Talk:Galileo Galilei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Galileo Galilei is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Galileo Galilei has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 24, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 4, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted
September 12, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
February 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  Quality: GA-Class
 High  Importance: High

New editor[edit]

A new editor, Cavarrone, has appeared in the Galileo article. He is a friend of 115ash. If Cavarrone thinks Hans Lippershey did not introduce the telescope, he should says so in his own web-site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A new editor?? Who are you, sir? I have over 56,000 edits and over 3,300 new articles created under my belt, ironically this is your first edit. Who is the new editor? And I NEVER SAID Galileo introduced the telescope, nor I ever commented on Lippershey, anyway. Cavarrone 13:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
See Thermometer#Development. This shows that Galileo never pioneered or introduced the thermometer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Pioneering ≠ introducing. However I am fine with rewording the sentence with a verb such as "developed", or as you prefer. My only point is that his work on thermometer should stay in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Cavarrone 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-scientific edits and non-scientific articles have no significance in the history of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 ??? Irrelevant. Cavarrone 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Can we live without the GG fanboi stuff? Please see Thermometer#Development which you've already been pointed at William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Connolley, first you egregiously ignored my response above, i.e. My only point is that his work on thermometer should stay in the lead, per WP:LEAD, whatever the more appropriate wording is. Second, dismissing mine or anyone's edits as "fanboi stuff" is insulting, disrespectful and close to a personal attack, let alone an obvious assumption of bad faith, so stop it. Third, for the record your bold reversion also removed that, which appears just indisputable. Bye and next time try to be more civil, Cavarrone 00:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The Ip is a sockpuppet who started to disturb me since May.--115ash→(☏) 09:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There are several reliable source which consider Galilei as the inventor of both telescope and thermometer. Nonetheless, I just wrote that he "pioneered" them by removing "he made improvements". --115ash→(☏) 09:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Who is the IP a sock of? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure who is the master, but User:Blue6767unicorn, User:WhiteHyrax and many others belong to him.--115ash→(☏) 12:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to tag them, and take them to SPI. Until then, don't expect anyone else to treat them as confirmed William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The only solution would be an ip range block. --115ash→(☏) 15:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the article, what's wrong with the adding of that phrase? See my previous comments.--115ash→(☏) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This same user has created literally dozens of sock-puppets, with the sole purpose of edit-warring on this particular page. There's little doubt about who we're dealing with here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If you believe that, take it to WP:SPI William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Still, sockpuppets are editing the article. A CU should block them.--115ash→(☏) 13:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. But, and also in view of this, why don't you take it to WP:SPI then? What is keeping you? - DVdm (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
What's the point? Even if these will be blocked, they will not stop no create articles.--115ash→(☏) 14:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azul411 --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I have restored this part: [1]. - DVdm (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Controversy over atomism and indivisibles[edit]

I've never liked this section William M. Connolley (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article entitled Infinitesimal, it says "In mathematics, infinitesimals are things so small that there is no way to measure them." With a definition like that, they might well be non-existant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot more wrong with the material than your not liking it. The second paragraph of the section contains at least two outright falsehoods, it erroneously implies that Grassi's tract, Ratio ponderum librae et simbellae, was largely devoted to showing that Galileo's atomism was inconsistent with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and its sourcing seems to have followed the worst traditions of the Jagged 85 school.
The source cited is p.179 of an article titled Descartes and the Jesuits: Doubt, Novelty,and the Eucharist by Roger Ariew, appearing in the scholarly anthology, Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters. I have no doubt that Ariew's article is of excellent quality, but nowhere (let alone on p.179) does it provide any support whatever for the assertions made in the paragraph under discussion. Neither Grassi, nor his crticisms of Galileo, are mentioned anywhere in Ariew's article, and the sole mention of Galileo is in a parenthetical note that his discovery of the moons of Jupiter had been mentioned in Pierre Bourdin's Cours de Mathématique.
The two outright falsehoods appearing in the paragraph are:
  • " ... with Grassi claiming that Galileo's atomism is heretical ..."; and
  • " ... in that it contradicts the real presence of the body and blood of the nazarean in ... the Eucharist."
The target of Grassi's criticism was not Galileo's atomism as such—on which opinion Grassi explicitly says he will make no statement ("nihil ideo de hac sententia statuo")—but his theory of primary and secondary qualities. Admittedly, this theory does rest on the assumptions of atomism, but nowhere in Ratio ponderum does Grassi claim that either atomism in general, or Galileo's theory of primary and secondary qualities in particular, is heretical. Moreover, Grassi's argument was not that the latter theory contradicted the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, but that it contradicted the miraculous preservation of the species of the bread and wine.
On the issue of the main subject of Grassi's tract, anyone who has read a decent biography of Galileo will know that it was Grassi's reply to Galileo's Il Saggiatore and that the excursion into Eucharistic theology occupies only a very small portion of the work. In fact, it occupies less than two of the original Paris edition's 201 pages.
There are also POV problems with the first paragraph of the section, in that it is sourced solely to Redondi's book. But Redondi's theory that the Jesuits, as a group, engaged in an organised campaign against Galileo is one that has been rejected by many, if not most, modern Galileo scholars. Michael Sharratt, John Heilbron and William Wallace are three I can name off the top of my head who have explicitly rejected it. I don't know of any besides Redondi himself who subscribe to it.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; I've removed it. This isn't Jagged, of course, its Tvukkho (sp?), who was obsessed with indivisiblesWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In view of David J. Wilson's ad rem analysis, fine with me. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I had no intention of suggesting that the perpetrator of the poor sourcing might have been Jagged 85. I was simply flabbergasted that the cited source had practically nothing whatever to do with the claims for which it was cited. Although I was aware that the claims weren't accurate before I consulted the source, all I expected to find was that it had simply been misread. Also, after posting my comments above, I realised I might have been a little hasty in my characterisation of the sourcing, since the page given might just have been a typo. However, I have now checked every occurrence of the words "Grassi" and "Eucharist" in the entire book, not just in Ariew's article, and I can confirm that none of them has anything to do with Grassi's argument about the supposed conflict of Galileo's theory with the doctrine of the Eucharist. I'm therefore still prepared to stand by my characterisation.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


Perhaps this has been covered in higher level discussions, but Italy did not exist in Galileo's time. Galileo was Tuscan. I noticed that Socrates's nationality is listed as Greek, not Athenian. Roger Williams has no nationality, but I would propose Rhode Islander. My suggestion e.g. Nationality: Tuscan (Italian) This is an encyclopedia, details are important. Bookscrounger (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The legal status of various parts of Italy has been well known to everyone for centuries. Galileo's nationality has been discussed endlessly. Only make remarks here if they are new and of some substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

and introduce the idea of frictional force, the key breakthrough in validating the concept[edit]

Does G indeed do this? I can't see any evidence he does William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Where does this come from? I can't find anything like it in the article. I'm certainly sceptical that Galileo could reasonably be described as having introduced "the idea of a frictional force", regardless of what the concept of which it is supposed to be the "breakthrough in validating".
David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, its not there any more; I should have said I took it out [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Galileo Galilei. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Belated note. Have added working links added at article to non-working links somehow placed here. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Newton In the Timeline[edit]

At the end of the timeline , it refers to Isaac Newton as 'Newton' , mentioning his full name after. It isn't technically 'incorrect' , but it would be more sensible to have it say 'Isaac Newton' before it abbreviates . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToxicReap (talkcontribs) 19:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; done. I'm not entirely sure N fits on G's timeline, though it isn't unreasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Protestantism and heliocentrism[edit]

Recent edits modified the section describing the heliocentrism controversy, making it appear as though the Catholic world had generally adopted heliocentrism, whereas the Protestants stubbornly opposed it.

While the edits are correct that Protestant leaders would vociferously oppose heliocentrism, they were unsourced. Furthermore they created the very false impression that, because the Gregorian calendar was modified using Copernicus' calculations, the Catholic world and leadership had embraced heliocentrism. No source was provided to support this assertion and I have never seen it printed anywhere before it was written here. While Copernicus' calculations were indeed useful, when Catholic authorities finally considered the matter in detail, they unequivocally condemned heliocentrism as heretical and banned heliocentric works.

I am not opposed to a description of Protestant opposition if sources are cited. Obviously this is somewhat less relevant to Galileo, given his Tuscan residence, but some mention is appropriate in this article. -Darouet (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Heliocentrism "formally heretical"[edit]

Amazingly, the lead's description of the Galileo affair until now stated that, "The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism could be supported only as a hypothesis, not as established fact." This is a deeply disingenuous description of the Inquisition's judgment that Heliocentrism is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." There is no relationship between the former summary and the actual text it was meant to summarize. I've inserted the brief quote directly, since it is readily comprehensible and uses colorful language that readers will undoubtedly appreciate.

Here is how J.L. Heilbron describes the finding:

The eleven theologians empanelled by the Holy Office to evaluate Copernican theory returned their unanimous verdict on 24 February 1616 after five days of deliberation. They judged the assertion that "the sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion" to be "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology." The proposition of the earth's motion qualified for the lesser censure of "at least erroneous in faith." Moreover, the propositions failed, this time equally, to conform to the world system to which the theologians had yoked their doctrine. "[They are] false and absurd in philosophy." There was no room in this formidable interdiscipline for a salutary opposition between science and religion. The consultors had no reason to ponder the accommodationist argument: in their view, the findings of philosophy concurred perfectly with the results of traditional exegesis. The cardinals of the Holy Office accepted the advice of their consultors. The pope thereupon ordered Bellarmine to warn Galileo to abandon his opinions; if he should not accede to this friendly warning, Bellarmine was to issue a formal "precept" or injunction again him "to abstain completely from teaching or defending his doctrine and opinion or from discussing it." If he did not acquiesce to the injunction, he would go to jail. The following day, 26 February 1616, Galileo appeared before Bellarmine and Seghizzi. To the confusion of subsequent history, the unsigned minute descibing the interview does not agree with the papal order. Bellarmine duly warned Galileo that the "abovementioned opinion" conflicted with scripture and advised him to abandon it. Then, before Galileo could express his voluntary acquiescence, Seghizzi proceeded, succesive et incontinenti, to the second step and, before Bellarmine and other witnesses, "ordered and enjoined the said Galileo... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing." Galileo accepted the injunction and agreed to obey it.

Galileo, by JL Heilbron, Oxford U. Press, 2012, pp.217-8

I cited Finocchiaro in the lead, but historians all describe this same sequence of events. Some basic respect for neutrality and original research policies of WP:POV and WP:OR, and for the complexity of historical events, requires that we honestly present what occurred. -Darouet (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced paragraph?[edit]

The second paragraph in the Sunspots section (under Astronomy) feels misplaced. Is that the case, or does it just need some grammatical reworking? Alex33212 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Plant diseases[edit]

9 Plant diseases Galileo suggests in his 12th Problema a new approach to explain the damages caused to plants exposed to weather. He applied the guidelines he had defined to the study of local motion change: namely, the establishment of a geometrical model representing the facts observed. Since Antiquity, the damage observed on vegetation had been essentially understood in terms of Theophrastus’ explanation of erusibe, and, but to a lesser extent, of Pliny the Elder’s rubigo, both according to the theory of decomposition from Aristotle. Galileo opts for the burning sphere model studied throughout the history of optics. Galileo’s text written about 1638, but only published in 1718, is the first of a series of texts, all through the 18 th century, approaching the explanation of diseases inspired from optics; texts which are inspired by Galileo’s 12th Problem or which suggest another similar one, such as Stephen Hales’ and Pierre-Daniel Huet’s works, or which oppose it but with optic arguments, such as Michel Adanson’s or Felice Fontana’s works. When Galileo conceives his models, his natural philosophy has come to maturity and the Aristotelian approach is strongly challenged in relation to the study of local motion. But the other changes, in particular those concerning living things, remain broadly studied according to Aristotelian principles. When Galileo 12th Problema is posthumously published, aristotelianism is declining both for chemistry and the study of living things. This is after the emergence of Cartesian mechanism and the use of chemistry is developing for studying living things. The optics approach for the plant disease model ends by being marginalized, being too simple to explain the complex relationships between plants and climatic circumstances. Gilles Denis, The optical Galilean interpretation of the antique Theophrastian model for plant diseases, Galilaeana, 2011, Journal of Gagliean Studies, VIII, pp.159-182.;jsessionid=32EC32A39A937963E1C802E19DF2C5C9?an=917416_8 Gilles DENIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilles DENIS (talkcontribs) 17:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems to me to give an exaggerated impression of the scope of Galileo's solution to the indicated problem, which was limited to explaining the damage apparently sometimes caused to plant leaves when the Sun comes out after a fog. I have given a translation below of the statement and solution of the problem as it appears on pp.606–7 of volume 8 of the National Edition of Galileo's collected works.
It's also not clear to me why this has been posted here. Is it being suggested that something about this should be included in the article? If so, then my immediate reaction is that it's not sufficiently significant to warrant a mention.
Twelfth Problem

How it happens that sometimes when the Sun appears after a fog, the leaves of vines and other plants become dry and wilt.

The cause of this effect is the following. On the leaves of vines (as long as the fog persists) a very large quantity of the aforementioned1 droplets, which are round in shape, and most perfectly spherical, come to rest; then the fog disperses and the Sun appears, the rays of which, passing through these very small spherules, are refracted and fall on the leaf which lies under those spherules: so that, in the way that these same rays, on passing through a ball of crystal, or a globe full of water, and striking some kindling, or linen, or something similar, heats and ignites them, so also by passing through those little globules, they will come to heat the leaf so much, that they will burn it and dry it out. But it must be noted that this doesn't always occur: because if the fog persists for a long time, so many of these minute drops would come to be collected on the leaves that they would pile up on each other, get all blended together, and finally, on losing absolutely their spherical shape, they would become flattened out, as a result of which nothing but a thin film of water would appear on the leaf; and in this case the Sun won't produce the effect that it does whenever those drops remain there whole and intact.

1 That is, aforementioned in the resolution of the immediately preceding eleventh problem.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The comment might have no purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ggg0 (talkcontribs) 13:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Galileo's remarks about plants do not have any appearance of favouring atheism or the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ggg0 (talkcontribs) 13:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)