When Galileo was defending the copernican model, it was not
scientifically superior to the Ptolemaic system. Copernicus
still tried to use circular orbits, and as they failed, had to
use epicycles and other resources of Ptolemaic kinematics.
Only after Kepler's work (that was largely ignored by Galilei)
was incorporated in the theory, and Newton's law of gravity
gave a sound physical basis to the whole system, was the heliocentric model undoubtedly superior.
Also, despite what is said, the Church did not approve the
Ptolemaic system as real. It simply stated that both were simply
devices to predict positions. It was Galileo who tried to force
an acceptance of the Corpernican system as "real"
Wasn't the church was in definite favor of a geocentric universe, though? At least, there were many religious arguments put forth for it, and Copernicus undoubtedly published posthumously for some reason or another. Also the church had just finished some council or another where they decided there absolute and final stance on all sorts of issues, which I vaguely recall Galileo was opposing somehow...maybe the non-Aristotelian physics. In any case, I agree that the church was being fairly nice until Galileo got out of hand. --Josh Grosse
Even in its early form, though, the Compernican system was clearly superior to Ptolemy in that the model of a tilted Earth rotating around the sun explained the oddly-inclined motion of sunspots in a simple way that Ptolemy could not, for example. Yes, Copernicus got a few things wrong like circular orbits, and Galileo himself was mistaken about his threory of tides being caused directly by the rotation of the Earth, but overall, his threories were still far superior to Ptolemy.
The church might not have accepted Ptolemy as "real" (and I don't think my text claims that), but at no point did Galileo ever claim that Copernicus' model was real either. The churuch's main concern was with scripture that claimed the Earth was stationary. The generally-accepted Ptolemaic system fit with that; the Copernican system (even in its early less-than perfect form) did not. Galileo pointed out that by _assuming_ a Copernican model, you could more easily calculate and predict certain things, but at no point in his life did he ever claim (at least publicly) that the system was "real"; he firmly backed away from such claims at every opportunity. De Revolutionibus itself is a masterpiece of weaseling and backpedaling.
Did Galileo claim the universe was heliocentric, though? I can't imagine why he wouldn't have - after all, he defied the church to publish material on it (assuming the Dialogues mention the topic), and it seems more likely that he would do so if he though it was genuinely valid.
Actually the church claimed that in the book of Joshua when the text says that miraculously "the sun stood still" it implies that the sun rotates around the earth. This among other texts led the church to believe that be bible claimed that the Copernican theory was false, but it is now commonly understood that these texts were only intended to describe what the spectators saw, not to describe the natural processes behind the events, so the church now has no problem with the heliocentric position.
Does anyone besides me feel that Galileo should be credited, even more so than Newton, for founding modern science by conducting experiments rather than relying on mere conjecture (as Aristotle did). Or was there someone before Galileo who not only relied on experiment, but realized that it was the only way to really learn anything about the world?--
BlackGriffen
I think Francis Bacon came before Gallileo in that regard. --LDC
- Bacon may have philosophized about the scientific method; Galileo actually practiced it.
- Bacon did in fact perform some experiments, mostly in alchemy, but it is true that most of what he did was promoting the method in writing, speculating, and collecting other people's (Arab's) results. --AxelBoldt
- By the way, is there any historical evidence of a person using a telescope to examine the night sky, prior to Galileo? In "Galileo's daughter" the author says Galilio first picked up a telecscope ten years after its invention by Dutch spectacle makers. People used it to spot ships coming over the horizon. She claims Galileo first turned it towards the sky. --Ed Poor
There is an account of Thomas Harriot observing the moon with a three-power scope in June of 1609, and no recorded account of Gallileo doing so before Obtober of that year. Gallileo did have telescopes before then, so it is likely that he did so earlier, but it is just as likely that any number of people who had the first telescopes in 1608 did so but did not record it. Gallileo should certainly be credited as the one who popularized the practice, but it is unlikely that he was in fact the first. --LDC
- Okay, he's not the first. I've stirred up a lot of trouble today. Gotta start checking my sources and distinguishing between what I guess/hope and what I know (tucks in tail, slinks away). --Ed Poor
It is commonly taught in science classes that Gallileo was the first, so it is natural that that factoid would end up here. Here's a good rule of thumb: anything you ever learned about history in school is probably wrong. :-) Note, for example, [The Myth of the Lone Inventor]. Factoids of "X was the first to..." form are about as reliable as "X invented..." --LDC
I think Bacon and Galileo should be mentioned in any article on the development of the scientific method. I don't know about "credit" in terms of "lone inventor", but it would nice to know what part each had in science's development. I make no claims for or against either. It's science I love, not dead white males (nothing against them, though).
Ed Poor
I certainly agree that any article on the foundations of science ought to mention both men; but this isn't an article on that--it's an article on Gallileo. If he, personally, was influenced by Bacon, then that should be mentioned. But otherwise, I see no need to
necessarily mention him, though I'm sure some description of Gallileo's role in founding modern science might mention Bacon in passing. --LDC
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)