From Thony Christie at Aeon:
Galileo’s vast reputation, and the hyperbolic accolades that go with it, are not justified by the real history. With a corrected perspective on the man comes a rich and compelling pair of questions: what did Galileo actually achieve, and where does the science superhero image come from?
Ah! At last! A question we can answer. The Galileo of pop science is the science teacher people wish they had, instead of the fourth-rate union dweeb they did have, and were ordered to be grateful to the public school system for.
Having parlayed his discoveries into a new position as court philosopher and mathematician to the Medici in Florence, Galileo’s fame rested largely on those telescopic discoveries and his demolition of scientific opponents in public debates and in his writing. Although his defence of Copernicanism – presented in his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) – brought him that notorious Inquisition trial and house arrest, it did not, as popular opinion has it, win the day for heliocentricity. That honour goes to the much duller tomes of Johannes Kepler, whose work Galileo had ignored in his own volume.
But the fact that Kepler did the real work doesn’t matter because Kepler wasn’t Cool. Bimbette, Airhead-TV hostess, wouldn’t have understood him.
Galileo’s rise to immortality starts at the end of the 18th century. In this period, scientific biography started to become popular, and Galileo became a favourite subject, largely because of his persecution by the Catholic Church. This effect was immensely magnified by the largely mythical war between science and religion in the late 19th century, waged by two US-based scientist-historians, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. More.
Sure, but why does that matter? We live in the midst of a serious war on falsifiability in science, even on the importance of evidence in science.
Some people feel they can just make “narratives” up, so why not make one up about Galileo?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Thats interesting.
I see him celebrated a great deal in science historys on youtube.
Yet I wondered what did he really do?
I think they give him points for being the first to study physics, and get a few things right, and to do with properly oir rather just by thinking and experiment. No philosophy, seemingly, interfering.
Its probable that right away his opposition from the Catholic church was useful to say the bible is wrong or christian presumptions are.
These days thats mostly what he is useful for.
physics is seen as more prestigious/more intellectually demanding then other things and so his being first does raise his status.
Lindberg first sea flight made him famous and the THE WHO first smashing thier instruments made they define it.
Everyone first gets a lot of credit even if beaten by later people.
Gal does deserve credit but its suspicious he is used to portray Christianity as fighting conclusions proven from science.
So as to stop any criticism of conclusions of science that opose christian doctrines.
A conspiracy of intent i think.
I notice they never say the cAtholic church but instead THE CHURCH.
HMMMM.
Luther got mouthy too about Gal but still it only shows its men that get things wrong. not the bible.
Nonsense! A simple ngram analysis shows that in 1896 when Andrew Dickson White published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom , Galileo’s popularity was in the local minima. He was more popular before that. In fact his popularity peaked during 1873 to 1875 (when considering years before 1900). By the end of 19th century, his popularity had dropped by 32.59%
Me-THink at 2, perhaps you should take that one up at Aeon. We can discuss it here, but can’t guarantee you experts.
The Copernican principle, via the heliocentric model, states that the earth has no privileged position nor special significance within the universe. As a result, the generalized form of the Copernican principle states that human beings have no privileged position nor special significance within the universe.
Modern science has overturned both of those presuppositions.
Although, the heliocentric model is favored for simplicity’s, there is, as far as general relativity is concerned, no observational evidence that can be presented that would give the sun, or any other place in the universe, more centrality in the universe than the earth has. In fact, in general relativity, due to 4-Dimensional space-time, every 3-Dimensional spot in the universe is considered just as central in the universe as every other 3-Dimensional spot in the universe can be considered central.
Fred Hoyle, discoverer of stellar nucleosynthesis, weighs in here:
Stephen Hawking weighs in here:
And although the heliocentric model is preferred for simplicity, it should be noted that the Ptolemaic system, none-the-less, has a certain symmetrical beauty to it that would not be expected from the materialistic framework.
George Ellis, who, along with Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, helped extend General Relativity to show that not only energy and matter had a definite beginning in the Big Bang but that space and time also had a definite beginning in the Big Bang, weighs in here:
And again, as far as General relativity itself is concerned, there is simply no observational evidence that can be presented that would establish any 3-Dimensional spot in the universe as more central than the earth. Max Born wrote:
Albert Einstein wrote:
Of related note:
In fact, in general relativity, establishing centrality in the universe is left totally up the person making the model for the universe:
In fact, in both general relativity and special relativity, a hypothetical observer is given a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements.
You can see animations of both of Einstein’s thought experiments in the first part of the following video:
Moreover, although there is no observation within general relativity that would give any 3-Dimensional position in the universe more centrality than any other position, none-the-less, there are anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation that, surprisingly, line up with the earth and solar system.
Of note: The preceding articles were written before the Planck data (with WMPA & COBE data), but the anomalies were actually verified by the Planck satellite.
also of note:
And at the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
Moreover, when scrutinizing the details of both chemistry and physics, it is found that not only is the universe fine-tuned for life, but is fine-tuned specifically for intelligent life like human life.
Moreover, in quantum mechanics the observer, far from being a ‘hypothetical observer’ as it is in relativity, is found to be necessary, even central, for and to ‘measurement’:
In fact, due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
Moreover, the resurrection of Christ from the dead provides the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’:
Verse and Music:
supplemental notes
MT,
Note Google’s warning on n-gram analysis:
KF
KF,
I am aware of ngram limitation. The pertinent data is between yr 1800 to yr 1900, so I have no problem in analysing the data.
Galileo reinvented physics and astronomy, while his work brought about a revolution in science.
Centuries later, people are still debating his legacy.
MT, please cf here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....leo-et-al/
Observe, the annotations. Your local minimum is part of a range of variation, the pickup to that range was over 1/2 century before the period you focussed on.
And that is within the band Google thinks the data to be most relevant.
But the notes and others still obtain.
KF
Z, while Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo all had their impact, it is Newton who marked the decisive breakthrough. KF
KF @ 11
I don’t know what you are referring to. Are you saying there is no local minima in 1896? or that Galileo’s popularity peaked during 1873 to 1875 (when considering years before 1900)or that by the end of 19th century, his popularity had dropped by 32.59% ?
Please see clear Graph with just Galileo:
http://imgur.com/ETYJxa0
MT, Did you look at the graph as taken from Google then marked up to address the evident trends? Did you observe that in the range of variation since 1820 or so — observe the box, the lowest point is actually somewhat after 1896? That where there is a clear trend it is a huge spike in the 1600’s, then fading off and then a pickup to more or less the current range since the late 1820’s, as a percentage. Also, Newton in the long haul is the figure who dominates, even above Einstein. KF
PS: I decided to put things into perspective, by adding Jesus and Mohammed.
KF @ 14
Please read the OP (or more specifically Thony Christie’s claim in Aeon article). The Claim is
and that
By ngram analysis of the relevant period, I show that the claim is not right. I could have added the 1600s (although periods before 1800s is not reliable) or I could add as many scientists as I wish, but that is besides the point – it is irrelevant to the OP.
F/N: To give further context, I added God and the Bible in a wider view across the full band, 1500 – 2008: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....leo-et-al/ . Google notes 1800 – 2000 is a favoured band, but the broader trend is strong enough to show credible patterns. English language publications show our discussion to be theistic in a Christian, somewhat biblical context. There is a pattern of two drop-offs after the Great Awakening in the 1700’s then at about the time Darwin et al were active, but since the 1940’s this has bottomed out. Scientific leaders are by comparison special interest though obviously influential. KF
MT, no you have not proved what you think. Remember, the rate of diffusion of information has sharply increased across time. Analysis by scholars looking at detailed networks of influence cannot be overturned by so blunt an instrument as this: relative frequencies of text strings in the corpus of digitised books etc — which will reflect our own biases and interests. For instance, I doubt that ephemera such as personal letters or notes, tracts, broadsides and past newspapers etc would be sufficiently reflected as one goes back further. Likewise, what people talked about is lost to us save when it got caught up in written things that happened to be scanned. For further instance, factor in a generational lag in thinking (new thought advancing one funeral at a time) and delays of 40 – 60 years 100 – 300 years ago would be expected. The key pattern concerning the digitised corpus on Galileo remains the rise from an earlier trough post 1600s in the 1820s and 30’s then a wobbly aperiodic up and down trend since within a band. As was shown. KF
F/N: Let me clip Christie’s intro ( this being an historian of science):
Just in Physics, Archimedes stands out as a mathematically oriented physicist from what 1500+ years before Galileo. And numerical patterns of law-like nature go back far before that.
Second, investigations readily show that there is no one size fits all and only sciences, “the” scientific method. So trying to credit Galileo with its origin is to build a myth on a myth.
Christie goes on:
I disagree that the HISTORY of astronomy etc would not have been different sans Galileo, after all such is about particulars. But the trend to heliocentrism and the knowledge base of observational facts was much broader than one heroic figure. Kepler’s work on his laws of planetary motion published from 1609 on and communicated to Galileo, was technically decisive. Though, Galileo did not make adequate use of same.
He definitely did not invent the telescope, though he was a prominent user band a lightning rod for debate over results.
He also ill=advisedly alienated a friend and supporter, the cardinal who became pope Urban VIII IIRC. In a world where the pope had a multiple front geopolitical contest going on, that was extremely ill advised.
Christie’s onward argument is worth pondering, e.g.:
While the summary language is popular, there is significant merit in these points. Just, they do not sit well with dominant narratives in our day.
For just one point, the debate Columbus faced was over his size estimate, not the roundness of the earth. His critics were right, too. But, he had the trade wind system in hand and signs of something within reasonable sailing distance. Just, no one understood that a whole new world was out there.
From the depth of popular misunderstanding on this, we may calibrate our need for healthy revision that has not been addressed for far too long.
On many subjects.
KF
KF @ 17
Rate of information diffusion does differ with time, which of course would mean that Thony Christie’s assersion that Galileo’s rise was because of “the largely mythical war between science and religion in the late 19th century, waged by two US-based scientist-historians, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White.” is even more wrong because it shows that the maxima started at 1873 has turned into a minima in 1897. I sure would like to know the methodology that Thony Christie used !
P.S: In the absence of ancient polls on Galileo’s popularity, we necessarily have to use crude methods to know the popularity trend. We have no other choice.