I guess we are done… until you once again return to prevarication regarding the culpability of the church regarding its treatment of Galileo.
@gbrooks9 it seems you misread him. He agrees that Galileo should not have been punished by the church.
I dont believe he has affirmed this, though i would welcome it if he would.
In fact, i have to wonder if there is any evidence at all that the Church was charging him for “poor scientific method”.
That struck me as purely speculation… but I didnt want to even get mired down with that question, since even if true it would not be an explanation but a rationalization.
He has several times. Welcome it.
Thank you @swamidass, in case it is somehow not clear from my previous statements, I affirm that Galileo should not have been punished by the Church.
I never claimed this either. Just that he was not charged for doing science.
So where will i find his words? If it is frequent, the link should be easy to produce, yes?
The reason why the specific wording is important is because @PdotdQ seemed particularly zealous about providing a DIFFERENT legal charge against Galileo… to harmonize with the theme that the Medieval church had no issues regarding science.
But if that were indeed true, then the Church would not have maintained a list of illegal books thst included science works with no theology in them.
Again, please stop trying to read my mind or motives. My interest with the Galileo case is purely because I am an astrophysicist, and similar cases are happening now in astrophysics (although without the Church this time: mainstream astronomy is playing the part of the Church).
See here:
@gbrooks9 the claim offered was:
Galileo was punished for A, and that was wrong.
@PdotdQ is countering,
No, Galileo was not punished for A, but for B. Yes, it is still wrong that he was punished for B.
You seem to miss that second part, that he agrees Galileo should not be punished for B.
Correct–and Bruno’s belief in an infinite universe with countless suns was, for him and for his inquisitors, inextricably linked with the Pythagorean belief in the transmigration of souls. An often unmentioned fact (IMO a crucial fact) about the historical context is that the Copernican view was typically (hardly always, and absolutely not for Copernicus himself) understood as a “Pythagorean” hypothesis, not only in the astronomical claim that the earth moves (for the Pythagoreans, both the earth and the sun moved about an impossible to observe central fire), but also the metaphysical claim (accepted later by Plato and others) that eternal, uncreated souls transmigrate from place to place, inhabiting humans at one point but also inhabiting the stars.
Belief in the transmigration of souls was, to my very limited knowledge of the history of heresies, clearly heretical not only in Bruno’s day but since some point fairly early in the history of Christianity. For example, Origen had held such a view (a succession of worlds in time, with souls transmigrating among them) in the third century, and Jerome labelled it heretical early in the fifth century. The Fifth Ecumenical Council (mid-sixth century) declared heretical the transmigration of souls, labelled Origen a heretic, but did not condemn plurality of worlds per se.
Some of Galileo’s critics early in the next century were equally unable to separate his claims about the earth’s motion from metaphysical views that they wrongly believed accompanied them as a matter of virtual necessity. Thus, the Pope’s advisors referred to the “Pythagorean” hypothesis when evaluating Galileo’s book.
As I say, my knowledge of such things is shallow and narrow, not wide and deep. There are many things that other historians (or theologians) might want to add–and if I have any of this wrong, I invite correction by qualified people. But, I’m confident in saying at least this much. Separating the metaphysics from the scientific hypotheses is even harder to do in Bruno’s day than it is today–and metaphysics still does play a role in science, but that’s not a topic I have time to take up right now.
2 Likes
Wow @TedDavis the analogy to evolution here is strong. So many people oppose it due to perceived metaphysical baggage that is in no way entailed by the science. Amazing how history repeats itself.
1 Like
By his own description, George is “frantic” in his beliefs. If he can’t agree with my opinions on the history of such things, which he tends to summarize in sound bites that lack the nuance and precision I try to give them, then let him do better. But, merely asserting that my views (and those of some others) amount to nothing more than “sophistry” is simply insulting.
If you want to engage an opinion about early modern historical episodes, George, you can’t “refute” it by appealing to modern ideas about how science should be done or modern political ideas about intellectual freedom. That dog don’t hunt. You need to show me from actual historical evidence that my opinion is incorrect–and, perhaps it is; there are certainly other evidence-based opinions on such matters. If you want to say that the Church should have behaved better, I’m sympathetic to your view–many at the time also thought so. But, if you don’t want to hear what this historian has to say about such and such, then why stick around? Simply refusing to accept an historian’s opinion hardly constitutes refutation.
Now, if you have historical chops and want to make a different argument, I’m all ears. Otherwise, George, I’m done replying to you. Go find another historian, to paraphrase’s Truman’s comment about economists.
1 Like
This particular thread begins with a link to a promotional column about the just-released book by historian Mike Keas, Unbelievable. I’m certain Mike doesn’t believe that burning someone for their religious views is ever OK, and I doubt he believes that immolation would be OK as a means of punishment for anyone, for any reason. Your question, Patrick, is thus answered–did you miss the part in the column where it says that “Keas heartily agrees [that burning Bruno] was a bad move on the Church’s part”?
2 Likes
Finally, concerning Bruno and Keas’ account of it in Unbelievable, here’s what I think.
I read an early version of several chapters in Mike’s book–including the chapter on Bruno. Obviously the final version reflects his own historical opinions, which aren’t necessarily mine, but I agree with what is said in the quote given about.
Mike’s is just the latest interpretation of the whole “Bruno as a martyr for science” thing. A few years ago, U of Texas historian Alberto Martinez wrote a whole book on this topic, the argument of which he summarized here: Was Giordano Bruno Burned at the Stake for Believing in Exoplanets? - Scientific American Blog Network. As Martinez himself says, most historians don’t think Bruno was executed for his scientific views per se–and I agree with those historians, even after reading a more scholarly article by Martinez and reading crucial parts of his book. For a good short account of why most historians don’t believe this, see Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science.
Nevertheless, Martinez’ book is evidence-based, and I recommend it for anyone who wants to go deeper. At the same time, Keas’ chapter is even more recent than Martinez’ book, and he directly engages Martinez’ claims. I land on Keas’ side of this dispute. Keas shows (among other things) that Martinez’ anaylsis of the history of Church rulings on the plurality of worlds is not sufficiently nuanced: Martinez failed to distinguish properly between the metaphysical baggage that got condemned from the more purely scientific ideas that weren’t actually condemned. In fact, the greatest natural philosopher of the fifteenth century, Nicolas of Cusa, heartily endorsed the plurality of worlds and was later declared a saint, not a heretic. Bruno tried unsuccessfully to bring Cusa to his defense when he was examined, but Bruno had lots of other irons in the fire (to make a bad pun), and for Bruno (as I’ve said) Copernican astronomy had great religious value of a highly non-orthodox type. You can’t separate that stuff in his writings, so it’s hard to say without great qualification that Bruno was a martyr for science.
I still say that, even after Martinez’ book.
I need to get a lot of other things done this month and don’t plan to revisit this.
1 Like
The issue doesnt come down to whether the Church was wrong; of course it was wrong (as it was with Bruno). The question is what was the church wrong about.
This appears to be a disingenuous assertion. I dont see any Vatican quotes offered in evidence, nor have i EVER seen such Vatican quotes, that Galileo was put in house arrest on the grounds of flawed methodology.
In fact, havent we seen the exact opposite?.. where Church officials said Galileo was right, but they didnt want him to publish the truth?
He was arrested because they didnt want him to publish information which, regardless of how true it was, would encourage the masses to disagree with church doctrine.
Let’s remember that one of the points on which Bruno was convicted was Copernicanism. Though it was not the reason for his burning, it was judged to be a serious error for which he needed some kind of punishment.
Could this be documented? I couldn’t (in a quick and perhaps superficial search) turn up anything on it. Did he advocate it or just suggest it as a notion?
Where have you seen this statement?
I think it must have been in the paragraph right after the one that says the Church had to put Galileo under house arrest (FOR LIFE) for using incorrect scientific method.
If we can find the latter, we will find the former.
Again, I never claimed such a thing, as I mentioned before
You’re the one who jumped to this conclusion.
Here i quote you.
Galileo was arrested because he didnt “act in accordance to the scientific method”.
Will you go on record as AGREEING with this accusation?
“He did not act in accordance to the scientific method in his actions that placed him under house arrest” is not “he is arrested because he did not act in accordance to the scientific method”.
Ha! Really?
Will you next tell your readers here that you MEANT that Galileo was arrested because he confused the Vatican officials?
Of course im being sarcastic here… but you certainly dont expect me to read your mind. How else could one interpret the sentence you DID write?
You even confused @swamidass… he TOO thought you were offering a NEW reason for Galileo’s arrest.