Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Defending Copernicus and Galileo pp 277–290Cite as

Galileo as a Bad Epistemologist?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1417 Accesses

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

Abstract

One of the most famous, emblematic, and influential critiques of Galileo is that of Pierre Duhem. Historically, it is one of the best documented accounts, and philosophically one of the most sophisticated analyses. We have already had the occasion to mention, preview, or briefly summarize it on several occasions. Now, it is time to examine it fully and systematically.

What makes Duhem’s critique especially distinctive and relevant is the fact that it stresses Galileo’s alleged epistemological errors, and it does so in the context of Galileo’s defense of Copernicus and condemnation by the Inquisition. In fact, the analysis of Galileo’s scientific work from an epistemological point of view has a much older history than Duhem’s account and a much more general significance than the issues inherent in the trial.1 However, such a general topic is beyond the scope of this book. Here the focus is on Galileo’s defense of Copernicus and the context of the trial, in order to understand the original content and structure of that defense, its contemporary and subsequent reception, and its critical and evaluative validity. Thus, here Duhem’s account provides just the right focus.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, the references to Galileo’s method in Hume’s History of England, 1754-1762, vol. iv, chapter xlix, appendix (cf. Hume 1851-1860, 4: 521-527) and in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, preface to the second edition, 1787, pp. Bxii-Bxvi (cf. Kant 1965, 20-22). See also Koyré (1943), Popper (1963, 97-119), Feyerabend (1975, 69-108; 1988, 55-151), Finocchiaro (1980, 103-166; 1997a, 1-7, 335-356).

  2. 2.

    Agassi (1957), Popper (1963, 104).

  3. 3.

    Maiocchi (1985; 1990). Cf. Darling (2003), Jaki (1969, xxv), McMullin (1990a).

  4. 4.

    Morpurgo-Tagliabue (1947-1948; 1981, 41-52), Popper (1963, 99 n. 6), Lloyd (1978), Goddu (1990).

  5. 5.

    Westfall (1989, 16-17); see also Stoffel (2001).

  6. 6.

    E.g., Langford (1971), Brandmüller (1982; 1987; 1992), Brandmüller and Greipl (1992, 15-130), Rowland (2003).

  7. 7.

    E.g., Feher (1982), McMullin (1978; 1990b), Wallace (1981b; 1984a).

  8. 8.

    Duhem (1908, 136), my translation; cf. Duhem (1969, 113). Subsequent references to Duhem (1908) will be given in parenthesis in the text, without citing Duhem’s name or the year of publication; the translation will be my own, unless otherwise noted; but for the convenience of the reader, references will also be given to the English translation of this book, Duhem (1969), by writing the latter’s page number after a slash.

  9. 9.

    Some of this counterevidence can be found in Finocchiaro (1980), and in Chapters 3 and 9 above.

  10. 10.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 147), or Galilei (2008, 176). Cf. Favaro 19: 322, Pagano (1984, 101).

  11. 11.

    For an elaboration of the a-metaphysical interpretation of Galileo sketched here, see Finocchiaro (1980, 103-166; 1997a, 335-356), Hatfield (1990, 117-143).

  12. 12.

    Favaro (7: 83-87, 385-99), Galilei (1967, 58-62, 358-372), Galilei (1997, 247-264).

  13. 13.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 96), or Galilei (2008, 119); cf. Favaro 5: 319.

  14. 14.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 291), or Galilei (2008, 292); cf. Favaro 19: 405.

  15. 15.

    Galilei (2008, 165-166); cf. Finocchiaro (1989, 85) and Favaro 5: 368-369.

  16. 16.

    E.g., Morpurgo-Tagliabue (1947-1948; 1981; 1985).

  17. 17.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 70), or Galilei (2008, 148); cf. Favaro 5: 351.

  18. 18.

    Finocchiaro (1989, 70), or Galilei (2008, 148); cf. Favaro 5: 351.

References

  • Agassi J (1957) Duhem versus Galileo. Br J Philos Sci 8:237-248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandmüller W (1982) Galilei und die Kirche, oder das Recht auf Irrtum. F. Pustet, Regensburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandmüller W (1987) Galileo y la Iglesia. RIALP, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandmüller W (1992). Galilei e la Chiesa, ossia il diritto di errare. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandmüller W, Greipl EJ (eds) (1992) Copernico e la Chiesa: Fine della Controversia (1820). Gli Atti del Sant’Uffizio. Olschki, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner AA (1990) Duhem. Vrin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Burtt EA (1932) The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling KM (2003) Motivational realism: the natural classification for Pierre Duhem. Philos Sci 70:1125-1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhem P (1908) SOZEIN TA PHAINOMENA: Essai sur la notion de theorie physique de Platon à Galilée. Hermann, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhem P (1954) The aim and structure of physical theory. Wiener P (Trans) Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhem P (1969) To save the phenomena. Doland E, Maschler C (Trans) University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Feher M (1982) Galileo and the demonstrative ideal of science. Stud Hist Phil Sci 13:87-110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1975) Against method. NLB, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1988) Against method. Revised edn. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 (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 

  • Goddu A (1990) The realism that Duhem rejected in Copernicus. Synthese 83:301-316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield G (1990) Metaphysics and the new science. In Lindberg and Westman 1990:93-166

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume D (1851-1860) The history of England from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the abdication of James the Second, 1688. 6 vols. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaki SL (1969) Introduction. In Duhem 1969, ix-xxvi

    Google Scholar 

  • Jardine N (1984) The birth of history and philosophy of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (1965) Critique of pure reason. Kemp Smith N (trans). St. Martin’s Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Koyré A (1943) Galileo and Plato. J Hist Ideas 5:400-428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford JJ (1971) Galileo, science and the Church, Revisedth edn. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd GER (1978) Saving appearances. Classical Q 28:202-222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maiocchi R (1985) Chimica e filosofia. La Nuova Italia, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiocchi R (1990) Pierre Duhem’s the aim and structure of physical theory. Synthese 83:385-400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin RND (1987) Saving Duhem and Galileo. Hist Sci 25:301-319

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (1978) The conception of science in Galileo’s work. In Butts and Pitt 1978:209-258

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (1990a) Comment: Duhem’s middle way. Synthese 83:421-430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (1990b) Conceptions of science in the scientific revolution. In Lindberg and Westman 1990:27-92

    Google Scholar 

  • Morpurgo-Tagliabue G (1947-1948) I processi di Galileo e l’epistemologia. Rivista di storia della filosofia, vol. 2, nos 2-3; vol. 3, no. 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Morpurgo-Tagliabue G (1981). I processi di Galileo e l’epistemologia. Armando, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Morpurgo-Tagliabue G (1985) Sussiste ancora una questione galileiana? La nuova civiltà delle macchine 3(1-2):91-99

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagano SM (ed) (1984) I documenti del processo di Galileo Galilei. Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, Vatican City

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1963) Conjectures and refutations. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland W (2003) Galileo’s mistake, Revisedth edn. Arcade, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffel J-F (2001) Pierre Duhem interprète de l’ ‘Affaire Galilée’. In Montesinos and Solís 2001:765-782

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace WA (1981b) Prelude to Galileo. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace WA (1984a) Galileo and His sources. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Westfall RS (1989) Essays on the trial of Galileo. Vatican Observatory Publications, Vatican City

    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 as a Bad Epistemologist?. 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_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation