From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:05:46 GMT

gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>The Vatican only demanded of Galileo that he acknowledge that his theory
>was only a hypothesis, just as the advocates of the ptolemaic model claimed
>no more than that their theory was a hypothesis.  

Not true.  

First, Galileo did state, in the book for which he was condemned
(_Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_), that the theory
he propounded was not proven.  (That is, he had Simplicio and
Salviati, the two antagonists in the dialogue, say so.) [1]

Second, Tribunal which condemned Galileo did not state that the
heliocentric theory was only a hypothesis, it stated that it was
false.  This is from Galileo's sentence:

   We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo,
   by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as
   above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office
   vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held
   the doctrine--which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
   Scriptures--that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
   move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the
   center of the world.... [2]

>Galileo's "sin" (rightly
>or wrongly condemned) was that he insisted that his theory, because it
>saved all the appearances better (more simply) than the ptolemaic theory,
>was thereby identical with the truth.  

Also untrue.  Galileo's "sin" was that he was *suspected* of believing
that the Earth revolved around the Sun.  As the passage quoted above
shows, it was heretical to believe in the Earth's revolution.  What's
more, not only was heresy a crime, but being *suspected* of heresy was
a crime.  If Galileo had been convicted of *actual* heresy, the
punishment would have been far more severe than mere house arrest.

>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]

>As Owen Barfield put it, 
>Galileo didn't just propose a new theory of the universe, he proposed a new 
>theory of theory.  The consequences of that theory of theory were enormous, 
>and the Church recognized it, whether or not they were justified in 
>suppressing Galileo.

Indeed.  The consequences were that someone might discover the truth
on his own initiative, rather than having "truth" defined by the
Church's interpretation of the Bible.

>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?

One of the reasons for the early success of Copernicus' theory was
that it led to more accurate predictions of the positions of the
planets than the Ptolemaic theory. [5]  That was *before* Kepler
discovered his laws of planetary motion.  The result was an Orwellian
situation in which people engaged in astronomical calculations had to
believe that the Ptolemaic theory was correct, even though they knew
that the Copernican theory gave better answers.

[ irrelevant comments deleted ]

---------------------------------------
[1] Galilei, Galileo, _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems_, translated by Stillman Drake, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967, p. 464.

[2] Santillana, Giorgio, _The Crime of Galileo_, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1955, p. 310.

[3] Ibid, p. 307.

[4] Dreyer, J.L.E., _A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler_,
New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1953, p. 417.

[5] Ibid, p. 318 ff.


Keith