My Galileo Challenge

[AV1611VET]

It's easy to blame the Catholic church for Galileo's predicament; but how many scientists in Galileo's day opposed Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system?

How long was it from the time Galileo presented his ideas to the time consensus of opinion occurred in his favor?

 

[VirOptimus]

It's easy to blame the Catholic church for Galileo's predicament; but how many scientists in Galileo's day opposed Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system?

How long was it from the time Galileo presented his ideas to the time consensus of opinion occurred in his favor?

Why do you care?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's easy to blame the Catholic church for Galileo's predicament; but how many scientists in Galileo's day opposed Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system?

How long was it from the time Galileo presented his ideas to the time consensus of opinion occurred in his favor?

We don't know. And why should you care? Would it really change anything for you?

 

[GodsGrace101]

It's easy to blame the Catholic church for Galileo's predicament; but how many scientists in Galileo's day opposed Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system?

How long was it from the time Galileo presented his ideas to the time consensus of opinion occurred in his favor?

It doesn't matter what other scientists thought. They had no power over him.

WHY did the church care? How much was it willing to do to hold on to its power?

As far as I'm concerned,,,the church should let its opinion be known about scientific discoveries but not get involved.

It should let its opinion be known about political movements, but not get involved (in the sense of entering govt).

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you care?

I want credit where credit is due.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't know.

Then why does the Catholic church get the blame for holding out on the changeover to heliocentrism from geocentrism for so long, if scientists did it too?

 

[VirOptimus]

I want credit where credit is due.

No you dont, you just want to discredit scientists.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't matter what other scientists thought.

Actually it does, if scientists supported the Catholic church's stance on geocentrism with charts and graphs and epicycles and so on and so forth.

In so doing, they perpetuated an error and gave the Catholic church scientific information that backed up their [erroneous] interpretation of Scripture.

They had no power over him.

This is true, but they also could serve in the capacity of an expert witness against Galileo at his trial.

WHY did the church care?

I would assume because Galileo challenged a major doctrine of theirs.

How much was it willing to do to hold on to its power?

What does this have to do with anything?

As far as I'm concerned,,,the church should let its opinion be known about scientific discoveries but not get involved.

No argument there.

It should let its opinion be known about political movements, but not get involved (in the sense of entering govt).

Personally, I believe God intervened in Galileo's life ...

Genesis 50:20a But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good,

... in that, under house arrest, Galileo was able to finish two of his most important works unhindered.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Galileo was only weighing in in favour of Copernicus' Heliocentric model. There was an ongoing debate between those favouring Copernicus, and those favouring the Geocentric model of Tycho Brahe. The latter succeeded the Ptolemaic model that had been current for much of the mediaeval period.

The Tychonic model was as scientific and empiric as Copernicus'. In fact, in many respects it accorded better with the observations of astronomers. Tycho Brahe was the premiere astronomer of his day, after all. This debate went on until Newtonian mechanics started to weigh more in favour of Copernicus, but for much of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the issue was much in dispute. It is similar to why geocentric Ptolemy had been favoured over heliocentric Aristarchus in classical times - evidence had fit the former model better than the latter at that stage.

This has nothing to do with the Church (though the Church did come to favour the Tychonic system, after initially favouring Copernicus) or a cabal. This is an example of competing models debated and refined by Astronomers, until one was abandoned when the other started to fit evidence much better. It is in fact an example of the Scientific Method in action.

So many Scientists opposed Heliocentrism, on good Scientific grounds. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries did Heliocentrism become completely beyond dispute due to Focault and such. However, most Scientists had come to accept Heliocentrism by the late 17th century on the grounds of developments in physics, rather than solely on astronomical observations themselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

No you dont, you just want to discredit scientists.

I can do that in other threads.

Do you have any answers to my challenge?

 

[AV1611VET]

This has nothing to do with the Church (though the Church did come to favour the Tychonic system, after initially favouring Copernicus) or a cabal. This is an example of competing models debated and refined by Astronomers, until one was abandoned when the other started to fit evidence much better.

No argument there.

I like to call the passage of time that existed from the Heliocentric model being presented, to the Heliocentric model being accepted by way of consensus as an "incubation period," or, more properly, a "probationary period."

The fact that the Catholic church extended its acceptance of the Heliocentric system beyond the time of consensus of opinion of scientists is simply a testament to the fact that faith is harder to change than science is.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If anything, this should be a word of caution. Well established systems have been overthrown in the past, and will be in future. It is not a linear progression towards 'truth' or having 'more correct models'. Aristarchus was more correct than Ptolemy, in our opinion, yet Ptolemy fit the evidence better. It was corrected eventually, but Tycho Brahe's system was well thought out, even making predictions on Venus that proved accurate. A lot of theorising that appeared secure had to be discarded. You can never rest your laurels and insist something is absolute fact, since the scientific facts of yesteryear may be discarded - even what had been universally accepted on occasion. It is the beauty of sceptical scientific enquiry, that it doesn't respect the opinions of men in the long run - though it may take millenia sometimes.

 

[AV1611VET]

*

According to Warden in Post 3, you guys don't know how many scientists were involved in this conspiracy against Galileo; nor do you guys know how much time elapsed before they realized they were wrong.

Do you agree with this?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

According to Warden in Post 3, you guys don't know how many scientists were involved in this conspiracy against Galileo; nor do you guys know how much time elapsed before they realized they were wrong.

Do you agree with this?

Well, the opposition to Galileo was largely due to a coterie of Jesuit astronomers; with whom he was in dispute over certain discoveries claimed by both and theories of motion. They largely brought him to trial on theologic grounds, but it was more due to a professional tiff between them. How many there were, I don't know, but some of Galileo's friends called them the 'Pigeon League', and it certainly contained important and prominent Jesuit Astronomers. I don't think they ever embraced Heliocentrism, as Riccioli et all. continued using the Tychonian system, and Heliocentrism wasn't the only potential model in town for 40-70 years thereafter anyway.

Gradually more and more people became convinced of Heliocentrism thanks to Kepler, but the nail in the coffin was probably Newton's Principia in 1687, that supported Kepler's laws. So from Copernicus till Newton, about 150 years, during which Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism was seriously discussed. Galileo fell in the middle of this debate.

 

[SkyWriting]

No you dont, you just want to discredit scientists.

Motivations are always hard to pinpoint.

 

[SkyWriting]

We don't know. And why should you care? Would it really change anything for you?

Is this information you need to answer the question?

 

[SkyWriting]

It doesn't matter what other scientists thought. They had no power over him.

WHY did the church care? How much was it willing to do to hold on to its power?

As far as I'm concerned,,,the church should let its opinion be known about scientific discoveries but not get involved.

It should let its opinion be known about political movements, but not get involved (in the sense of entering govt).

But back to the question...

 

[SkyWriting]

Why do you care?

Thinking is good.

 

[VirOptimus]

I can do that in other threads.

Do you have any answers to my challenge?

If you where interested in the truth you would study the subject yourself, but you arent. You are just interested in scorung points to preach your weird brand of christianity.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's easy to blame the Catholic church for Galileo's predicament; but how many scientists in Galileo's day opposed Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system?

Opposed based on the evidence, or opposed based on them incurring the Church's wrath right alongside him?