Talk:Galileo affair/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Split

Over at Galileo Galilei there was talk a long time ago about splitting out the section called Church Controversy and rewriting the whole story as a separate article. The section has long been too big (putting the article as a whole over the recommended max size) and too sprawling and self-contradictory. In spite of its already large size, fair coverage of the many controversies inevitably causes the section to get longer, even if handled well. But no one ever had the time to do the rewrite.

Now that that section has been hit with a demand for cleanup, we really ought to undertake the job. For a basis, I have copied the whole section, as it stands, as the text of this article. This is not because the article ought to stay in its present form, but to get the old text into a convenient place in the History.

Then I'll change the section in the Galileo article to a brief summary, with a pointer to this as the Main Article. More on that in the the Galileo talk page.

Then I'm going to blank out the text of this Trial article and turn it into a stub, from which the new article can be written. It would be futile to try to make a good text just by patching the old one, which needs massive reorganization; but we'll have all the pieces of the old version from which to crib as needed. Parts of it are very good.

The old Church Controversy text is also being copied below as part of the talk page, as this might be more accessible than going back into the History page to find old text. Dandrake 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dandrake, this is a very impressive, NPOV and accurate article with repect to this controversy. WRT names, how about something like Galileo: the conflict with Rome ot Galileo's Conflict with Rome (or The Church or The Inquisition, etc..) The point is to get trial out of there as it is too resticted and expand it a broader concept like conflict or confrontation or something along those lines.--Lacatosias 08:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Usually the whole church controversy topic is known as the "Galileo Affair". It's actually the name of several books, but I think it predates the books that use that as the title; I think the commonness of the term outweighs the partisanness of it, since people have written about it using that term from a wide variety of views.--ragesoss 14:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

n fact, the new brief text from the main Galileo article has been pasted in, forming a rough outline. Let's replace this rapidly with a well-organized text (in which it will be impossible to recognize this first hack).

As to this article's name: it's not really accurate, as this covers far more than the trial of 1633. It is very hard to find a descriptive and neutral name. "The Galileo Affair" could be one, but it's not, being the title of a book, and a partisan one. "Galileo--For Copernicus and the Church" appeals to me, but that one is also taken. As is "The Crime of Galileo". "Galileo, heliocentrism, and the Church" would be descriptive, but it sounds pompous.

Any better ideas? Please? Dandrake 01:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Church controversy

This is the former text, complete:
Galileo was a practicing Catholic, yet his writings on Copernican heliocentrism disturbed some in the Roman Catholic Church who believed in a geocentric model of the solar system. They argued that heliocentrism was in direct contradiction of the Bible (Joshua (10:12)): "Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, 'Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon'." This Bible passage could be literally interpreted as the Sun and the Moon were both objects peripheral-to or a subset-of Earth, as opposed to a more symbolic, metaphysical interpretation (e.g., their representing a highly illuminated state of consciousness (the Sun founded upon Gibeon) and a phase of lower reflected intellect (the Moon in the valley of Ajalon) or thought). At that time the most literal Biblical interpretation was prevalent with the church hierarchy, especially among the Dominican Order, facilitators of the Inquisition; it was also in line with the highly revered ancient writings of Aristotle and Plato.

The geocentric model was generally accepted at the time, as it had been since philosophers first considered the heavens. By the time of the controversy, the Ptolemaic model had a serious rival in the Tychonian model in which the Earth was at the center of the Universe, the Sun revolved around the Earth and the other planets revolved around the Sun. This model is geometrically equivalent to the Copernican model and agreed with observations in that it predicted no parallax of the stars, an effect that was impossible to detect with the instruments of the time. In the view of Tycho and many others, this model explained the observable data of the time better than the geocentric model did. (That inference is valid, however, only on the assumption that no very small effect had been missed: that the instruments of the time were absolutely perfect, or that the Universe could not be much larger than was generally believed at the time. As to the latter, belief in the large, possibly infinite, size of the Universe was part of the heretical beliefs for which Giordano Bruno had been burned at the stake in 1600.)

An understanding of the controversies, if it is even possible, requires attention not only to the politics of religious organizations but to those of academic philosophy. Before Galileo had trouble with the Jesuits and before the Dominican friar Caccini denounced him from the pulpit, his employer heard him accused of contradicting Scripture by a professor of philosophy, Cosimo Boscaglia, who was neither a theologian nor a priest. Galileo was defended on the spot by a Benedictine abbot, Benedetto Castelli, who was also a professor of mathematics and a former student of Galileo's. It was this exchange, reported to Galileo by Castelli, that led Galileo to write the Letter to Grand Duchess Christina. (Castelli remained Galileo's friend, visiting him at Arcetri near the end of Galileo's life, after months of effort to get permission from the Inquisition to do so.)

There is evidence of an organized and secretive opposition to Galileo among some academic philosophers. This included professors against whom Galileo, who was not officially a philosopher at all, had successfully argued for the theory of buoyancy developed by Archimedes, as against that of Aristotle, which had been taught in the academies. Moreover, the new telescopic discoveries in astronomy were, even without arguments on heliocentrism, upsetting the established comprehensive theory of the heavens, again due to Aristotle. The Jesuit astronomers, after a period of disbelief when good telescopes were almost unobtainable, had soon enough agreed on the validity of Galileo's discoveries; by contrast, some professors of the secular academic world refused for a time to look through the telescope. Caccini's attack, if not actually inspired by the philosophers, was welcomed by them and had their support.

However, real power lay with the Church, and Galileo's arguments were most fiercely fought on the religious level. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century historian Andrew Dickson White wrote from an anti-clerical perspective:

The war became more and more bitter. The Dominican Father Caccini preached a sermon from the text, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" and this wretched pun upon the great astronomer's name ushered in sharper weapons; for, before Caccini ended, he insisted that "geometry is of the devil," and that "mathematicians should be banished as the authors of all heresies." The Church authorities gave Caccini promotion.

Father Lorini proved that Galileo's doctrine was not only heretical but "atheistic," and besought the Inquisition to intervene. The Bishop of Fiesole screamed in rage against the Copernican system, publicly insulted Galileo, and denounced him to the Grand-Duke. The Archbishop of Pisa secretly sought to entrap Galileo and deliver him to the Inquisition at Rome. The Archbishop of Florence solemnly condemned the new doctrines as unscriptural; and Paul V, while petting Galileo, and inviting him as the greatest astronomer of the world to visit Rome, was secretly moving the Archbishop of Pisa to pick up evidence against the astronomer.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the most respected Catholic theologians of the time, was called on to adjudicate the dispute between Galileo and his opponents, including both religious zealots and secular university professors. The appointment shows the world view that prevailed before the Scientific Revolution: a leading theologian was assigned to tell scholars what views they were allowed to "hold or defend" concerning the workings of the physical world.

Bellarmine insisted that Galileo furnish more adequate proof of his new theories before he would be allowed to teach them as true or even as probably true. Until such proof was forthcoming, the ideas should only be taught as hypotheses, in the old sense of the word: that is, as calculating tricks that were not to be considered as in any way real.

This put Galileo in a difficult position, as he had no conclusive proof for his position. In fact, his theories had gaps and errors, as is (we now know) the usual condition of radically new scientific work. The real meaning of the requirement for better proof became clear in the 1630s, when Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition because of his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. That book contained what Galileo considered to be a physical proof of the Earth's motion, based on the tides; had it been correct (which it was not), it would have satisfied Bellarmine's requirement. In the event, the Inquisition did not even consider whether the argument was right or wrong. It condemned Galileo simply for publishing, ignoring Bellarmine's reasoning.

