Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Galileo’s Stances Toward Copernican Astronomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Defending Copernicus and Galileo

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 280))

  • 1522 Accesses

Abstract

We have seen that the astronomical observational objections presented a serious obstacle to the acceptance of the key Copernican thesis of the earth’s motion. Galileo was impressed as much as anyone by the power of these anti-Copernican arguments. Nevertheless, he was able to find a way out of these difficulties. This was a long, arduous, and tortuous process. To understand and assess how Galileo defended Copernicus in this regard, we have to examine how his attitude toward Copernican astronomy and astronomical observation evolved in the course of his life, especially in his earlier career. To this we now turn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kuhn (1970; 1977), Feyerabend (1981), Lakatos (1978), Fleck (1979), Laudan (1977; 1984).

  2. 2.

    Donovan et al. (1988, 15). In stating the criteria that follow, I am paraphrasing this passage and another one in Laudan et al. (1986, 164-165).

  3. 3.

    Laudan 1977, 107-114, 119-120.

  4. 4.

    The references, all to Galilei 1890-1909 (= Favaro 1890-1909), are as follows. (A) 1: 251-419; (B) 2: 211-255; (C) 2: 197-202; (D) 10: 67-68; (E) 10: 79-80; (F) 3: 53-96; (G) 11: 11-12; (H) 3: 521-522; (I) 11: 344-345; (J) 5: 71-250; (K) 5: 281-288; (L) 2: 33-36; (M) 5: 291-295, 297-305; (N) 5: 351-570; (O) 5: 309-348; (P) 5: 377-395; (Q) 6: 197-372; (R) 6: 509-561; (S) 7: 21-519; (T) 19: 361-362; (U) 18: 293-295; (V) 18: 314-316.

  5. 5.

    See Favaro 1: 326, Galilei (1960, 97). Cf. Copernicus (1992, 125-126), On the Revolutions, Book 3, Chapter 4.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Bucciantini (2003, 29), Camerota (2004, 98), Fantoli (2003b, 59-60). On the other hand, other scholars display various kinds of skepticism or criticism toward this sentence, reaching conclusions that are analogous though not identical to mine; for example, Shea (1972, 113) suggests that the sentence “has no special significance,” and Biagioli (1993, 100) stresses that that the letter shows that in 1597 Galileo was merely “a Copernican sympathizer but not yet a committed defender of the Copernican hypothesis.”

  7. 7.

    This is the usual interpretation, as one can see from Bucciantini (2003, 50, 51, 66), Camerota (2004, 98, 107), and Fantoli (2003b, 60-61). Part of their rationale is the reading of the Latin word (venerim) Galileo uses to describe his encounter with Copernicanism to mean “I accepted” (Santillana 1955, 11) or “I have come … to accept” (Fantoli 2003b, 60); note that I have translated it merely as “I came to.” Important exceptions are Beltrán Marí (2006, 74-76), who rightly views the letter as mostly an exaggeration; Biagioli (1993, 100) who sees the need to problematize the notions of Copernicanism and of acceptance; and Torrini (1993, 30), who stresses the methodological character of Galileo’s motivation.

  8. 8.

    See, for example, Drake (1978, 40-44).

  9. 9.

    Here I am adopting this historical thesis from Bucciantini (2003, 49-68).

  10. 10.

    Favaro 1: 304-307; cf. 2: 279.

  11. 11.

    See, respectively, Favaro 5: 133-135, 7: 146-147; and Galilei (2008, 97-99, 209).

  12. 12.

    For example, Flora (1953, 4 n. 2), Drake (1957, 24 n. 2), Bucciantini (2003, 176). In other works, Drake (1983, 14, 223 n. 5) attributes to Galileo a weaker Copernican commitment.

  13. 13.

    Galilei (2008, 46); cf. Favaro 3: 56.

  14. 14.

    Flora (1953, 5), Drake (1957, 24), Drake (1983, 14), Van Helden (1989, 31).

  15. 15.

    Favaro 3: 75, Galilei (1989, 57; 2008, 63)

  16. 16.

    Galilei (2008, 60); cf. Favaro 3: 72, Galilei (1989, 53).

  17. 17.

    Favaro 3: 95, Galilei (1989, 84), (2008, 83-84).

  18. 18.

    Favaro 3: 46. Cf. Favaro 3: 95, Galilei (1989, 84; 2008, 83). I thank David Wootton for bringing this evidence to my attention, although, if I understand him correctly, he wants to interpret it as somehow strengthening Galileo’s commitment to Copernicanism.

  19. 19.

    For more discussions of simplicity, see Favaro 7: 139-150, 349-368, 416-425; cf. Finocchiaro (1980, 113-114, 128-129, 133-134, 145-150; 1985).

  20. 20.

    Favaro 5: 236; Reeves and Van Helden forthcoming.

  21. 21.

    Translated in Drake (1978, 198). Cf. Favaro 5: 238, Drake (1957, 144), Reeves and Van Helden forthcoming.

  22. 22.

    For some light on the matter, see Drake (1978, 198, 278).

  23. 23.

    Favaro 7: 76-80, Galilei (1967, 51-55; 1997, 98-103).

