Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 4

message: Brecht wrote a play in which the main character is called "Galileo".  It is, I suppose, no reflection on Brecht's thought or ethics that the play has little resemblance to the life of Galileo Galilei, because his theory of drama didn't have much to do with historical realism.  But to apply the word "knowledge" to anything derived from that play is a bit much, so I de-applied it. Dandrake 02:04 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
To user 210.54.108.162:
You appear to be a serious contributor (from your New Zealand edits), and you'd be welcome to discuss the question whether the Pope's position is a copout.  But since that opinion is by no means universally held, simply dropping the word into a paragraph is not really NPOV at all. Dandrake 06:56, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Brecht

message: ----Isn't it true that
*Galileo never actually performed the canonball experiment from Pisa (ambiguous here, contradicted at Classical mechanics)?
::Well, the author of the Classical Mechanics piece seems to accept that the experiment was performed; but one can find plenty of people to assert the contrary.  Hence this article's position that it is "not generally believed", which is about as weak as one can get.   I really don't know on what grounds anyone positively asserts that it was not performed; grounds to believe that it was are in the article. Dandrake 07:43, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC) 
*Galileo was actually in deeper trouble for proposing the immutablity of atoms, which irritated those who believed it contradicted with transubstantiation, and the Pope allowed him to confess to a lesser offense as a plea bargin?
::There is a book about that, Galileo Heretic.  The theory is surely even further from being unanimously accepted than the story of the cannonballs. As far as I know, the charges filed against Galileo made no mention of atomism, but treated only of heliocentrism.  The bargaining between the hierarchy and Galileo didn't start till after the charges were filed, and Galileo (after being examined under oath) had raised a very strong defense against a major part of the charges.  If there's any evidence of atomism coming up in the bargaining or in the trial or in the preparation of the charges (working backwards here), someone should present that.
::Though Galileo showed a good deal of sympathy for ideas of atoms as proposed in classic times, I know of nothing at all in his work, published and unpublished, that would support an inference that the miracle of the Eucharist could not be real.  There still may be something somewhere; maybe someone can help out here.  But is there anything in the Vatican records to support the idea that powerful officials were concerned about Galileo's position on this?  Contrast this with the treatment of Copernican ideas, which were attacked early and often after 1610, at all levels in the hierarchy; Vatican records from 1616 and 1632 make it quite clear that the Popes of those times had a strong position on the matter.   Dandrake 07:43, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
I don't remember any references to these two statements, unfortunately.  Paullusmagnus 14:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannonballs

message: Did anyone know that Galileo was the head of the Illuminati, one of the most famous anti-church/pro-science organisations in those days? There is a book named Angels & Demons (German title: Illuminati) by Dan Brown which deals with a plot of the Illuminati order against the Catholic Church.
No, I didn't know it, and I see no reason to believe it. Since there was no particular connection in that time between anti-church and pro-science, it would be interesting to see any evidence of an anti-church position on Galileo's part. The documentary evidence, in things like his letters and his friends' letters, points the other way. Dandrake 00:13, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
*Last I checked, Dan Brown writes fiction, anyway. --Fastfission 02:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Secret Societies

message: Every time more detail goes into the account of the trial, still more detail goes in, to give context and all that. I'm the first to concede that the section as it stands is repetitive, not well organized, and probably over-long. But I'm not sure what to do about it. Maybe I'll try taking a hatchet to it, or a chainsaw. If anyone tries it, including me, there should be a notice here about the project. Dandrake 07:40, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
:How about just replacing it with Eddie Izzard's summary?  "Galileo said 'The earth goes around the sun!', and the pope was overjoyed at the truth of his words, and locked him up for twenty years.  That pope is known to history as Pope Shit For Brains, the Ninth."
: I'd rather see more detail. We can always move it to a separate article The trial of Galileo Galileo and summarize the section if it gets too long.--Eloquence* 07:50, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
:: Another way to do this would be to for the "Church controversy" or "trial" section to contain a summary of only those details that are verifiable from primary sources, and then move interpretation of these events to a later section entitled "Galileo in historiography" or somesuch, which would be about what historians have had to say about the whole affair. Shimmin 15:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Trial. Again? 

message: Should Galileo be listed as an astrologer in the article's introductory paragraph? Please sign and date for your vote to be counted.
Note: This vote is now closed. See the follow-up vote below.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 00:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
===Yes===
#I am convinced by the evidence set out below that he practiced astrology and this should get a mention in the article. I think it needs more evidence of belief before we can say he was an astrologer Lumos3 08:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: not surprising, since the idea of a "notable contribution to astrology" is an oxymoron.  How can one contribute to nonsense?
#Adraeus 03:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you vote "Yes," place your name up there. Otherwise, shhhh! (unless you vote nay/maybe) Adraeus 19:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: *If you vote "Yes," place your name up there. Otherwise, shhhh! (unless you vote nay/maybe) Adraeus 19:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Astrologer poll

