive any treatise hoping to compete with Ptolemy's would have to be, and he must have understood as well that he would require critical observations over a fair number of years to confirm or reestablish the parameters of the planetary orbits. Consequently, for the next 15 years Copernicus bided his time, making the occasional required observations. In De revolutionibus he used 27 of his own observations and 45 gleaned from the Almagest. Copernicus presumably made many more observations, although only a dozen more are documented prior to 1530. Obviously, he made no attempt to observe on a daily or weekly basis, but only at critical times when the geometric configuration of the planets lent themselves to the determination of the parameters. Copernicus was not a particularly accurate observer, and one of his Mars observations erred by more than 2 degrees…" -Darouet (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Darouet has found another way of flooding the text with repetitions. He puts up pictures, with captions that repeat parts of the text at great length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repetitionbanned997 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are you deleting images from the text? -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The tag team is still at work, without the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anrti-tag (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Self-contradiction

Lies and self-contradiction are appearing from Darouet. Darouet says "Arcetri...where Galileo spent the remainder of his life under house arrest". Actually, Galileo was in Siena and Florence, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.53.143 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Darouet initially spoke of Copernicus's "observations". Then, he changed this to "work", when attacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.53.143 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

His observations were important and helped him to confirm his theory, but he was not known for especially accurate observations. -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Tag team

Erichaim, Darouet and Thucydides411 all edited National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Thucydides411 and Darouet have edited Ghouta chemical attack. Edits are often within hours or minutes of each other. In National etc. edits were at 00:23 and 00:48 on 2/1/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.219 (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Erichaim fell silent on 30/1/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.219 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thucydides411 and Darouet both edit this article on the Galileo affair, in both cases with no reply to the point, such as charges of mendacity and repetition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqq787878 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)