While many in the Church supported Galileo, the charges brought by the priests who had been goaded to act against him were serious. These men asserted that dreadful consequences must result to Christian theology were the heavenly bodies proved to revolve about the Sun and not about the Earth. Their most tremendous dogmatic engine was the statement that "his pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation." Father Lecazre declared, "It casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation." Others declared, "It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the Earth is a planet, and only one among several planets, it can not be that any such great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam and Eve? How can they trace back their origin to Noah's ark? How can they have been redeemed by the Saviour?" Nor was this argument confined to the theologians of the Roman Church; Melanchthon, Protestant as he was, had already used it in his attacks on Copernicus and his school. (White, 1898; online text)

In 1616, the Inquisition warned Galileo not to hold or defend the hypothesis asserted in Copernicus's On the Revolutions, though it has been debated whether he was admonished not to "teach in any way" the heliocentric theory. Copernicus's book was not condemned, rather, it was just held pending the correction of a few sentences. When Galileo was tried in 1633, the Inquisition was proceeding on the premise that he had been ordered not to teach it at all, based on a paper in the records from 1616; but Galileo produced a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine that showed only the "hold or defend" order. The latter is in Bellarmine's own hand and of unquestioned authenticity; the former is an unsigned copy, violating the Inquisition's own rule that the record of such an admonition had to be signed by all parties and notarized. Leaving aside technical rules of evidence, what can one conclude as to the real events? There are two schools of thought. According to Stillman Drake, the order not to teach was delivered unofficially and improperly; Bellarmine would not allow a formal record to be made, and assured Galileo in writing that the only order in effect was not to "defend or hold". According to Giorgio di Santillana, however, the unsigned minute was simply a fabrication by the Inquisition.

In 1623 Pope Gregory XV died, and Galileo's close friend Maffeo Barberini became Pope Urban VIII. The new Pope gave Galileo vague permission to ignore the ban and write a book about his opinions, so long as he did not openly support his theory. Galileo consented, and set to work writing his masterpiece, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (often called simply the Dialogue). It involved an argument between two intellectuals, one geocentric, the other heliocentric, and a layman, neutral but interested. Although it presented the Church's point of view, the geocentrist was depicted foolishly, while the heliocentrist often dominated the argument and convinced the neutral member in the end.

The Dialogue was published in 1632 with the approval of Catholic censors. It was applauded by intellectuals but nevertheless aroused the Church's ire. Despite his continued insistence that his work in the area was purely theoretical, despite his strict following of the church protocol for publication of works (which required prior examination by church censors and subsequent permission), and despite his former friendship with the Pope (who presided throughout the ordeal), Galileo was summoned to trial before the Roman Inquisition in 1633.

The Inquisition had rejected earlier pleas by Galileo to postpone or relocate the trial because of his ill health. At a meeting presided by Pope Urban VIII, the Inquisition decided to notify Galileo that he either had to come to Rome or that he would be arrested and brought there in chains. Galileo arrived in Rome for his trial before the Inquisition on February 13, 1633. After two weeks in quarantine, Galileo was detained at the comfortable residence of the Tuscan ambassador, as a favor to the influential Grand Duke Ferdinand II de' Medici. When the ambassador reported Galileo's arrival and asked how long the proceedings would be, the Pope replied that the Holy Office proceeded slowly, and was still in the process of preparing for the formal proceedings. In the event, having responded to the urgent demands of the Inquisition that he must report to Rome immediately, Galileo was left to wait for two months before proceedings would begin.

On April 12, 1633, Galileo was brought to trial, and the formal interrogation by the Inquisition began. During this interrogation Galileo stated that he did not defend the Copernican theory, and cited a letter of Cardinal Bellarmine from 1615 to support this contention. The Inquisition questioned him on whether he had been ordered in 1616 not to teach Copernican ideas in any way (see above); he denied remembering any such order, and produced a letter from Bellarmine saying only that he was not to hold or defend those doctrines.

He was then detained for eighteen days in a room in the offices of the Inquisition (not in a dungeon cell). During this time the Commissary General of the Inquisition, Vincenzo (later Cardinal) Maculano, visited him for what amounted to plea bargaining, persuading Galileo to confess to having gone too far in writing the book. In a second hearing on April 30, Galileo confessed to having erred in the writing of the book, through vain ambition, ignorance, and inadvertence. He was then allowed to return to the home of the Tuscan ambassador. On May 10, he submitted his written defense, in which he defended himself against the charge of disobeying the Church's order, confessed to having erred through pride in writing the book, and asked for mercy in light of his age and ill health.

A month later (June 21), by order of the Pope, he was given an examination of intention, a formal process that involved showing the accused the instruments of torture. At this proceeding, he said, "I am here to obey, and have not held this [Copernican] opinion after the determination made, as I said."

On June 22, 1633, the Inquisition held the final hearing on Galileo, who was then 69 years old and pleaded for mercy, pointing to his "regrettable state of physical unwellness". Galileo was forced at this time to "abjure, curse and detest" his work and to promise to denounce others who held his prior viewpoint. Galileo did everything the church requested him to do, following (insofar as there is any evidence) the plea bargain of two months earlier; nonetheless, he was convicted of "grave suspicion of heresy" and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Although ten Cardinal Inquisitors had heard the case, the sentence delivered on June 22 bears the signature of only seven; one of the three missing was Cardinal Barberini, the Pope's nephew. It is generally held that this indicates a refusal to endorse the sentence. The seven who signed, however, were those who were present at that day's proceedings; Cardinals Barberini and Borgia in particular, were attending an audience with the Pope on that day. Analysis of the Inquisition's records has shown that the presence of only seven of ten Cardinals was not exceptional; hence the inference that Barberini was protesting the decision may be doubted.

That the threat of torture and death Galileo was facing was a real one is widely, though not universally, accepted. Many point to the earlier Inquisitional trial against Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 ostensibly for holding a naturalistic view of the Universe. However, Bruno denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation and the immortality of the soul, among other heresies. He partially recanted his heretical beliefs during the investigation of his works, but returned to them before the investigation was completed. Heretics were never burned unless they recanted and subsequently returned to their heresies. Galileo was never convicted of heresy; even in the second trial, he was only "vehemently suspected of heresy".

It is often held that he was punished at the second trial for having disobeyed what was believed to be a valid injunction not to discuss Copernicanism. The formal decision of the court, however, makes no mention of such an order, condemning him only for the Copernican teachings. Moreover, in order to believe that there was such an injunction, one would have had to deny the word of a Cardinal (now a Saint) of the Church. In any case, such disobedience was not punishable by death. Thus, there is no substantial correspondence between Galileo's case and Bruno's. Whether such fine legal distinctions entered into Galileo's assessment of the dangers that faced him while the Inquisition was threatening him with torture and death is, of course, beyond the scope of this article.

The tale that Galileo, rising from his knees after recanting, said "E pur si muove!" (But it does move!) cannot be accepted as true: the penalty for going back on a confession before the Inquisition was to be burned at the stake (famously, in the case of Giordano Bruno and Jacques de Molay), and such a defiance would have been a ticket to follow Bruno to the stake. But the widespread belief that the whole incident is an 18th century invention is also false. (Drake, 1978, pp. 356–357). A Spanish painting, dated 1643 or possibly 1645, shows Galileo writing the phrase on the wall of a dungeon cell. Here we have a second version of the story, which also cannot be true, because Galileo was never imprisoned in a dungeon; but the painting shows that some story of "E pur si muove" was circulating in Galileo's time. In the months immediately after his condemnation, Galileo resided with Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini of Siena, a learned man and a sympathetic host; the fact that Piccolomini's brother was a military attaché in Madrid, where the painting was made some years later, suggests that Galileo may have made the remark to the Archbishop, who then wrote to his family concerning the event, which later became garbled in re-telling.

Galileo was sentenced to prison, but because of his advanced age (and/or Church politics) the sentence was commuted to house arrest at his villas in Arcetri and Florence ¹. Because of a painful hernia, he requested permission to consult physicians in Florence, which was denied by Rome, which warned that further such requests would lead to imprisonment. Under arrest, he was forced to recite penitentiary psalms regularly, but his daughter, who was a nun at a nearby convent, successfully petitioned Rome to be allowed to say the psalms in his place. He was not supposed to have house guests, but this rule was not always strictly enforced. He was allowed to continue his less controversial research. During his confinement at home, Galilei managed to write an important book on his discoveries in physics (not related to the astronomical controversies), the "Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche, intorno á due nuoue scienze" or Two New Sciences.

Publication was another matter. His Dialogue had been put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the official black list of banned books, where it stayed until 1822 (Hellman, 1998). The banning of specific works was not an uncommon occurrence or one necessarily involving other dire consequences; Bellarmine himself had at one time been threatened with having his own work placed on the index. Nor, of course, did the ban inhibit Protestants and others; it meant only that Roman Catholics would not be able (without special permission) to know what Galileo had written. However, the prohibition did not stop at the one book. Though the sentence announced against Galileo mentioned no other works, Galileo found out two years later that publication of anything he might ever write had been quietly banned. The ban was effective in France, Poland, and German states, but not in the Netherlands. When the time came to publish the new book, Galileo had it smuggled out to Leiden, where it was published in 1638.