message: #I am convinced by the evidence set out below that he practiced astrology and this should get a mention in the article. I think it needs more evidence of belief before we can say he was an astrologer Lumos3 08:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: # – Quadell (talk) (quiz) 01:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
#Brutannica 07:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: not surprising, since the idea of a "notable contribution to astrology" is an oxymoron.  How can one contribute to nonsense?
#Adraeus 03:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: *Absolutely So--author of the above paragraphs in is favor.  09-19-04 
**Please sign-in and sign your posts for your vote to count.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 12:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
*Sorry for reverting. I hadn't read this yet. Brutannica 07:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you vote "Yes," place your name up there. Otherwise, shhhh! (unless you vote nay/maybe) Adraeus 19:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you vote "Yes," place your name up there. Otherwise, shhhh! (unless you vote nay/maybe) Adraeus 19:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Acheiving consensus is turning out to be harder than I'd thought. I'd like to propose the following:
Proposal: Galileo's activities in astrology will be mentioned in the article, but not in the opening paragraph. He won't be refered to as an "astrologer" per se, but his contributions to astrology and his astrological work will be refered to in detail.
And so here's the new poll:
===Although this may not be my first choice, I'm willing to accept the above proposal to achieve consensus.===
#Willing.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 00:36, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
#Willing. Sundar 03:59, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
#Willing. Fpahl 09:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dear anonymous user – I sympathise very much with your effort to get Galileo's astrological activities mentioned in the article. I voted Yes for the original proposal and find it valuable. However, I also understand that some are worried that referring to Galileo as an "astrologer", especially in the introductory paragraph, would put too much weight on this aspect of his activities. He is not referred to as a "mathematician" anywhere in the article, despite having been a professor of mathematics at one point. Yet mathematics was probably more central to his notable contributions than astrology. While I agree with you that there is a real danger of the history of science being "white-washed" to make Galileo appear more like today's scientists than he was, you're going too far in accusing people with a different opinion of "lies". If you try to understand what's important to them, I'm sure we can come up with a solution that's acceptable to everyone. If you can't accept the above proposal, please indicate this clearly by a numbered vote (by adding "#~~~~" underneath the corresponding heading), and make an alternative proposal. For instance, perhaps we might agree that there should be a section titled "Astrology" – this would make it clear that this was a non-negligible aspect of Galileo's life, without labelling him an "astrologer". Many here seem to feel that this occupational description should be reserved to more central pursuits of his life. Fpahl 10:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: *If I cook grilled cheese sandwiches, does that mean I'm a professional cook? No. If I drive occassionally, does that mean I'm a professional driver? No. If I put ice in a cup of water, does that mean I'm a chemist? No.  If I sing in the shower, does that mean I'm a singer? No.  If I construct a wooden doll house for my daughter, does that mean I'm a carpenter? No.  To the anonymous ones, if you think your "vote" means anything, register an account and sign your username. Adraeus 20:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, since no-one from the anti-astrology camp seems keen on doing it, and our anonymous pro-astrology friend keeps anonymously editing contrary to the consensus decision, I guess I'll have to do it. I might not get around to it over the next couple of days, though, so bear with me. When I do, I'll probably create a separate section on astrology -- if someone isn't happy with that, please say so. Fpahl 19:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working toward Astrology consensus 

message: #Willing.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 00:36, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
#Willing. Sundar 03:59, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
#Willing. Fpahl 09:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Although this may not be my first choice, I'm willing to accept the above proposal to achieve consensus.

message: * If he cast charts and interpreted them for WHOEVER, he was an astrologer/astrologist--whatever you want to call it.  Did anyone even bother to check out this link? --------http://www.nd.edu/~dharley/HistIdeas/astron-astrol.html
*At the top of the page it clearly shows an astrological chart that GALILEO CAST for his daughter--come on people.  What more proof do you need? Stop these lies and white-washing of history.
:*Dear anonymous user – I sympathise very much with your effort to get Galileo's astrological activities mentioned in the article. I voted Yes for the original proposal and find it valuable. However, I also understand that some are worried that referring to Galileo as an "astrologer", especially in the introductory paragraph, would put too much weight on this aspect of his activities. He is not referred to as a "mathematician" anywhere in the article, despite having been a professor of mathematics at one point. Yet mathematics was probably more central to his notable contributions than astrology. While I agree with you that there is a real danger of the history of science being "white-washed" to make Galileo appear more like today's scientists than he was, you're going too far in accusing people with a different opinion of "lies". If you try to understand what's important to them, I'm sure we can come up with a solution that's acceptable to everyone. If you can't accept the above proposal, please indicate this clearly by a numbered vote (by adding "#~~~~" underneath the corresponding heading), and make an alternative proposal. For instance, perhaps we might agree that there should be a section titled "Astrology" – this would make it clear that this was a non-negligible aspect of Galileo's life, without labelling him an "astrologer". Many here seem to feel that this occupational description should be reserved to more central pursuits of his life. Fpahl 10:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *If I cook grilled cheese sandwiches, does that mean I'm a professional cook? No. If I drive occassionally, does that mean I'm a professional driver? No. If I put ice in a cup of water, does that mean I'm a chemist? No.  If I sing in the shower, does that mean I'm a singer? No.  If I construct a wooden doll house for my daughter, does that mean I'm a carpenter? No.  To the anonymous ones, if you think your "vote" means anything, register an account and sign your username. Adraeus 20:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The above proposal is unacceptable to me.

message: Alright, let's edit the article to include some of this info. Who'll step up to the plate first?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 13:29, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
:Well, since no-one from the anti-astrology camp seems keen on doing it, and our anonymous pro-astrology friend keeps anonymously editing contrary to the consensus decision, I guess I'll have to do it. I might not get around to it over the next couple of days, though, so bear with me. When I do, I'll probably create a separate section on astrology -- if someone isn't happy with that, please say so. Fpahl 19:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks like we have consensus

message: * Galileo reluctantly involved himself in astrology. The fact that Galileo made greater contributions to astronomy indicates that he did not share astrological beliefs of the time; thus, he was not an astrologer.
**If there is evidence that Galileo's practice of astrology was reluctant, then this could and should be mentioned in the article. Your argument from his contributions to astronomy is wrong. The impression that there is a contradiction between a belief in astronomy and a belief in astrology is a modern one. Whether this impression is correct or not (I don't think it is), it is far from obvious that Galileo must have had it. Fpahl 21:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus comments