From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:23:26 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
 
  [extensive commentary refuting my post to the effect that Galileo
   was persecuted for not holding his heliocentric theory to be only
   a theory]

Thanks for the very thorough commentary.  On the face of it it looks
like I was wrong.  I have some homework to do.  Unfortunately Barfield
is quite old now, and I doubt if he would respond to a letter.  I know
someone who knows him and is interested in this topic.  I will inquire
and let you know what I discover.

Certainly my statements as they stand appear refuted by your citations.
One possible resolution (assuming that Barfield wasn't completely
off base) might be that Galileo was in fact promoting the "better
model is equivalent to the truth" idea, and that his formal disclaimer
and the church's absolute indictment were after the fact legalisms.
I.e., once it was determined that Galileo's ideas were dangerous,
they pronounced the theory itself to be anathema, wrong, crackpot,
sinful, etc.

But at this point I concede to you.  Thanks for the citations.


>>As a matter of fact, the Church
>>had already acknowledged the validity of Copernicus's investigations, which
>>said more or less the same thing as hypothesis.  

>It had?  Then how come the Tribunal described the "position of
>Copernicus" as "contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy
>Scripture?" [3]  And how come Copernicus' book was placed on the Index
>of forbidden books in 1616? [4]

Again you got me.  I can only refer to reading about it and being surprised
some years ago.  I may be able to dig it up, but you have won the point. One
thought is that the quote is from the Tribunal, whose task was that
of roasting Galileo.  Perhaps the official Vatican position was more
subtle. I'm sure that Galileo wouldn't have appreciated the distinction. We have 
the problem today of judjes making all kinds of pronouncements about global 
warming etc., so-called judicial junk science. But this is just a guess.

You also may be able to confirm or deny that within a short time the Church 
approved of Keppler.  At least they didn't persecute him. What is the
story there?

>>Just for diversion, there is a lot to be said now for the ptolemaic view
>>of a geocentric solar system. Many of the calculations required for space
>travel are more clearly understood and worked out in terms of loops and
>>epicycles.  

>I don't suppose you have a reference for that statement?  From someone
>actually involved in space flight calculations, that is?

No, I heard this in a science lecture some years ago.  The lecturer showed
some space navigation charts and pointed out that they are a lot like 
ptolemaic charts.  He pointed out that if you are going from the earth to
the moon, then the earth is the center of your universe, and you will
make the earth your point of view at the outset.  He also said that some
navigational calculations are too complex to derive accurately from helio-
centric orbital characteristics, especially when you get close.

What I was getting at is that for purposes of making a model, any point of 
view is quite valid, and each point of view may reveal things that another one, 
even the "best" one does not.  If you are interested, see Joachim Schulz,
"Rhythms and Movements of the Stars", that makes some interesting revelations 
about planetary and solar movements relative to the earth at the center.

From the Church's point of view, I think that at least the more intelligent
leadership in it was more concerned about the idea of equating any representation
at all, or even all of them, with reality.  We like to say that the reality is 
that the earth makes an eliptical path around the sun.  But in fact the eliptical 
path is a representation -- a valuable and reliable one, but nevertheless a 
representation.  The Church was quite wrong in persecuting people for their 
beliefs or their science, but I think that the issues were more subtle and more
deep than just the protection of a cherished old model of the universe that
had convenient theological implications.

But whatever the deeper distinctions that may have lain at the root of the 
dispute, the effective result was clearly the suppression of scientific
inquiry (What a euphimism, they tortured him to death).  No doubt about that.

Cordially,
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc