So I've been reading up on the Jesuits, and one of the things that caught my eye was how Galileo accused the Jesuits of being in the way of progress and science, yet the Jesuits have been a great benefactors to science and mathematics. This led me to the Galileo affair, in which reading through it, gave me the following question.
Technically speaking, wasn't the Catholic Church actually in the right scientifically speaking, where they didn't want to adopt Galileo's proposal of the Copernican model, where he had inadequate proof and faulty evidence? From what I've read, it seems that they were perfectly okay with it as a theory, but they had issue with him pushing it as fact without the proper evidence and data to back up his claim. It seems more of Galileo's own hubris that caused this to be such a big issue rather than the church just being assholes.
Galileo was the first person to practise the scientific method, never accepting any theory until it was confirmed by experiment. In the 16th century Copernicus hypothesised that instead of being at the centre of the universe, the Earth went round the sun. But Copernicus didn't offer any evidence; that came in the 1600s when Galileo made a telescope - not the first, but the best thus far - and turned it on the sky. He discovered sensational things: that the moon has a rough surface like the Earth's, disproving the medieval belief that celestial bodies are "perfect"; that Jupiter has moons, suggesting that the Earth with its moon is merely an ordinary planet.
The Italian Renaissance was killed by the counter-reformation. It is a disturbing historical example of what can happen when religion gets its own way.
>>1011329
From what I'm looking at though, Galileo didn't have the proper empirical evidence and made faulty excuses in his proposal, such as bullshit about the tides, to push his point. The church was on the right side when rejecting the Copernican interpretation as absolute fact, given the information at the time.
Guy skipped a lot of the scientific method due to his arrogance.
>>1011414
While Galileo was a huge dick who basically got into a dick waving contest with the most powerful organization in Europe, the papacy was guilty of forcing Galileo to denounce Copernicanism as heresy.
It's a striking incident when the Catholic Church had previously been more open about such things in the past, during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, despite that being when Aristotelian became accepted Dogma.
The Catholics felt forced into becoming more antiscience because of Protestant criticisms.
It was a bad time for progress.
>>1011414
"winning" an argument by threatening an old man with torture is despicable - as was taking 350 years to apologize for it.
>>1011329
"no"
>>1011436
Fuck off reddit
>m-muh torture
>>1011436
The fact was that if you look at it scientifically, Galileo was wrong. He didn't have the proper proof, data or evidence to actually prove it correct. He should've left it as a hypothesis and theory, where others would definitely have tried to prove it. As a scientist, the guy fucked up due to being an arrogant ass who alienated all his friends, especially those that would've supported him.
>>1011443
>He didn't have the proper proof, data or evidence to actually prove it correct.
In the autumn of 1610, Galileo became the first person ever to witness and chart the phases of Venus. As he expected, his observations perfectly fitted the predictions of the Sun-centred model.
>>1011443
Yeah you told this for the third time now. Now explain further how he didn't have enough proofs and stop ignoring the fact the ideology at the time was not ideal fort this kind of debate
>>1011436
>as was taking 350 years to apologize for it
If you talk to apologetic they still haven't really accepted responsibility.
>>1011452
Let's list it then.
1. He didn't have the proof or understanding on how and if the earth truly moved.
2. His use of using tides to prove the earth moved was false and that had already been disproved due to empirical evidence.
3. His own observations of the stars didn't account for diffraction, causing him to miscalculate the position of the stars due to having them appear closer than they appeared. Thus his own model didn't account for this calculated distance, an error in explanation and in calculation.
4. He couldn't explain gravity to disprove the geocentric theory.
5. Stellar Parallax, or why the stars stay in the same place despite the earth moving. He couldn't explain that either.
He didn't have the necessary proof to discredit the geocentric theory nor did he have the absolute proof to prove that the heliocentric idea was absolutely right. He was trying to push an idea as absolute fact with faulty evidence and lack of explanation.
>>1011546
Science is a self admitted work in progress and it is under constant refinement
Galileo however remains correct within the limitations of his technology and hind casting criticism over accuracy and a supposition of his internal reasoning at him seems rather fruitless. It would be just as well to decry Darwin for the lack of the earth's age as was understood at the time or to call out Newton for being unable to measure the effects of relativity on planetary orbits or record gravitational pull.
>My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth
>>1011546
Did geocentricism even offer falsifiable predictions that could be proven wrong in order to definitely disprove it?
>>1011556
>Galileo however remains correct within the limitations of his technology and hind casting criticism over accuracy and a supposition of his internal reasoning at him seems rather fruitless.
The scientific method doesn't work on "aww, shit, new guy's theory is still wrong, but it's less of a headache. Pile it on"
>>1012509
They knew it had some holes.
>>1011432
It didn't help matters when he wrote a book that promoted heliocentrism WHILE defaming the pope of the time (and also a good friend of his).
It is also striking that when Galileo wised up, his later writings were accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
>>1012292
Why would they need to actually look at the evidence when they can just bring the man to a kangaroo court?
>>1011310
What >>1011432 says.
He was allowed to teach heliocentric model as a theory but instead taught it as the only true model. Besides the stuff >>1011329 mentioned he proved that Venus orbited the sun but that does not immediately proof and absolute heliocentric model, it really only proves that the absolute geocentric model is incorrect.
With the knowledge at that time the model of Tycho Brahe was more or less accepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system
Wasn't really until Kepler came up with elliptical orbits that the heliocentric model started getting accepted by the wide scientific community. IIRC the stellar parallax was only measurable since the 19th century.
>>1012509
An observable Stellar Paralax would disprove it more or less. The thing is that the Ptolemaic system more or less worked and while the system of Copernicus was simpler it was not correct because it assumed perfectly circular orbits.
>>1012566
>Inquisition
>kangaroo court
The inquisition was one of the fairer and more legally professional courts available at the time. Especially compared to secular courts.
Protestants are the literal cancer of /his/ eating the plate of shit that is the centuries old propaganda of the Black Legends.
>>1012614
>inquisition
>fair
>professional
>>1011310
>Galileo's proposal of the Copernican model, where he had inadequate proof and faulty evidence?
Based on the evidence.......there are no gods.
Why does the bible not provide a clear and correct statement about the orbits of the planets ?
Galileo was an experimental scientist - what he did was demonstrate conclusively for the first time that the best way to examine the Universe is not philosophicall or religiously, but empirically. By observing gravity he showed that the (then universal) belief that larger object fall faster than smaller ones was wrong. With his telescope observations of the Jupiter system he proved that neither the Sun nor the Earth are the focal point for all heavenly bodies.
Galileo was a direct threat to the power of the Catholic church because it removed intellectual authority from the Pope and transferred it to normal people.
>>1011450
>Sun-centred model
TPTB are faggots, literally, but...
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer.
>>1013006
People who reject it are mostly plebs desu.
>>1011329
Neil Degrasse Tyson, please go home
>>1013359
Neil deGrasse Tyson walks into a bar. Everyone leaves. "EVERYONE?" he chuckles to himself smugly. "7.4 billion humans couldn't possibly fit in this space."
>>1012898
Or he had evidence our then-current cosmology was wrong and the clergy wanted to as accurate and careful as possible amending it for the good of the populace but Galileo just went "you faggots are going too slow." and did his own thing all while mocking them.
>>1013515
The clergy was right by leaving it as a theory, one that could possibly become more and more viable as more information flowed in, however Galileo just wanted to wag his dick around and dipped into politics and the theological. Hell the clergy were extremely accepting of the whole damn thing, wanting to put more research into it, until Galileo kept biting their hands.
>>1012670
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18EderfKDOM
Not the thread I expected. In science, if you can back up your argument, you are supposed to defend it and not defer to authority. Galileo did nothing wrong, and ultimately the evidence supported his perspective on the world. Calling him a dick proves what exactly? That the pious are vindictive.
>>1015310
He couldn't back it up and held it up as absolute truth is the main issue here. Science is based on valid until disproven, not absolutes. He was right, however he didn't prove his own theory properly nor did he disprove the other theories of the time. His own process wasn't scientifically sound even if the end goal was right was the major issue.
>>1015406
http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub5.htm
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/geas/lectures/lecture11/slide02.html
He had evidence. Have you taken an astronomy course?
>>1015268
I man I love Michael Vorus. The video where he rants about how Voltaire ruined everything is awesome.
He's a Catholic apologetic that literally thinks the only government God allows is one where the Catholic church is the highest authority. In other words he wants a Caliphate.
>>1015441
The issue is that the other models at the time he couldn't disprove, nor could he explain the issues that occurred with the heliocentric theory such as the winds and the tides. In addition, he had brought proof that heliocentric idea was a viable theory, however he hadn't brought the necessary evidence and data to disprove all the other models.
Also from your own source.
"One observation definitely disproved the Ptolemaic model, although it didn't prove that Copernicus was right (as Tycho Brahe pointed out). This was the observation that Venus has phases, much like our Moon does."
So he had evidence, but he didn't have the overwhelming evidence and explanation to prove his theory as absolute. He could back it up as a viable theory, but not as absolute truth.
>>1015576
Absolute truth is not possible, what is needed is reasonable proof. What Galio had was pretty solid and was better supported than the counter model. In the end he was also right which all the more justifies him and shames the church. The simple fact is that he taught the truth and the church was wrong. The church's reasoning for sticking to untruth were based on theology rather than science.
>>1011556
>Science is a self admitted work in progress and it is under constant refinement
Yup. Science is always wrong.
>>1012614
The murder of 68,000,000 innocent Christians and Jews does that over time.
>>1015916
>Absolute truth is not possible
Wrong.
>>1015948
Descartes.
Problem of Induction.
Unknown unknowns.
These are the reasons absolute truth cannot exist.
Science has never claimed to have absolute truth. If we did believe something was absolutely true in science, than it would not be something that updates when we learn something new. For instance just as Newtonian physics were replaced by Einstein physics we could have Einstein physics replaced by something better.
>>1015986
>These are the reasons absolute truth cannot exist.
God. The reason absolute truth exists.
>>1012898
>the bible doesn't teach astronomy
>CHECKMAID
>>1015916
>What Galio had was pretty solid
No it wasn't
>>1016093
But anon, God doesn't exist. How could there be absolute truth then?
>>1016150
Yes he does
>>1016150
Your lies have no impact on the truth.
>>1016164
>>If I do mental gymnastics enough, I can will him out of existence
>>1016093
Even if God did exist he can't break through the problem of unknown unknowns. It is possible to both not know something and not know you don't know it.
Descartes evil demon could be controlling God and tricking his judgement into thinking such a thing is not possible because he "knows all".
There is a neat Buddhist story, where the Buddha meets a God who claims to know all things. The Buddha claims he can hide in a place God cannot find him to disprove him. The Buddah goes hiding and the God eventually gives up and says he doesn't know where the Buddha went. The Buddha explains there is a higher spiritual dimension he was unaware of. The God merely assumed all the dimensions he personally knew were all that existed, he couldn't have anticipated there would be others.
>>1016174
But he doesn't exist in the first place, so how could I do that, anon? It makes more sense that he's a made up entity used to explain the creation of the universe in a time where methods were incapable of going so than to blindly believe because you were told of the notion of God as a child.
>>1016187
>God is outside of the realm of being scientifically proven or disproved.
No he's an abstract concept that you put "outside of the realm of being scientifically proven or disproved" in order to disguise the fact that you are actually unsure of his existence or not.
It's not that they were ok with it being a theory, it's that pre-galileian astronomy didn't really care about if their models were "real" or not, it only mattered that the predictions were accurate, numerically, which is why ptolemy's theories reigned for so long. Osiander's preface to Copernicus' book mentions thsi extensively (and also says that Ptolomy's model isn't "true" either but that it's perfectly fine).
>>1015916
It wasn't solid enough to be taken as absolute truth. It was however solid enough to be taken seriously and as a potential model and understanding of our system, however it had various kinks that needed to be fixed before it could be the better theory, such as the tides and distances of stars.
>>1011310
>thread about galileo
>instantly turns into christian/atheist memefest
anyway, of course Galileo was an asshole, and scientific thought wouldve done better without him
>get a telescope and cash in on those sweet discoveries
>accuse fellow scientists of plagiarism, even though they did their work independently
>think that discovering some moons around Jupiter give hard evidence for Copernicanism
>have a buddy, Kepler, who I only contact to get blind assent to my discoveries and completely ignore his work on heliocentrism, 'cause it's boring lol
>start doing polemics to anyone who dares to criticize me
>dismiss tychonic and ursian models because I dont like 'em, even though they account better for what we know
>start to push for official endorsement by the Catholic Church without having a shred of evidence that Im right
>get asked to write a work giving the pros and cons of every model, turn it into a polemic against ptolemaic geocentrism for shits and giggles
>turn into a cranky old man after getting my shit pushed in by everyone because I was a big meanie
>fast forward 400 years
>a black man, a robot man and most average people think I'm the dankest shit ever and praise me for things I didnt even do
>mfw Kepler was right all along and everyone praises me for it
the only reason he's famous is because he's easy to read and got involved with a religious figure, just like Volty and Dawkins
If you care about the jesuits, read up on Matteo Ricci. His efforts legitimized christanity in China, which would touch off a war of jesus's brother and kill a hundred million people.
>>1011432
The catholic church wasn't anti-science, they just hoarded it. Instead of letting it rock the understanding of people, they would have rather put it in an archive and wait for a priest to make sense of it. They kept rather good records.
>>1016377
Honestly speaking, it seems that Galileo was actually the one who caused all the anti science throwback with all the shit he did to piss off the highest authorities. Like without Galileo, the other guys like Keplar and Tycho would've done just fine.
>>1016396
most people dont even care for science now, why would they have cared before? Science is irrelevant for the common man
>>1011310
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS-1Q0dl648
>>1016434
>The earth is not the center of the universe
>pass it on
He was being a rabble rouser, and wanted heresy. Which is fine, but he came against a very strong force acting on the faith.
>>1016447
>dude did you hear about that old man in his house?
>yeah, I think they tried him for buttfucking or something
Again, nobosy really cared about science in that time. There's a reason most pop literature on Galileo is from the 19th century
He came against pretty much everything, including his contemporaries and the evidence that left a pretty big hole on Copernicanism
>>1016496
He was also advocating the belief in science rather than faith etc
The catholic church wanted/needed to shut him up because he was rocking the boat. Not memeing anything otherwise.
>>1016528
>He was also advocating the belief in science rather than faith etc
source? he was pretty interested in biblical exegesis and denominational polemic (his attack on Simon Marius comes to mind) in order to be considered as such
and what does belief in science even mean? He was commited in his theories and metaphysics, which forced him to avoid improvements in them
>>1016188
If an evil demon was fooling God then that being by definition would not be God.
>>1015945
>Shit that never happened.
http://www.strangenotions.com/spanish-inquisition/
>No one knows exactly how many people perished because of the Inquisition, but it is thought to be between 3,000 and 5,000 people during the 350 years of its existence.
>Six years later, a symposium commissioned to study the Inquisition released its findings: the total number of accused heretics put to death during the Spanish Inquisition comprised 0.1 percent of the more than 40,000 who were tried. In some cases the Inquisition saved heretics from secular authorities.
>>1016528
Galileo wasn't anti-religion, though. He wasn't some heroic atheist fighting a dogmatic monster, he just took issue with what was wrong with the scientific community.
Think about it, if you believe that God created the universe, would you take kindly to people who lied about its nature?
This whole Science versus Religion bullshit is pretty recent
>>1016589
And the issue was that he pretty much bit the hands that fed him and were interested in his works. Guy made a ton of enemies on account of being a pompous ass.
>>1016589
There was'nt anything particularly wrong with the scientific community though. They thought his theories were cool and should be further explored - he was a pompous dick about it and ended up getting into personal and political disputes about it. His persecution itself had nothing to do with Science.
>>1016606
Yeah, but he was ultimately mostly right.
The Galileo matter is one that's much more grey than most people give it credit for, as it's essentially a scientific debate rather than a religious one, because ultimately the accepted model of the Universe was not the biblical model, but the Pagan one, making it more similar to the idea that Newtonian physics might not be strictly correct.
If being a dick to the pope were a crime, then he earned his sentence, I guess.
>>1016628
This is one thing that people always forget about the scientific revolution and the early modern period. Often the old, Catholic Church supported ideas, that were being rejected were being rejected in light of them being too pagan, and not Christian enough. Most of the innovators thought that their new conceptions of the world were more in line with the faith than the old models and philosophies were.
>>1016628
>Yeah, but he was ultimately mostly right.
Kepler was the one who was right, it was only by analizing his works that people started accepting the heliocentric theory, too bad Galileo ignored and dismissed his works
>because ultimately the accepted model of the Universe was not the biblical model, but the Pagan one
the debate wasnt about a biblical model, there wasnt even such thing in the first place. Ptolemaic model isnt the biblical model, it's a geocentric model. In their era the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism looked like darwin and ID respectively
>>1016628
However in his fight to be right, he actually caused the hindrance of progress. He had the fucking pope on his side at first for that matter. If he hadn't gone around insulting the pope in his book and actually gave a fair argument and discussion for all the models, his theory would've actually taken ground with the church and its scientists. Like as much as people extol Galileo as a hero of science, his dickishness is literally what caused the whole damn problem in the first place.
The idea that Galileo's incarceration was justified only works if people believe that the Church should have had the authority to place under house arrest for voicing his theories. All of this "well yeah, he may have been right, but he was a dick" shit is just bowing to imperfect authority.
>>1016851
In this regard we can consider "he was a dick" to be another thing he did right.
The Catholic church was a shitty authority figure. The place of religion is not in government. Openingly opposing the Catholic church praise-worthy in of itself.
>>1016863
Exactly, and the fact that the later editions which the Church "allowed" to be published were censored should be seen as something of a vindication of his views, and the Church's place in this historical episode.
>>1016851
It wasn't right he was incarcerated, however he was wrong in method scientifically, where he was trying to force something as absolute right without a lot of the necessary explanations to make it actually a more plausible theory than the models that were accepted at the time. At that point in time, they just didn't have the advanced enough physics to prove a more correct system.
>>1017069
>didndu nuffin!
>>1017069
Could you please scientifically justify that statement?
>>1016377
t. Christian
Galileo was a bit of a trouble maker and was always in trouble with authority figures. He lasted long because he was immensely well known and protected by his peers, bur defying the pope is a big no no.
As with everything in history, it doesn't boil down to whatever we want to expect and it will not support our notions of the world and that shouldn't be expected. He wasn't a martyr for science no more than he was an irrational asshole wo had no evidence. He is one of the greatest scientist who had a shaky life. I mean, fucking Boltzman killed himself because the scientific community laughed about his contributions even though they were completely revolutionary and important for thermodynamics, but that's life.
>>1017277
The funny thing is that it was the clergy who protected him. It was only until he started being an ass to those people that he started getting into real trouble. Unlike Boltzman, Galileo actually had real support and people who, even if they disagreed, would love to listen to his ideas and theories.
I agree that he was a great scientist, however this one debacle really set things back.
>>1016951
>where he was trying to force something as absolute right without a lot of the necessary explanations to make it actually a more plausible theory than the models that were accepted at the time.
I'd imagine that Galileo's charting of Venus's phases disproves the Tycho model along with the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian?
>>1016396
the Catholic Church is also pretty into astrology.
>>1016851
But he was'nt incarcerated for voicing his theories. He was incarcerated for bad mouthing the Pope, and teaching a the theory that had less evidence going for it as fact, while dismissing the other theories and the people who held them arrogantly. He died fat and comfortable anyways.
What is important is that this is'nt an instance of the church being anti-science or a conflict between religion and science. It is literally just a person in a position of power getting fed up with someone in a lesser position and dealing with them.
>>1018178
And to add to things, the Church did accept some of his later works, so he still had pull.
If you look at things today, Galileo is a cunt. Just because today, the young earthers and the ID retards are better funded, doesn't mean that science and religion are at war; it means religion is at war with bad science.
>>1018178
Science - seeking of further knowledge
Religion - unquestioning acceptance of existing doctrine
Not compatible.
End of.
>>1016164
Kek
>catholic church only recognizes officialy the heliocentric model in the 20th century
>somehow we should listen to the church about scientific matters
They sure were eager to correct themselves on this one. Bad science for sure
>>1018252
So what happens you are a someone who comes to believe the tenants of a faith based on evidence ? ( Maybe the evidence is false, not sufficient, etc, but you think it is) Are you then not religious ? Alternatively what about the person who believes some doctrines and not the others. Maybe you believe in the resurrection of Christ but are fine with contraception, even though your church isn't, are you then not religious since you question that one doctrine ? What about the fact that religions all have councils and debates to determine doctrine and if the religion should change it's doctrines ? For example, at one point Catholic priests were allowed to marry, but that was changed. If religion was solely about unquestioning acceptance of existing dogma then how could they have come to decide to change dogma up while still being religious ?
Also, the point was that the Galileo case simply doesn't count as a case were science and religion were in conflict. Not that the two never conflict with one another.
>>1018425
>the Galileo case simply doesn't count as a case were science and religion were in conflict
Wrong
Galileo (and Copernicus)had the temerity to bring the heavenly down to earth. He showed us (eventually) that the heavens and the earth are part of the same, material realm.