Placed under house-arrest, Galileo would, in 1638, be allowed to move to his home near Florence. Though by then totally blind, he continued to teach and write. After more than 8 years under arrest, he died at his villa in Arcetri, just north of Florence, in 1642.

According to Andrew Dickson White, in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (III.iii), 1896, Galileo's experiences demonstrate a classic case of a scholar forced to recant a scientific insight because it offended powerful, conservative forces in society: for the church at the time, it was not the scientific method that should be used to find truth — especially in certain areas — but the doctrine as interpreted and defined by church scholars, and White documented how this doctrine was defended by the Church with torture, execution, deprivation of freedom, and censorship. In a less polemical frame, this has remained the mainstream view among the historians of science. However, some feel this elides the underlying complexity of the trials and their context within Church and secular academic politics, as well as the weaknesses of some of Galileo's specific arguments, in light of the imprecise observations available at the time.

The viewpoints of White and similar-minded colleagues were never accepted by the Catholic community, partially because White's final analysis depicted Christianity as a destructive force. A fierce expression of this critical attitude can also be seen in Bertolt Brecht's play about Galileo, a source for popular ideas about the scientist. This is, of course, unfortunate. Brecht, a Marxist, was not interested in hewing to the historical facts so much as he was in making a case against theism and for atheism. Moreover, deeper examination of the primary sources for Galileo and his trial shows that claims of deprivation were likely exaggerated. Dava Sobel's biography Galileo's Daughter offers a different set of insights into Galileo and his world, in large part through the private correspondence of Maria Celeste, the daughter of the title, and her father.

On March 15 1990 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, today Pope Benedict XVI, said in a speech in Parma: "At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just."

In 1992, 359 years after the Galileo trial and 350 years after his death, Pope John Paul II established a commission that ultimately issued an apology, lifting the edict of Inquisition against Galileo: "Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions." After the release of this report, the Pope said further that "... Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard [the relation of scientific and Biblical truths] than the theologians who opposed him."

Discussion of original text

There is much in here that should be incorporated into the main entry but hasn't. Is this a question of a subtle bias in favor of the Church perhaps??--Lacatosias 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the biases in this article aren't just subtle, and there is a fair amount of disinformation; very few historians of science would agree with White's take on the Galileo Affair, as it's pretty much been proven wrong, as much as you can prove a general historical claim. But some of it is worth saving.--ragesoss 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't referring to the sections on White. I was more interested in several claims that are in this version (not attributed to anyone) but are not in the other. E.g.:

"A month later (June 21), by order of the Pope, he was given an examination of intention, a formal process that involved showing the accused the instruments of torture. At this proceeding, he said, "I am here to obey, and have not held this [Copernican] opinion after the determination made, as I said."

and several others. As I am not going to go around chasing down the sources for these myself, my point was just to call attention to the fact that this version has some interesting and possibly usefel info that belongs in the article if it is true. If it's not verifiable, that's another matter. --Lacatosias 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just giving an example, and kinda writing in a hurry... sorry about that. The only point I was really trying to make was that, as you recognize, there is some valuable material, it just all needs to be checked carefully before being added.--ragesoss 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

First notes on the rewrite

This text is painfully light on references. On an issue of such historical sensitivity (it is used as an "I told you so" argument by both sides) we HAVE to reference what we say. My texts differ with this article even on such simple things as dates, where did this information come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.102.137 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

Very poorly refernced indeed. Compare with this article Katyn Forest. But your are free to edit the article and add any authoritiave verifiable references you think best. You'd be quite skocked at the the lack of references on Wikipedia. Iìm not an expert on this topic myself and don't have access to a library. Also, you should aslo ralize that the people who originally wrote this entry may not even be contributors to Wikipedea anymore. Any help you can provide would be appreciated.--Lacatosias 08:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Church (Pope) Apologises for Galileo Trial

I think this should be mentioned as one of the last paragraphs in this article. A quick search on the internet (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,230447,00.html) mentioned that the Pope had apologised for the trial. The article is originated in 2000, but the section seems to indicate that this happened further in the past (I can only vaguely recall when this happened. Mid 1990s???). So, what I'm saying is that something like this should be mentioned here if someone has got more facts than I have can you please put this in? Thanks. Further reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Apologies it states that this happened 31 October1992, unfortunately this doesn't have a reference. Demerzel 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It did indeed happen in 1992 - my astronomy book mentioned that the Roman Catholic church pardoned Galileo in 1992. Aerothorn 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

here (in italian) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1992/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921031_accademia-scienze_it.html

The article wrongly indicates 1992 as the year in which the Pope "established a commission". The commission was established on July 3, 1981Luca priorelli 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Koestler'sbook

Has anyone read Arthur Koestler's book "The Sleepwalkers?" I've heard there is an excellent section on the Galilean affair —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.209.20 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Merits of the Catholic case against the Copernican view

The current article seems to me to be significantly unbalanced, giving the impression that the Church's objections to the Copernican view are principally Scriptural. No mention is made of two key features of the Church's case: (1) Galileo had no answer to the parallax problem - a key argument that the earth does not move that dates back to Aristotle. Thus it was indeed so that the proposition that the earth moves is "foolish and absurd in philosophy". Indeed, unless I am mistaken, no observations were made of parallax among the fixed stars until 1837 - Copernican believers just pressed on regardless of their lack of a coherent account of parallax. (2) That the sun is stationary (has the privileged position, among all objects in the universe, of being stationary and that around which all else revolves) is (a) not a position with which modern physics would have any truck (we believe that any point can be taken as the origin of an inertial frame, so that it is no more wrong to say that the earth is stationary than that the sun is stationary), and (b) clearly is an affront to any rational orthodox theism (so, the Churchmen did not need the sort of Scriptural arguments mentioned). For if the earth had a privileged stationary position, that would make sense - for it is where God made the Man and where the Son of God rose from the dead. But if the Sun were stationary and all else moved, we would want to know why? Is the Sun, perhaps, a God (indeed, there were suspicions that Copernicans were closet sun-worshippers)? At the very least, it would seem that there was something God might have mentioned. (This latter is an oft-under-reported element of the debate. Indeed, it is perhaps worth a little speculation whether relativity theory might have been developed earlier, had Copernican scientists reflected more deeply upon this important theological objection, instead of blithely regarding it as arising from religious dogmatism.)

In addition to these points (to which Galileo had no answer), there are further important objections to which Galileo did respond, including one of the most elegant thought experiments in history. Two of these are: "If the Earth is moving, why don't we (and particularly other creatures such as birds) feel it?" and "Why don't falling objects end up behind where they started?" Galileo's response was the famous thought experiment of the man on a horse throwing up a ball and catching it. The ball travels with the man, and its motion is relative to his. In the same way (indeed more so, since there is less friction for movement through solar space) the earth carries us with it. That is why we do not feel its motion, and why falling objects do not drift against the direction of the earth's motion.

The lack of all these important arguments significantly reduces the interest of the current entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.253.24.21 (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

These are well known facts, and somehow lacking in this article. Would you care to insert them, or shall I ? DanielDemaret 12:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The claim that "Galileo had no answer to the parallax problem" is highly misleading. Not only did he have an answer, which he set out in detail at least three times in writing, the answer which he did give was quite correct. This correct explanation of why parallax was not observed--namely, that the radius of the earth's orbit is negligible relative to its distance from the fixed stars--had in fact already been suggested by the Pythagorean Philolaus, about 50-100 years before the time of Aristotle. Aristotle himself briefly refers to Philolaus's explanation in Chapter 13, book II, of de Caelo, without raising any objections to it.

While Aristotle has often been credited with having argued that the absence of stellar parallax constitutes evidence against the motion of the earth, this claim appears to be solely based on a very dubious reading of the first paragraph of Chapter 14, book II, of de Caelo. In view of all this I suggest that the attribution of this argument to Aristotle be dropped from the article, especially since the originator of the argument is largely immaterial anyway.

There are a few other problems with the text you have added:

'So despite his theory contradicting both simple theoretical arguments and observed data, he wanted his conviction to be taught as truth.'

This is a staple furphy of the less reliable apologetics literature. I have never seen a shred of evidence offered to justify it. There is good evidence from Galileo's private correspondence that he had been convinced by the discoveries he described in The Starry Messenger in 1610 that the Copernican Theory was at least a good approximation to reality, though probably not correct in every detail. However, before the end of 1613 the only statements he had ever published in its defence or support had been two very brief and relatively uncommittal remarks in The Starry Messenger and Letters on Sunspots.