  24. 24.

    Favaro 7: 372-383, Galilei (1967, 345-356).

  25. 25.

    Drake (1983, xix, 133-135).

  26. 26.

    Translated in Drake (1978, 208). Cf. Favaro 5: 248, Reeves and Van Helden forthcoming.

  27. 27.

    Favaro 5: 133-135, Reeves and Van Helden forthcoming.

  28. 28.

    Favaro 5: 192-199, Reeves and Van Helden forthcoming.

  29. 29.

    Favaro 5: 195; cf. Reeves and Van Helden forthcoming.

  30. 30.

    Favaro 7: 424-426, Galilei (1967, 398-399).

  31. 31.

    Favaro 7: 404-416, Galilei (1967, 377-389; 1997, 264-281).

  32. 32.

    The argument here would be essentially the one given by Lakatos (1978, 168-192), whose thesis may be accepted when limited to this specific issue and qualified in this manner. See also Sections 2.1 and 6.2 of this book.

  33. 33.

    Favaro 7: 139-150, Galilei (1967, 114-124; 1997, 128-142; 2008, 201-213).

  34. 34.

    Cf. Finocchiaro (1980, 6-24); and Chapter 9.

  35. 35.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 122); cf. Favaro 5: 381.

  36. 36.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 133); cf. Favaro 5: 395.

  37. 37.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 88), or Galilei (2008, 111); cf. Favaro 5: 310-11.

  38. 38.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 88), or Galilei (2008, 110); cf. Favaro 5: 310.

  39. 39.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 89), or Galilei (2008, 111); cf. Favaro 5: 311.

  40. 40.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 89), or Galilei (2008, 112); cf. Favaro 5: 312.

  41. 41.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 90), or Galilei (2008, 113); cf. Favaro 5: 312.

  42. 42.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 91), or Galilei (2008, 114); cf. Favaro 5: 313.

  43. 43.

    These developments are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

  44. 44.

    This conclusion also corresponds to an interpretation of Galileo elaborated and defended by Drake (1978); cf. also Chapter 6. For an alternative view, see Camerota (2004, 98, 253, 259, 283).

  45. 45.

    This conclusion is, of course, a part of the overarching thesis elaborated in this book; cf. last section of the Introduction.

References

  • Beltrán Marí A (2006). Talento y poder: historia de las relaciones entre Galileo y la Iglesia católica. Laetoli, Pamplona

    Google Scholar 

  • Biagioli M (1993) Galileo Courtier. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciantini M (2003) Galileo e Keplero. Einaudi, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerota M (2004) Galileo Galilei e la cultura scientifica nell’età della Controriforma. Salerno, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Copernicus N (1992) On the revolutions. Rosen E (Trans. and ed). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan A, Laudan L, Laudan R (eds) (1988) Scrutinizing Science. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake S (1957) Discoveries and opinions of Galileo. Doubleday, Garden City

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake S (1978) Galileo at Work. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake S (1983) Telescopes, tides & tactics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Favaro A (ed) (1890-1909) Le opere di Galileo Galilei. 20 vols. Barbèra, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1981) Rationalism, realism and scientific method. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1980) Galileo and the art of reasoning: rhetorical foundations of logic and scientific method. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1985) Wisan on Galileo and the art of reasoning. Ann Sci 42:613-616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (trans. and ed) (1989) The Galileo affair: a documentary history. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck L (1979) Genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Flora F (ed) (1953) Galileo Galilei: Opere. Ricciardi, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (1890-1909) Le opere di Galileo G. 20 vols. Favaro A (ed) Rpt. 1929-1939:1968

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (1960) On motion and on mechanics. Drabkin IE, Drake S (trans and ed). University of Wisconsin Press, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (1967) Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. Drake S (trans and ed) 2nd revised edn. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (1989) Sidereus Nuncius or the Sidereal Messenger. van Helden A (trans and ed). University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (1997) Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Finocchiaro MA (trans and ed). University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (2008) The essential Galileo. Finocchiaro MA (ed and trans). Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingerich O (1982) The Galileo affair. Scientific American August, 132-143

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1977). The essential tension. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos I (1978) The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan L (1977) Progress and its problems. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan L (1984) Science and values. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan L et al (1986) Scientific change. Synthese 69:141-223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves E, van Helden A. Forthcoming. Galileo and Scheiner on Sunspots. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Santillana G de (1955) The Crime of Galileo. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea WR (1972) Galileo’s intellectual revolution. Science History Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrini M (1993) Galileo copernicano. Giornale Critico Della Filosofia Italiana 72(74):26-42

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Helden A (trans. and ed) (1989) Sidereus nuncius, or The Sidereal Messenger. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace WA (1984b) Galileo’s early arguments for Geocentrism and His later rejection of them. In Galluzzi 1984:31-40

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Maurice A. Finocchiaro

Authors
  1. Maurice A. Finocchiaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurice A. Finocchiaro .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Finocchiaro, M.A. (2010). Galileo’s Stances Toward Copernican Astronomy. In: Defending Copernicus and Galileo. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 280. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation