Abstract
The chronology sketched and described in the last chapter now needs to be interpreted more systematically and evaluated more explicitly. As suggested earlier, our plan is to interpret the subsequent Galileo affair as a controversy about whether or not the Inquisition’s condemnation of Galileo in 1633 was right. And by analogy to the Copernican controversy of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Galileo-affair controversy will be analyzed in terms of the arguments and objections on both sides: arguments in favor of the Inquisition’s condemnation, which is to say against Galileo; and argument against the condemnation, which is to say in favor of Galileo. Now, the most fundamental of these issues raises the question that, regardless of whether Galileo was substantively or factually right in the beliefs he held, his supporting reasons or justifying arguments may not have been, and in any case must be assessed differently and separately. We begin in this chapter with this issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
This last question is not as far-fetched as it might seem, for it was asked and answered affirmatively by Olivieri (1840, 57-65), who was the Inquisition’s commissary during the Settele affair. See also the reconstruction of Ingoli’s argument in Section 4.3 and the summary of Olivieri’s position in Section 8.10.
- 3.
Or perhaps, as Campanella argued, the Galilean principle is actually suggested by Scripture; see Section 4.6.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Cf. Finocchiaro (2005b, 261) and Sections 10.5 and 12.7.
- 15.
It might not be unfair to attribute this myth to, among others, none less than Albert Einstein, who, in his otherwise enlightening Foreword to Drake’s translation of the Dialogue, says that “a man is here revealed who possesses the passionate will, the intelligence, and the courage to stand up as the representative of rational thinking against the host of those who, relying on the ignorance of the people and the indolence of teachers in priest’s and scholar’s garb, maintain and defend their positions of authority” (Einstein 1953, vii).
- 16.
This view has also been put forth by Santillana (1960, 326).
- 17.
A good example of the use of the principles of charity and of rationality is Agassi (1971).
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
Favaro 7: 368-372, Galilei (1967, 340-345).
- 22.
- 23.
For a discussion of this textual evidence, see Finocchiaro (1980, 3-26).
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
This objection is made, among others, by Gingerich (1982, 133).
- 36.
These anti-Galilean critiques can be gleaned from such accounts as Carroll (1997; 1999; 2001), Koestler (1959, 434-439), Langford (1971, 69-78), McMullin (1967c, 31-35; 1998; 2005c), Moss (1983; 1986; 1993, 181-211). Note that many of them were criticized indirectly or in the notes in my earlier account (Chapter 4).
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
References
Agassi J (1971) On explaining the trial of Galileo. Organon 8:137-166
Carroll WE (1997) Galileo, science, and the Bible. Acta Philosophica 6:5-37
Carroll WE (1999) Galileo and the interpretation of the Bible. Scie Educ 8:151-87
Carroll WE (2001) Galileo and Biblical exegesis. In Montesinos and Solís 2001, 677-692
D’Addio M (1985) Considerazioni sui processi a Galileo. Herder, Rome
Drake S (1957) Discoveries and opinions of Galileo. Doubleday, Garden City
Drake S (1978) Galileo at Work. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Drake S (1986b) Reexamining Galileo’s Dialogue. In Wallace 1986, 155-175
Dubarle D (1964) Le dossier Galilée. Signes du temps 14:21-26
Einstein A (1953) Foreword. In Galilei 1953, vi-xx
Feher M (1982) Galileo and the demonstrative ideal of science. Stud Hist Phil Sci 13:87-110
Feyerabend PK (1975) Against method. NLB, London
Feyerabend PK (1985) Galileo and the tyranny of truth. In Coyne, Heller, and Zycinski 1995:155-166
Feyerabend PK (1987) Farewell to reason. Verso, London
Feyerabend PK (1988) Against method. Revised edn. Verso, London
Feyerabend PK (1993) Against method. 3rd edn. Verso, London
Finocchiaro MA (1980) Galileo and the art of reasoning: rhetorical foundations of logic and scientific method. Reidel, Dordrecht
Finocchiaro MA (2005b) Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992. University of California Press, Berkeley
Finocchiaro MA (trans. and ed) (1989) The Galileo affair: a documentary history. University of California Press, Berkeley
Galilei G (1967) Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. Drake S (trans and ed) 2nd revised edn. University of California Press, Berkeley
Galilei G (1997) Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Finocchiaro MA (trans and ed). University of California Press, Berkeley
Galilei G (2008) The essential Galileo. Finocchiaro MA (ed and trans). Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA
Garzend L (1912). L’Inquisition et l’hérésie. Desclée de Brouwer, Paris
Giacchi O (1942) Considerazioni giuridiche sui due processi contro Galileo. In Nel terzo centenario della morte di Galileo Galilei, 383-406
Gingerich O (1982) The Galileo affair. Scientific American August, 132-143
Hujer K (1967) Galileo’s trial in the epistemology of Einsteinian physics. In Symposium internazionale di storia, metodologia, logica e filosofia della scienza, 289-295
Koestler A (1959) The sleepwalkers. Macmillan, New York
Koyré A (1966) Etudes galiléennes. Hermann, Paris
Langford JJ (1971) Galileo, science and the Church, Revisedth edn. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
McMullin E (1967c) Introduction. In McMullin 1967b:3-51
McMullin E (1978) The conception of science in Galileo’s work. In Butts and Pitt 1978:209-258
McMullin E (1980) Galileo’s slim chance to win a belated acquittal, Letter to the editor. New York Times, 10 November
McMullin E (1998) Galileo on science and scripture. In Machamer 1998a:271-347
McMullin E (2005c) Galileo’s theological venture. In McMullin 2005a:88-116
Moss JD (1983) Galileo’s letter to Christina. Renaissance Q 36:547-576
Moss JD (1986) The rhetoric of proof in Galileo’s writings on the Copernican system. In Wallace 1986:179-204
Moss JD (1993) Novelties in the Heavens. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Naylor R (2007) Galileo’s tidal theory. Isis 98:1-22
Olivieri MB (1840) Di Copernico e di Galileo: Scritto postumo. In Bonora 1872:1-133
Pagano SM (ed) (1984) I documenti del processo di Galileo Galilei. Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, Vatican City
Palmieri P (1998) Re-examining Galileo’s theory of tides. Arch Hist Exact Sci 53:223-375
Poincaré H (1904) La Terre tourne-t-elle? Bulletin de la Societé astronomique de France 18:216
Poincaré H (1952) Science and Hypothesis. Dover, New York
Santillana G de (1955) The Crime of Galileo. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Santillana G de (1960) Galileo e i moderni. Tempo presente 5:322-328
Shea WR (1972) Galileo’s intellectual revolution. Science History Publications, New York
Wallace WA (1981a). Does Galileo’s trial beg for reopening? Los Angeles Times 11 April, Part I-B, 4
Wallace WA (1983a). Galileo and Aristotle in the Dialogo. Angelicum 60:311-332
Wallace WA (1983b). Galileo’s science and the trial of 1633. The Wilson Q 7:154-164
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Finocchiaro, M.A. (2010). Galileo Right for the Wrong Reasons?. 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_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3200-3
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3201-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)