At the end of 1613 and throughout 1615 Galileo produced a good deal of writing in response to alarming, scripturally motivated attacks on both Copernicanism and himself personally, including his denuncation to the Inquisition by two Dominican friars at the beginning of 1615. These writings consisted of:

his Letter to Castelli. This was private letter, although copies of it were circulated amongst Galileo's friends and supporters, and one of these eventually wound up in the hands of his enemies;

the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, an expanded version of his Letter to Castelli. Galileo started this in late 1614 or early 1615 in response to the alarming incidents which had occurred at that time. He had intended to circulate this widely amongst his friends and supporters, and possibly even to have it published. However, Copernicanism was condemned by the Congregation of the Index before he had had a chance to do so, and it does not seem to have circulated much, if at all, at that time. It was not published until 1636;

a response to Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini. This was never published in Galileo's lifetime and he does not appear to have sent copies to anyone;

a long letter to Cardinal Alessandro Orsini containing a discourse on the tides, which Galileo had set down in writing at the Cardinal's request;

much of his correspondence for the year 1615. Some of this is also contained in volume 5 of the Edizione Nazionale of his works.

With the exception of the less important items of correspondence, English translations of all these writings have been given by Maurice Finoccharo in The Galileo Affair--a documentary history, which I have read. Not one of them contains any claim by Galileo that the evidence for Copernicanism is conclusive, let alone any evidence that "he wanted his conviction to be taught as truth." Neither have I seen this claim made in any other works by professional Galilean scholars that I have read, including Stillman Drake's Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography and Galileo: A Very Short Introduction, Michael Sharratt's Galileo--Decisive Innovator and Richard Blackwell's Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible. It should be deleted from the article.

'As Simon Singh shows in his book "The Big Bang", there were other serious related problems with the Copernican model. The model by Ptolemaios corresponded better to observed data than the Copernican model.'

With all due respect to Simon Singh, this is poppycock. Owen Gingerich, an expert on Copernicus and Kepler, has shown by direct calculation that neither of the two models was markedly more accurate than the other (according to this site, reported on p.232 in The Eye of Heaven). More to the point, though, is that an alleged superior correspondence of the ptolemaic model to observed data was never raised as an objection to Copernicus's model by any of its opponents. This claim should therefore also be deleted.

The main argument against a movable earth was well known at the time, and was presented by Aristotle almost two millenia before : If the earth moves, why are there observable parallax shifts?

But in fact, Copernicus had already forestalled objections of precisely this form in chapter 10, book I of De Revolutionibus by deducing from the absence of observed parallax that the fixed stars are "an immense height away". Thus, when opponents of Copernicus (and Galileo) wanted to base an argument on the absence of parallax, they had to do so by arguing that it was 'absurd' to imagine that there could be such a vast expanse of 'wasted' empty space between Saturn or the fixed stars, or that the observed apparent sizes of the stars would have to make them 'absurdly' large if they had been so far away (larger than the entire solar system, according to Tycho Brahe).

In my opinion, the emphasis on the argument from the lack of parallax is misguided. The fact is that if one rejected the principles of Aristotelian physics and cosmology, many of which Galileo had already shown to be erroneous anyway, then Galileo had reasonable answers to all the objections to Copernicanism, including the argument from the lack of parallax. What he did not have is convincing evidence in favour of the Copernican theory, since the observed phenomena were all explained just as well at that time by the theory of Tycho Brahe, which had the added advantage of predicting that no annual parallax should be observed. David Wilson 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"However, before the end of 1613 the only statements he [Galileo] had ever published in its defence or support had been two very brief and relatively uncommittal remarks in The Starry Messenger and Letters on Sunspots."

Since writing this I have learned that it isn't accurate. The Starry Messenger contains three brief statements that could be interpreted as supporting Copernicanism. Only one of these could reasonably be called "non-committal". The other two are anything but, and could hardly leave any of Galileo's readers in any doubt that he was a convinced Copernican.

David Wilson 13:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have some questions regarding, '...he wanted his conviction to be taught as truth.' I have read in various sources that Galileo did actually pursue the matter aggressively, against the advice of his colleagues, effectively forcing the Inquisition to rule on it, which they do not appear to have been eager to do. Something of this story appears to be reflected in the following:

As 1615 wore on he became more concerned, and eventually determined to go to Rome as soon as his health permitted, which it did at the end of the year. By presenting his case there, he hoped to clear his name of any suspicion of heresy, and to persuade the Church authorities not to suppress heliocentric ideas. In this he was acting against the advice of friends and allies, and the Tuscan ambassador to Rome, Piero Guicciardini.

It is however possible, as surmised by the Tuscan ambassador, Piero Guiccardini, in a letter to the Grand Duke,[21] that the actual referral may have been precipitated by Galileo's aggressive campaign to prevent the condemnation of Copernicanism.[22]

But it is not clear what this means. He 'went to Rome.' Where exactly in Rome did he go? Straight to Pope Urban? I doubt it. It sounds like he was somehow pressing the issue, and this appears to be the source of the story you refute above, although you make it into a straw man by claiming it is all about him wanting something to be declared true by the Holy Office, and that if that were the case it should be reflected in his letters to people who were not members of the Holy Office. Forgive me if I have misconstrued what you said. But it sounds like there must be something to the notion that Galileo forced the Holy Office to rule on heliocentrism. I would like to know where that comes from. Peace, 18:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocanter (talk • contribs)

Big Bang

Simon Sing, in his book "The Big Bang" makes it clear that the idea of the earth running in a circle around the sun did not match observations, and was therefor rejected. This was until Kepler in the 17th century managed to discover that if an ellipse was chosen instead, the observations finally fit the calculations. This tangents the development here, and might possibly be mentioned as another example of how those resisting change did so since the Ptolemaian model fit the data better than the Copernican model. Who would support a model that did not fit the observations?DanielDemaret 12:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Galileo Article

The part concerning this affair often seems better detailed the Galileo article, than in this one.DanielDemaret 08:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Calendar Reform

There are numerous problems with the text added by 216.243.118.82 in revisions 131972707 of 19:45, May 19, 2007 and 131972755 of 19:46, May 19, 2007. I have moved the text here, and point out the problems below.

"The problem was the Aristotle cosmology that had been used had become so complicated that no one really knew what the date was. Because it was critial to know what date it was so the right religious rites could be performed on the right day the Council of Trent had ordered calendar reform. What they got in 1543 was Copernicus and his sun centered universe which the Church accepted as a "mathematical convenience"^[1]"

Problems:

• The reference cited to support the claims made in the text is an episode of a TV documentary series by James Burke. Unfortunately, many of the items Burke presents as facts in the program are contradicted by numerous highly credible sources on the history of astronomy.
• Before Copernicus, the astronomical model used almost universally, for calculation at least, was essentially unchanged from the one presented by Ptolemy in his Almagest of the second century^[2]. According to most scholarly accounts, it was slightly simpler than Copernicus's^[3].
• While the Council of Trent apparently did discuss Calendar Reform, it did not start meeting until 1545, so it is a nonsensical anachronism to say that "what they got in 1543 was Copernicus and his sun-centered universe..."
• The calendar reform which was eventually adopted by Gregory XIII was based on the Ptolemaically derived Alfonsine tables, not on those derived from Copernicus's model^[4] (although the values for the lengths of the year and the month for the two models are so close that it wouldn't have made much difference anyway).

Further reading^[5] indicates that the situation is not quite so clear cut as my above remark suggests. Apparently not all reputable scholars agree on whether the values for the lengths of the month and the year used in the Gregorian reform were taken from the Ptolemaically derived Alfonsine Tables or the Copernican derived Prutenic Tables.

David Wilson 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"[Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas, declaring the immobility of the sun to be "absurd in philosophy and formally heretical", and the mobility of the earth "to be at least erroneous in faith";] (which ignored the fact the Council of Trent had accepted said ideas some 90 years before)."

• None of the formal declarations of the Council of Trent had anything whatever to say on the issue of Copernicanism, let alone accepting it, even as a mathematical convenience. But even if it had decided that its use as a mathematical convenience was acceptable, there is nothing in the Church's later pronouncements to justify the claim that it was ignoring that alleged decision. The Church never made any pronouncements against the use of a heliocentric mathematical model purely as a calculating device.

Notes and references

1. ^{^} "Infinitely Reasonable" The Day the Universe Changed
2. ^{^} Gingerich, Owen (2004), The Book Nobody Read, William Heinemann, London.
3. ^{^} E.g. Linton, C.M.(2004), From Eudoxus to Einstein, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, footnote 11, p. 125.
4. ^{^} Moyer, Gordon (1983), Aloisius Lilius and the "Compendium Novae Rationis Retstituendi Kalendarium"', in Coyne, G.V. et al eds, Gregorian Reform of the Calendar, Specola Vaticana, Vatican City, p.182
5. ^{^} North, J.D (1983), The Western Calendar, in Coyne, G.V. et al eds, Gregorian Reform of the Calendar, Specola Vaticana, Vatican City, pp.98,112

David Wilson 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Silly talk

There is much silly talk about Gustavus Adolfus in the article. All the founders of Protestantism attacked Copernicus by name and I do not think that they were frightened of the Mighty Swede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.98.128 (talk) 04:28, August 17, 2007

Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon

See the main "Galileo" article, where citations are given, showing Luther and Calvin attacking Copernicus. Melanchthon called for coercion in the suppression of Copernicanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bellarmine's view

The sentence "the heliocentric idea was purely a hypothetical." is not grammatical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of citation

Some recent edits had removed a couple of citations on the alleged grounds that the references cited were in Italian, and that the affair was already well-covered in English. However, one of the deleted references is not in Italian. It is an English translation (Turning Point for Europe?) of the book of Ratzinger's in which his speech was published. The English translation was published by Ignatius Press in San Francisco, with an imprimatur from the appropriate Catholic authorities. Its citation was replaced by one to an article on the web-site of the National Catholic Register. While there is nothing wrong with the National Catholic Register's translation, it's also accompanied by an editorial commentary on criticisms of the Pope which does not appear to me to be at all unbiassed. It seems to me, therefore, that a citation to the authoritative English translation of Ratzinger's speech is preferable, and I have therefore restored it.

Note also that the word "Church" is capitalised in both translations. Since we are giving a direct quotation this capitalisation should be retained.

I have also amended the following text:

Ratzinger did not indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertion about the verdict being "just", ...

back to its original form. The grounds given for limiting the statement to the assertion about the verdict's being just was that "it is really the latter assertion about it being "rational and just" where there is disagreement". This rationale seems rather dubious to me. In their letter, the academics also quoted part of the first sentence of Ratzinger's quotation ("The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself") and gave every indication that their objections applied just as much to that sentence as to the one about the verdict's being rational and just. In any case, Ratzinger gave no indication in his speech whether he agreed or disagreed with any of Feyerabend's assertions, so there is neither any need nor any point in limiting the application of the statement to only the last sentence of the quotation. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago the citation to and quotation from the English translation of Ratzingers's book was again replaced with a citation to the translation at the National Catholic Reporter blog, on the erroneous grounds that the link to the latter is a "link to actual speech". The NCR's text is no more the Pope's "actual speech" than is that quoted from the English translation of his book. They are both translations from foreign language versions of Ratzinger's book—the NCR's is translated from the Italian, and the English version of the book is translated from the German. As further evidence of the NCR's dubious reliability as a source, I will point out that it erroneously claims that the text is that of speech which Ratzinger supposedly delivered in Parma on March 15th, 1990. However, a footnote in the book itself states unequivocally that the text is that of a speech delivered in Rome on February 15th. I have therefore restored the quotation from and citation to the English version of the book.

I have also restored some additional material which appears to have been deleted without explanation. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Redondi's hypothesis

Would anyone be so kind as to expand the single sentence about the severe criticism and universal rejection of the Redondi's hypothesis? Biagioli, e. g., in his Galileo Courtier accepts it with some qualifications and the more recent Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius by William R. Shea and Mariano Artigas (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003) pays a due respect to it as well. It would be interesting to know what's wrong with it without consulting all the papers listed in the fotnote. Alexei Kouprianov (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that Biagioli accepts Redondi's theory in Galileo Courtier, even with "some qualifications". He does cite Redondi's book numerous times for information on some aspects of the historical circumstances of Galileo's life. He also explicitly praises Redondi's "remarkably rich and insightful contextualization" of the dispute between Galileo and Horatio Grassi in the 1620s over the nature of comets, and he credits some of Redondi's insights with informing his own analysis of this episode. However, none of the issues on which Biagoli cites Redondi's book concerns the central claims of Redondi's theory—namely, that accusations of Eucharistic heresy were the driving force behind Galileo's eventual indictment, and that these were suppressed by Urban and his allies. While Biagoli nowhere criticises these claims explicitly (as far as I am aware), neither can I find anywhere in Galileo Courtier where he endorses them. They are, however, flatly contradicted by Biagioli's own account of Galileo's trial.

The main criticism levelled at Redondi's theory by his critics is that it is allegedly almost totally conjectural, with very little documentary evidence to support it, and a vast amount which appears to contradict it. The only new evidence uncovered by Redondi is an undated, anonymous complaint that some comments of Galileo's about the nature of matter in The Assayer appear (in the opinion of the complainant) to be inconsistent with the doctrine of transubstantiation of the Eucharist. As Redondi himself acknowledges, there is no direct documentary evidence that this accusation played any role in Galileo's trial, but he suggests that this is because the evidence was very effectively suppressed by Urban and his allies. To support his theory, therefore, he has to propose a thoroughgoing reinterpretation of all the documentary evidence which appears to contradict it. It would take too much time and space to explain all the supposed errors Redondi's critics claim to find in the arguments with which he tries to support his proposed reinterpretation. Suffice it to say that, in view of all his alleged errors, they simply don't find it credible.

There are a couple of critical reviews of Redondi's theory which are more detailed and informative than any of those currently cited in the article. They are : From Inquisitors to Microhistorians: A Critique of Pietro Redondi's Galileo eretico, by Vincenzo Ferrone and Masssimo Firpo in The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 58, no. 2 (Jun., 1986), pp.485-524, and Essays on the Trial of Galileo, by Richard Westfall, Vatican Observatory (1989), pp.58-93. I will add them to the current list.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

C.jeynes

C.jeynes has revived his talk about atomism and Spanish influence, but dropped his previous talk about the Mighty Swede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anachronism

An anachronism appears in the main article. The "Incarnation" is said to be a reason for subscribing to geocentrism. Geocentrism was found the world over for thousands of years before Christianity was founded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.246.75 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Geostaticism was also older than Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Text

I removed some text whilst editing. This didn't seem to fit with this encyclopedia entry, this was more discussion or a book. However, I didn't want to delete it out right so I've pasted it here.

The Bible argument was a dangerous one for Galileo: why would anybody defend a theory where the Earth moves, given that it contradicts the literal meaning of the Bible? The obvious reason now, of course, is that it is true and backed by scientific evidence; though not enough data existed to prove it at the time.

It was to take 300 years before there were instruments good enough to observe these, in stars. As Simon Singh shows in his book "The Big Bang", there were other serious related problems with the Copernican model. The model by Ptolemy corresponded better to observed data than the Copernican model. It was not until Kepler suggested ellipses, rather than circles that even better correspondence to observed data could be demonstrated. So despite his theory contradicting both simple theoretical arguments and observed data, he wanted his conviction to be taught as truth. Today, scientists tend to present only those parts of their findings as "truth" that are very clearly shown, such as the results of a particular experiment. Careful suggestions of new theories are rarely considered truth until a consensus is reached.

The main argument against a movable Earth was well known at the time, and was presented by Aristotle almost two millennia before : If the Earth moves, why are there no observable parallax shifts?

Paulrach (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Formal Heresy" of Sun's Immobility

I have substantially modified the following assertion:

the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical."

previously made in the article, for reasons give in detail on the talk page of the Galileo Galilei, which also contained the same assertion.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on Bible Passages

This article puts much emphasis on the idea that Galileo wasn't accepted because his ideas contradicted Scripture. However this was not the case. The fact is that the Church considered his ideas theoretical but were open to change if good proof arose.