Until Copernicus, 'natural philosophy' (the precursor to science) had largely been supportive of the Church's world view: The Heavens were a different realm from the Earthly; the Heavens were composed of perfect spheres that travelled in perfect circles around the stable, material, corruptable Earth. The Heavens were prefect and unchanging while the Earth was mutable and full of decay and death.
Religion (having conceded every factual point in the debate) is still reeling from the consequences. It's long, futile, rear-guard action has finally boiled down to the exceedingly lame thesis that science is, in reality, just one more faith-based religion.
What a strange trip it's been.
>>1011414
>The church was on the right side when rejecting the Copernican interpretation as absolute fact, given the information at the time.
They didnt just "resist" it they confined a person to house arrest for life, banned their books and forbade him from discussing it. Likewise they literally did this based on a ruling that he was guilty of being "vehemently suspect of heresy".
>>1018456
The main members of the church didn't really care and the stance of the church was to revise shit as new information was found out. Then he insulted the pope, and the church pretty much doubled down against Galileo just to punish him for being an ass. They were at that point out to get Galileo, not his theory. They just used every tool they had to smack him a new one and even then he got off much better than most.
>>1018586
The Church branded the heliocentric model a heresy and prosecuted those who advocated it. This simple fact is beyond dispute and, to my mind, is indefensible.
>>1018621
Except that Copernicus was sponsored by a cardinal and had letters of recommendation from a couple more when he presented it to the Pope.
>>1011329
>Galileo was the first person to practise the scientific method
stopped reading right here, holy shit
>>1018456
>Until Copernicus, 'natural philosophy' (the precursor to science) had largely been supportive of the Church's world view: The Heavens were a different realm from the Earthly; the Heavens were composed of perfect spheres that travelled in perfect circles around the stable, material, corruptable Earth. The Heavens were prefect and unchanging while the Earth was mutable and full of decay and death.
This has literally nothing to do with the Catholic faith though. They didn't think that the heavens were in a "second realm", nor does that have any basis in the religion, they just thought that the heavenly spheres were different kinds of beings than what we had here on earth due to the data they had at the time. And if you look into the Aristotelian philosophy they had going for them at the time it was believed that time was reducible to the motion of the heavenly spheres and that all motion and time on earth was in part due to the motion and time of them. The "two realms" you speak of were already one, since there was a unified order involving both of them.
Natural Philosophy was'nt supportive of the church's world view, the church was supportive of natural philosophy's claims because they were good ones at the time and didn't contradict the faith in any way.
Also, If anything, positing "perfect" beings that weren't God was the more un-christian position.
>>1018621
They branded it as heresy after Galileo was being a fucking asshole about it. As much as you want to blame the church for over reacting, fault also lies on Galileo who started the fire and fanned the flames. In fact, they wouldn't have branded it as heresy if Galileo had kept his mouth shut and research on it would have proceeded just fine and peachy.
>>1018888
>they wouldn't have branded it as heresy if Galileo had kept his mouth shut
So people arnt allowed to speak the truth in your cosy little baroque world?
No wonder pedophiles are so well protected by the church
>>1018888
>They branded it as heresy after Galileo was being a fucking asshole about it. As much as you want to blame the church for over reacting, fault also lies on Galileo who started the fire and fanned the flames
What did he do that constituted being jailed in his home for life and entire branch of science banned? What did he actually do to earn the title of fucking asshole who deserved it?
>>1018940
The fault wasn't that he was speaking truth, but rather the fact he went about insulting the authority, which if you consider the time, was absolute and they were the ones who were funding the guy. The guy was an arrogant buffoon in a society that isn't as lenient as the one we live in today.
In addition, the truth he was talking about didn't have enough evidence to discredit the other models, such as Tycho's and he couldn't explain things like the tides and winds. He basically pushed for something as absolute truth, where his own fucking model didn't even work properly according to data.
>>1018957
He insulted the pope. If we are looking at the time, where people could actually get killed for insulting the higher authorities, he got off extremely lightly. The guy just kept making political enemies from everywhere, even with his best friend, who was the pope he had insulted. He bit the hands of those that actually supported him, until he turned everyone against him. And since he was dedicated to such rabble rousing, all those enemies just want to punish him for being such an ass. It's just the natural conclusion considering politics.
The whole branch of science was banned because of Galileo, not Galileo got punished for his branch of science.
>>1019074
>the truth he was talking about didn't have enough evidence to discredit the other models
Except the phases of venus proved it orbited the sun not the earth, and Jupiters moons ment other celestial bodies do not orbit the earth
And there were people like the pope who denied this, because they were close minded fools.
>>1019148
It disproved the geocentric theory, however it did not disprove Tycho's model, which could account for this. He proved one that not all heavenly bodies rotate around the earth, however he didn't prove that the sun was at the center, only the possibility.
In addition, the pope was very open minded about this, until Galileo insulted him.
>>1019308
>however it did not disprove Tycho's model
Tychos model was geocentric, except for venus travelling an eccentric orbit
Are you sure you understand astronomy?
>>1011450
>Galileo became the first person ever to witness and chart the phases of Venus. As he expected, his observations perfectly fitted the predictions of the Sun-centred model.
It also fitted Tycho's geo-heliocentric model.
>>1015916
>What Galio had was pretty solid and was better supported than the counter model.
No. Most of all, his model couldn't explain lack of paralax and for example Tycho's model could.
>>1017948
Nope, Tycho's model also predicted the phases of Venus.
>>1019385
In Tycho's model the Earth is at the center of the universe and the Sun and Moon and the stars revolve around the Earth, but the other five planets revolve around the Sun.
>>1019720
Tycho's model also predicted the sun orbiting earth, he must be right
>>1019771
From the data, evidence and observation given at the time his model was more plausible. Science changes based on evidence and data, where Galileo didn't have a strong enough case to prove his as more viable.
>>1019074
>He insulted the pope.
What did he say/call him? Had Popes killed people for insulting them before?
>>1016188
>It is possible to both not know something and not know you don't know it.
Not for God.
>>1016578
Over 68,000,000 murdered Christians and Jews over 1,260 years.
>>1021301
It was actually much worse than an insult when it comes down to it, considering how the Pope was Galileo's best friend, but a betrayal of trust.
The short of is that the Pope was actually very interested in Galileo's ideas with how the earth orbits the sun, however he was cautious about stating it as fact before the necessary evidence and data to prove it had come in, and thus was on the side of geoncentrism. He asked his good pal Galileo if he could discuss both sides of the argument in a book due to his interests in the whole science. So Galileo wrote the book "The Dialogue." However, it's not what the Pope had asked for, a balanced discussion for both sides of the table, but rather a complete strawman that mocked geocentrism and the people who supported it as idiots, with the character who represented geocentrism named Simplicio, which was an insulting name. It didn't help that this character was generally represented as the buffoon, and the real killer was that he put the Pope's own words in this character's own mouth.
So not only did Galileo not write the book that the Pope had requested, but he also made a buffoon of a character that seemed to represent the Pope. The book was also widely published for that matter. So for the Pope, Galileo pretty much spat at his hospitality and friendship.
>>1019074
>The whole branch of science was banned because of Galileo, not Galileo got punished for his branch of science.
To add, heliocentrism wasnt even a big deal in the first place for theology, so it seems odd Galileo was pretty determined to turn the whole thing into a theological problem. Nicole Oresme had already explained how scripture could be interpreted in light of heliocentrism, as did most cardinals. The whole of Galileo's life is merely the story of one man who wanted to cash in the big buck on the inventions (he was just a math professor who bought a telescope) so bad he gave everyone who opposed him a bad time.
>>1021464
>strawman
>uses the Pope's own words
pick one
>>1021464
>but rather a complete strawman that mocked geocentrism and the people who supported it as idiots
almost like the God Delusion?
>>1021473
he strawmanned geocentrism. He used Ptolemy vs Copernicus instead of Tycho and Ursus vs Copernicus. If that had been the case the book wouldve look very different
>>1011310
t. Apologetic
>>1020147
>Galileo didn't have a strong enough case to prove his as more viable.
But he did, only morons disagreed with his evidence.
>>1011329
>Copernicus didn't offer any evidence
He didn't show a direct proof but his theory comes from analysis of the movement of planets.
Galileo sounds like a total dick but denouncing heliocentrism as heresy was a really bad move.
>>1023611
like his theory of tides?
>>1023622
And that was okay. No one ever got in Coperincus's grill for suggesting it, hell the church even urged him to publish it. The whole fiasco happened mostly because Galileo was a dick.
> All these posts defending the poor, downtrodden Pope
You know, part of no longer being a child is that you don't have to suck the Clergy-member's member all the time