Take for example, these quotes by Robert Bellarmine "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." "If there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe, that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the sun does not go around the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great dercumpspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary"

Now the article acknowledges that the Ptolemaic model was widespread amongst scholars during the middle ages so lets get some consistency in the article and not just have sentences treating the Scripture reason as the only cause for the challenge in the Galileo's affair. That's just inaccurate. --AirLiner (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

During the so-called "Galileo affair" the Church did much more than merely refuse to accept heliocentrism as a physical fact. In 1616 it explicitly condemned it as "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture" in an official decree issued by the Congregation of the Index. In 1633 it found Galileo—in the words of the Inquisition's judgement—"vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to divine and Holy Scripture, namely that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture." (quoted from Finocchiaro, 1989, p.291) These two events were the most important of the whole affair, and it is universally acknowledged by professional Galileo scholars (see the sources cited in the article—particularly McMullin (2005) and Finocchiaro (1989)) that one of the key reasons—though certainly not the only one—why they happened was the Church's decision that heliocentrism conflicted with the proper interpretaion of various passages of Scripture.

It is true that the course of events constituting the Galileo affair was also influenced by many factors other than the apparent inconsistencies between heliocentrism and Scripture, and no doubt the article could be improved by elaborating further on some of those other factors. However, I disagree that the article currently treats the Scriptural objections to heliocentrism as the only cause of the conflict between Galileo and the Church. I would also strongly oppose any attempts to remove reliably-sourced facts about the role which the Scriptural objections did in fact play in that conflict.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David Wilson, the article doesn't treat Scriptural objections as the only cause for the Galileo affair and I never said they did, but what is needed to be understood is that the Church interpreted those Scriptures as opposing heliocentricsm because the science of the day opposed heliocnetricsm. I think that isn't clear enough in the article. --AirLiner (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

AirLiner wrote:

"I agree with David Wilson, the article doesn't treat Scriptural objections as the only cause for the Galileo affair and I never said they did, ..."

But you did write:

" ... lets get some consistency in the article and not just have sentences treating the Scripture reason as the only cause for the challenge in the Galileo's affair."

which I have apparently misinterpreted. I apologise for that. Would you please clarify this statement by pointing out which particular sentences in the article you believe currently treat "the Scripture reason as the only cause for the challenge in the Galileo's affair." "treat Scriptural objections as the only cause for the Galileo affair." If you did not mean to assert that there were any such sentences in the article, then please explain what the point of the statement was.

Next:

"... what is needed to be understood is that the Church interpreted those Scriptures as opposing heliocentricsm because the science of the day opposed heliocnetricsm."

There are essentially two assertions made in this statement:

• that the science of the day opposed heliocentrism; and
• that this was the reason why the Church interpreted Scriptures as opposing heliocentrism.

I can't find anything in the article which contradicts the first of these statements. In fact, in the section on the 1600 revolution it says quite explicitly:

"However, they [i.e. Galileo's interpretations of his telescopic discoveries] caused difficulties for theologians and for natural philosophers (the name given to scientists at the time), as they contradicted the scientific and philosophical ideas of the time, which were based on those of Aristotle and Ptolemy, ..."

If you think the article contains any statements that give a contrary impression, please point them out so a compromise wording can be negotiated. Alternatively, you could simply tag them with a {{fact}} template.

The second of the above statements is a different kettle of fish. I have only ever seen statements like that made in ill-informed apologetics literature. Needless to say, such literature is not suitable as a source for Wikipedia articles. So if you want the article to include it as a legitimate scholarly point of view, you will need to identify a reliable scholarly source where it is advocated. Even if you can do that, I can nevertheless cite you several scholarly sources which flatly contradict it (McMullin, 2005b; Coyne, 2005; Blackwell, 1991, for instance—and I am not aware of any which agree with it), so the statement could only be included as a view held by a small minority of scholars.

Finally, you need to be more careful in your selection of sources. The first of your alleged quotations from Cardinal Bellarmine is almost certainly bogus. It has been peddled around the internet for some years— commonly as anti-religious propaganda—without any of the peddlers, as far as I have been able to determine, having identified where exactly Bellarmine is alleged to have said it. It appears to be a spurious fusion, together with some other changes in wording, of two separate sentences from his letter to Foscarini:

"However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."

and:

" ... and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, ..."

The second of your quotations, from the same letter, is accurate. However, if you would care to read the letter in its entirety you will find that nowhere in it does Bellarmine say or imply that the Church interpreted Scriptures as opposing heliocentrism because the science of the day did so. The reasons he in fact gives for interpreting Scripture as contrary to heliocentrism are:

• The Council of Trent had prohibited the interpretation of Scipture in a way that was contrary to the common agreement of the Fathers of the Church; and
• The Church Fathers (as well as biblical commentators of Bellarmine's own time) all agreed that various passages of the Bible say that the Earth stands motionless at the centre of the universe, and that the Sun revolves swiftly around it.

He further quite clearly states that it would not be permissible to depart from these interpretations unless the supporters of heliocentrism could give an apodictic demonstration ("vera demostratione", in his own words) of its truth. This, of course, is impossible (as Bellarmine probably realised). , so if it were to be insisted upon as an essential criterion for abandoning the traditional interpretations, then [what the "science of the day" had to say about the matter would have been] largely [completely] irrelevant.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have softened your comments, but I really don't see why you say that the "science of the day" is irrelevant at all. It seems entirely possible that some clever scientist of the day could have discovered the Foucault pendulum or stellar parallax and convinced everyone that the Earth went around the Sun. Neither Bellarmine nor anyone else could have known whether that was going to happen. Arguably, the works of Kepler and Galileo should have convinced more scientists of the day. Regardless, it seems fair to say that Bellarmine was trying to follow the science of the day, and that he reasonably concluded that there was no proof of heliocentrism. Roger (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger wrote:

" ... I really don't see why you say that the "science of the day" is irrelevant at all."

Well, it might help if you were to read what I actually wrote more carefully. I had a good reason for choosing the conditional tense ("would have been irrelevant") instead of the indicative ("is irrelevant") which you have now quoted back at me. The statement I made seems to me to be a pretty obvious inference from the facts and arguments contained in the references I have already cited, so if you have trouble understanding it, it might also help if you were to read those references. Nevertheless, it is an inference, and as such it technically amounts to original research. So rather than trawling through the references again to see if can find a passage where one of them says pretty much the same thing, I shall simply strike the comment altogether. It doesn't change the fact that if AirLiner wants the statements I have challenged to go into the article he will need to back them up with citations to decent sources.

Next:

"... it seems fair to say that Bellarmine was trying to follow the science of the day ..."

Not according to the account given on pages 40–45 of Blackwell's Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991). As early as 1572 Bellarmine had proffered supposed "controversies" amongst astronomers as justification for adopting a Biblically-based cosmology which flatly contradicted the "science of the day" (although it was, of course, still geocentric and geostatic). This was at a time when, according to most modern scholarly accounts—at least as far as I can tell—, there was virtually no serious opposition to the prevailing Aristotelian cosmology (i.e the "science of the day").

Next:

" ... and that he reasonably concluded that there was no proof of heliocentrism."

That is not in dispute. But the fact that there was no conclusive proof of heliocentrism hardly justified its being condemned as "false and contrary to Scripture". At least two of the scholars I have cited (McMullin, 2005b, and Coyne, 2005) argue that the Church took the decision that it did partly because those with the power to enforce it (including Bellarmine) were convinced that no such proof would ever be possible, and that they could therefore safely require that the traditional interpretation of Scripture be rigidly adhered to without any concern that the decision might ever have to be reversed. I'm not really sure how widespread this opinion is amongst modern Galileo scholars, but I don't know of any who have explicitly denied it. One thing they all seem to be agreed upon, however, is that the primary motivation for the Church's issuing its decree was not that the relevant ecclesiastical authorities regarded heliocentrism as contrary to "the science of the day"—though this must certainly have exerted some influence—but that that they regarded it as contrary to Scripture.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is plausible to infer that (1) Bellarmine thought that he would never be proven wrong, and (2) Church officials were motivated by theology more than by science. I don't doubt that many scholars have these opinions. But the Bellarmine writings don't say either of these two things, and I think that we should only attribute to him what he actually said. These two things could be false. Roger (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger wrote

"But the Bellarmine writings don't say either of these two things, and I think that we should only attribute to him what he actually said."

I agree that the article should not attribute anything to Bellarmine which he did not say. But since I have nowhere done this myself, nor argued that the article should do so either, I am left wondering what the point of this apparently gratuitous remark was.

I also point out that this discussion started with a complaint from AirLiner in which he has made the following statements:

• ^ "This article puts much emphasis on the idea that Galileo wasn't accepted because his ideas contradicted Scripture. However this was not the case."
• ^ " ... what is needed to be understood is that the Church interpreted those Scriptures as opposing heliocentricsm because the science of the day opposed heliocnetricsm. I think that isn't clear enough in the article."

the second of which, at least, he appears to want included in the article. You then chimed in with the following:

• ^ "... it seems fair to say that Bellarmine was trying to follow the science of the day ... "

which I presumed you were either also proposing be included in the article, or at least offering as support for AirLiner's position. The sole purpose of my comments has been to point out that these statements are overwhelmingly contradicted by both the primary sources (including the only one offered by AirLiner as evidence) and reliable secondary sources that I am aware of. So far, neither of you have provided any other sources whatever. Until you do, I see little point in continuing the discussion.

On reading through the article's description of what Bellarmine wrote in his letter to Foscarini the only thing I found that might be considered in the least inaccurate was the unsourced claim that he did not consider a proof of heliocentrism "to be a serious possibility". What he actually wrote was that he had "the greatest doubt" ("ho grandissimo dubbio", to be precise) that there might be such a proof. I will amend the text so that it sticks more closely to what Bellarmine actually wrote.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wild anachronism

There are wild anachronisms in the article, from Pietro Redondi, C. Jeynes and Michael White. There was a great deal of opposition to the opinions of Pythagoras at the time. Spanish was not spoken in Spain at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific. I can find no mention of Pythagoras or his opinions in the article. If by "opinions of Pythagoras" you are referring to the hypothesis that the earth moves, I can't see anything in the article which states or implies that there wasn't "a great deal of opposition" to it at the time. Nor can I see anything in the article which implies anything at all about the nature of the language spoken in Spain during Galileo's lifetime. The article currently gives what appears to me to be an accurate summary of Redondi's theory without endorsing it, and notes (correctly) that it has been almost universally rejected by other Galileo scholars. As far as I can see, the only major objection that might be reasonably levelled against the article's current treatment of Redondi's theory is that the amount of space devoted to it may be out of proportion to the minuscule degree of support it has been able to garner amongst professional Galileo scholars.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Appears twice

For some reason, Michael White's book appears in the References twice, with different publishers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the occurrences was not in proper alphabetical order, and was not properly cross-linked to its citation in the Notes section. I therefore didn't notice it was there and added a second. I have now removed the first.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Galileo Myth

Can we have referrence to the Galileo Myth as proposed by some such as http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWU5ZDk3NGY3OGI4NDY1OTdmNzc2NmEzYjUzZWQxNWE= http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html , http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html , http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/26/debunking_the_galileo_myth Faro0485 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Feeble

Many recent edits have been very feeble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.1.47 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Some have been reverted already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.114.225 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the article

There are a huge number of problems with the changes made to the article in an extensive series of recent edits. These problems include:

• the rewording of many passages in such a way that they are no longer properly supported by the cited sources;
• introduction of a large amount of unsourced material, much of which appears to be no more than editor opinion, and a significant proportion of which is contradicted by numerous reliable sources;
• much of the rewriting has introduced incorrect idiom, wording or grammar into passages whose grammar and phrasing had previously been perfectly acceptable.

On carefully reading through the new version of the article I'm afraid I can find very little that I would consider an improvement on this previous version, and correcting the numerous errors that have been introduce would require an enormous amount of work. I have therefore reverted the changes. Please obtain consensus on this talk page before reintroducing any of them.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seems sensible, on a quick look through. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ferdinando II

A natural reading of the following sentence,

"After a period with the friendly Archbishop Piccolomini in Siena, Galileo was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest with his friend and pupil Ferdinando II de' Medici, the Grand Duke of Tuscany."

from which I have now removed the latter part, suggests that Ferdinand was also placed under house arrest along with Galileo, so it certainly needed to be at least reworded to remove that erroneous impression. But since I have also been unable to find any source which says that Ferdinand was ever a pupil of Galileo, I have simply removed the latter part of the sentence entirely, rather than trying to come up with a more appropriate rewording. I suspect that whoever added that text was confusing Ferdinand with his predecessor Cosimo II, who undoubtedly had been one of Galileo's pupils. Unless a good source can be found to support the claim that Ferdinand had also been one of Galileo's pupils, I don't believe it would be appropriate for the article to make it.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Liga

There is a major topic missing - the Aristotelians who formed the Liga to find a way to destroy Galileo. This is just vaguely hinted at. This is documented in Roy E. Peacock's A Brief History of Eternity, 1990, ISBN 0-89107-573-9, pp 141ff. etc. Preliminary draft:

While visiting the University of Pisa, Prof. Roy E. Peacock discovered the hidden clique that destroyed Galileo. (See A Brief History of Eternity 1990 p 141 ff.) The jobs and reputations of Aristotelian professors were threatened by Galileo’s discoveries and writings. They formed “the Liga, a secret resistance movement . . seeking madly to find something with which to discredit you.” Yet Galileo had the favor of the State, the Church (Pope Urban VIII), the People. He wrote “Thus the world is the work and the scriptures the word of the same God.” The Liga plotted to use the church to destroy Galileo by accusing him to the Inquisition as opposing the Bible. They finally destroyed Galileo by persuading Pope Urban VIII that Galileo portrayed him as the simpleton.

To be revised, referenced.DLH (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I presume this is referring to the infamous "Pigeon League" ("Legha del Pippione", in Cigoli's spelling). A more detailed treatment of this group would be a welcome improvement to the article. However, there are some inaccuracies in the above draft. The existence of this group was not discovered by Roy Peacock. Historians of science had known about it long before he was born—it was mentioned in Karl von Gebler's Galileo and the Roman Curia of 1879, for example. Neither was this league particulary "hidden". Galileo and his supporters were well aware of its existence, and his friend, the painter, Lodovico Cardi da Cigoli, even became aware that they were plotting to get Galileo into trouble. The tale that this league "destroyed Galileo by persuading Pope Urban VIII that Galileo portrayed him as the simpleton" is way overdrawn. According to the respected historian of science, Maurice Finocchiaro, the calumny that Galileo had intended Simplicio to be a caricature of Pope Urban VIII did not surface until 1635, some three years after his trial (Retrying Galileo, p.62).

Judging from the descriptions of Peacock's book, A Brief History of Eternity, available on the web, it would appear to be a work of Christian apologetics, intended as a rebuttal to Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Also, Peacock himself is not a historian of science. Therefore, I don't believe his book can be regarded as a reliable source for historical details such as this.

By all means add some well-sourced detail to the article's treatment of the "Pigeon league", but please take the trouble to obtain the detail only from authoritative sources written by professional historians of science.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

All five

The text says, "that had not been dreamed of in the philosophy of the time". All five discoveries are visible to the un-aided eye in some degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.182.155 (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Christian/Catholic Apologetics

"This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he believed that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments, but he did not have the necessary conclusive proof.[17]"

This is the same argument used by Christian creationists today--"You cannot prove the world is older than 6000 years old."

But then, it seems Wiki has been hijacked by the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic of this complaint. Do you wish to assert that Galileo did have conclusive proof of heliocentrism? I can provide you with any number of reliable sources—besides the one already cited in the article—which say that he did not, and I don't know of any which say that he did. You would therefore need to provide some very good citations to back up such an assertion before it could be taken seriously.

After puzzling for some time about how the quoted sentence could possibly be taken as constituting Catholic apologetics, the only thing I could come up with is that you have misread the word "necessary" as meaning "necessary to make Galileo's arguments worth publishing". However, the much more obvious meaning seems to me to be "necessary to satisfy Bellarmine's requirements"; and since it was I who wrote the quoted sentence I can assure you that that was indeed the intended meaning. Nevertheless, to remove all ambiguity I propose replacing the sentence with the following:

"This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he believed that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments, but he did not have the conclusive proof necessary to satisfy Bellarmine's requirements."

If you consider this amended version still amounts to Catholic apologetics, could you please provide more informative reasons why, instead of the obscure rhetorical comparison with modern creationists' arguments. (The argument subject to comparison is after all Bellarmine's, not the article's. So even if the argument were "the same" as that used by modern creationists, I don't see how the article's describing it accurately could be remotely considered as constituting apologetics. If anything, the comparison would seem to me to paint Bellarmine in an unfavourable light—except for those who consider modern creationists' arguments to have some merit.)

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I also deem the criticism meaningless: Galileo not having enough arguments for heliocentrism doesn't automatically and immediatelly imply that Wikipedia is kidnapped by "creationist" Catholics (and their evilly snickering Lutheran allies). Proofs is a matter of the public accepting an argument by the logic used at the time in question, we cannot use current scientific culture as a reference for what constitutes proofs for Galileo's public. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

89.253.73.146 might take note of the fact that heliocentrism is meaningless according to the theory of relativity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.156.117 (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

89.253.73.146, from Sweden, might study the theory of relativity, according to which heliocentrism and heliostaticism are both false or meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Lodge

Youngson's version sounds like that of Oliver Lodge from 1893. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.214.11 (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

An Italian in England in the 18th. century was the first to claim that Galileo was tortured, as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.214.11 (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

David Brewster in 1855 seems to have been the second to mention the alleged torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.214.11 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See Baretti, in 1757. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.6.59 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See Giuseppe Marc'Antonio Baretti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.16.149 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Synthish intro in "Bible argument"

The section the Bible argument boldly claims:

The Galileo Affair is commonly mistaken for a clash between Religion and Science in modern culture. While the Roman Catholic Church was involved in the affair, the clash was between Copernican science and Aristotelian science. Since the Aristotelian view had been the prevailing scientific understanding for over 1,000 years, the Catholic Church had accepted it as truth.

Is that really so? As far as I can deem from Condemnations of 1210–1277 the Aristotelian physics was at least partially obsolete already. A quite plausible alternative reason is that Catholicism was pressed by Protestantism and possibly the Turkish expansion into Europe, so that conservative cardinals with some scientific pretentions acted irrationally aggressive against a perceived "heresy". Although my alternative interpretation is quite widespread, using either mine or the current synthish interpretation (or both), must be properly sourced by historical commentors of academic height. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Thank you, David Wilson, for fixing some of my typos yesterday. Sorry I didn't finish. I hope it wasn't cause for concern.

There are still a few missing citations; I've added a {{fix sfn}} tag to these. I checked that all the rest of the links are working. (I got the link to the Pagano citation to work without the <cite> span. Does it work in your browser? Check. I also wonder if this should use {{cite book}} rather than {{cite web}}.)

Thanks again. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Thank you, David Wilson, for fixing some of my typos yesterday. Sorry I didn't finish. I hope it wasn't cause for concern."

No problem. And thank you for rationalising all those citations.

The Pagano link now works for me too. I guess I must have had a typo when I tried to use the ref parameter in the template. I'm pretty sure that neither the {{cite web}} nor the {{cite journal}} template would accept such a parameter when I started using them a couple of years ago but I'm glad it's now been implemented. I have no objection if you want to change the template used for the Pagano citation. I think my rationale for using {{cite web}} rather than {{cite book}} was that the copy I had consulted was the web download rather than a printed copy. But in this case, I'm not sure that the distinction really means all that much.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Phases of Venus

Phases arise by the partial illumination of an object by the sun. That's the same for a Copernican and a Ptolemaic system. But under the Copernican model, a full set of phases of Venus is to be expected (animation of the Copernican model), under the Ptolemaic model at best an incomplete set (animation of Ptolemy's system) . So, when Galileo observed the full set, this observation contradicted the Ptolemaic system, as it not only wasn't explained by Ptolemy's model, but it couldn't be explained...

So, I'll revert User:Schlafly's edit. DiEb (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if the Venusian phases could not be explained by the Ptolemaic system, that would not justify your edit. You edit says that "Ptolemy was contradicted by the phases of Venus". That is false. There is no such contradiction. If you still think that there is a contradiction, then please give a reference to the page that is contradicted. Roger (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite get it

When reading Modern Catholic Church views I'm confused, does Ratzinger actually derrogate Feyerabend for defending the Church actions against Galileo? Then, somehow, I think that the reaction from La Sapienza University hangs out in the blue. Is this some modernism/anti-modernism stuff, or is this kind of the usual confusions between religious guys, who usually cannot distinguish modernism from radical secularism, and the scientific guys, who generally don't understand other languages than their own? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe a radical secularist attack, where the attackers as usual for their kind misquoted/misrepresented the intent of Ratzinger? If it was, the mention of the protesters is quite off-topical, this article should be about the Galileo affair and it's immediate aftermath, not about random anti-religious people. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be added back into the first paragraph.

It is vitally important to note, however, that contrary to popular belief, Galileo was not charged because the Church thought his science was wrong; instead, he was charged for telling the Church how to deal with theology. This is a distinction that is seldom made, but is crucially important to understand.

While the "importance" of the note might be opinion, the rest of the statement is absolutely correct. Someone was being a useless cunt when they deleted the above sentence. I recommend the following:

Contrary to popular belief, despite the Church's disagreement with Galileo's scientific discoveries, his discoveries were not the reason he was placed on trial. Indeed, he was charged for publishing his religious interpretations of his scientific discoveries, something that would have strictly been reserved for the papacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.165.117 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 00:25, May 1, 2011

References

The rest of your statement is certainly not correct. The assertion that Galileo "was charged for publishing his religious interpretations of his scientific discoveries" is just as big a myth as the one that he was tortured. Despite having been thoroughly discredited long ago by professional Galileo scholars, it is still being peddled uncritically by facile apologists for the Catholic Church—of which your three references are excellent examples^{[Comment withdrawn—see below]}.The myth was concocted towards the end of the eighteenth century by a Swiss Protestant journalist, Mallet du Pan. Complete details of the sorry saga, along with fully documented references to the relevant primary sources, can be found in Maurice Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo (pp.159–64).

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: On more carefully re-reading the first and third references, I find that neither of them actually do make the erroneous assertion that Galileo "was charged for publishing his religious interpretations of his scientific discoveries", or provide any support for it. The apparent claim that they do appears to be based on a misunderstanding of their accounts of the events leading up to the condemnation of Copernicanism in 1616, sometimes misleadingly referred to as Galileo's "first trial". Although Galileo's views were investigated at that time, he was cleared of any wrongdoing and not charged with anything at all, let alone "for publishing his religious interpretations of his scientific discoveries".

Those references do claim that it was Galileo who "insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds" (to quote the first of them), but this is also a myth. Any decent biography of Galileo—such as Michael Sharratt's Galileo: Decisive Innovator, for instance—will tell you that Galileo was desperate to prevent scriptural and theological arguments from being used to settle the issue. Moreover, after the Church had condemned Copernicanism for allegedly being "contrary to scripture", Galileo then completely abstained from any further attempts to argue otherwise.

Concerning Galileo's real trial in 1633, on the other hand, both the first and third of these references acknowledge that the proximate reason why the Church prosecuted him was his publication of a defence of heliocentrism in his Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems.

I suspect that the above observations will also be true of the second of the above references, but the server which delivers it is currently down, and I haven't yet been able to re-listen to it.. The second of the three references does however peddle a version of Mallet du Pan's myth. At the 16 minute mark of the broadcast the presenter asserts that Galileo was summoned to Rome in 1633 "to face the charges that he had persisted in promoting his theories as if they were matters of faith and provable by sacred scripture". This is simply false, and you will be unable to find any reputable Galileo scholar who would give any credence to such a claim.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No spelling standard

The typical WP article has a fairly clear standard (US, UK, Oxford, Canadian) in place, plus a few anomalies to be adjusted.
Not so here. It is rather evenly matched between US, UK and Oxford.
Perhaps the editors here might consider which way to go.
Varlaam (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Heresy

This last edit [1] says that anything but geocentrism was a heresy, and that this was a consequence of Jesus descending to Earth as a man. I don't think that either of these is true. No source is given. Roger (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC) 214.15.221.37 seems to be mainly interested in military matters. His edit has been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.38.222 (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening confusing

The 3-paragraph opening needs work. The 2nd paragraph is all about Galileo's 1610 book, but as far as I know, that book did not claim evidence for heliocentrism and the Church never had any objection to it. The article gives the impression that the fight concerned that 1610 book. The 3rd paragraph implies that Tycho opposed heliocentrism and/or Starry Messenger because of Aristotle and the Bible. Tycho did oppose the motion of the Earth, but primarily for other reasons. Tycho's reasons are interesting, but I am not sure what they have to to with the Galileo affair. Roger (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)