Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 5

message: The "Early career" section doesn't mention what he taught at these universities. Could someone who knows this add it? Fpahl 10:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. Brutannica 02:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early career 

message: The following was found at the referenced site.  I think this is the full sentence.  And many more interesting documents... 
----
The formal condemnation of the Inquisition Tribunal was read to Galileo (1564-1642) in Rome on June 22, 1633: 
"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 an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that you first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in our presence you abjure, curse and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you. And, in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from delinquencies of this sort, we ordain that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo be prohibited by public edict. We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy Office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance."
----
Adraeus 04:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence of condemnation of Galileo 

message: Anybody interested in review of this large change? It's highly POV, of course, and details like an encomium to Bellarmine's theological status can easily be edited, as can serious inaccuracies, such as the mention of tidal theory in conjunction with the events of 1616. But of course there's more to it than that. Left to myself, I'd probably judge a simple reversion to be better than leaving it in, but maybe we can do something still better. And the anonymous editor might decide to participate rather than making one edit to Wikipedia and disappearing forever.
(see  )
Dandrake 20:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Very well -- alone! I'm beginning to clean up this very large drive-by edit (check the editor's contrib list, indexed above). As a preliminary, cleaning up the prologue, which has been inaccurate for years: no one has presented a shred of evidence that Tycho was already replacing Ptolemy among the Jesuit astronomers by the time Galileo started drawing fire. It's often asserted, but never supported. Surely Clavius never advocated Tycho. Fantoli says, in a book translated by a Jesuit, that the change came later, when (and because) Galileo got in trouble. --Dandrake 00:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
The article has a Huxley quote that has become rather popular:
:Even Thomas Huxley, the man who invented the term agnostic and whose nickname was "Darwin's bulldog", said of the Galileo affair, "The Church had the best of it." [1]
This is cited in various places on the Web, always without a reference to the source. Typically, the passage above has a link—to a secondary source without context. It almost makes you think that people who write on the Web don't understand what a source is.
Can anyone provide a genuine reference for the Huxley quote? I've already asked in soc.history.science, but I'm not confident that anything will come up in that completely degenerate newsgroup. If no one can identify it, then it will have to be removed because it's impossible to determine what was meant in context, or even whether the quote is genuine. --Dandrake 06:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The article also asserts,
:Bellarmine himself had had some of his own work placed on the index.
I can't readily find a source for this. The Wikipedia article on Bellarmine seems to say nothing about it; it does not contain the word index or ban; did I miss something? Google finds me http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=337 which says only that Sixtus V threatened to put the writings on the Index. In this and the above matter, the assertion will be struck if no one can defend it. --Dandrake 00:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Removed the Huxley quote since nobody can find where it came from or what its context might have been. Likewise, the claim that Bellarmine got on the Index. Dandrake 19:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Nobody has ever come up with a source for the Huxley quote -- surprise! -- but I ran across this other opinion of Huxley's, likening the churchmen who suppressed Galileo's work to "Canutes of the hour enthroned in solemn state, bidding the great wave to stay." Reaction to Darwin's theory Doesn't belong in the article text, but it illustrates a most interesting concept of getting the better of it, don't you think?
Much of the long justification of Bellarmine's position has been replaced with a consideration of Bellarmine's significance to the case. Material concerning that worthy's thoughts on science and theology would be a very useful addition  to the article on Bellarmine, and I hope someone with a better knowledge of the subject puts it there. Oh, and of course, the inaccuracies should be fixed before that's done; I'd be glad to help. --Dandrake 20:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
JoshuaZ:  you reverted my edit from yesterday on NPOV grounds.  I feel this may have been a little hasty?  I was trying to make readers aware of the wider context of the controversy;  I haven't particularly got an axe to grind.  The 30 years war that was decimating Europe just then is not mentioned anywhere in the section for example.  It seems to me very likely,  and worth drawing to people's attention,  that Reformation politics may have had at least some relevance to Galileo's trial.  In any case,  there is certainly some extra complexity there that the article as it stands does not even allude to.    Because there is no hook anywhere in the article as it stands,  and because the new ideas need more than one sentence to summarise them adequately,  I introduced a new paragraph.  If I try again,  with more effort to achieve NPOV, will you agree not to revert,  at least not immediately?  You comment that the contribution seems to be very minority,  but Redondi's book was very influential in Italy (and also was very scholarly),  there is new supporting material,  and at least the Rice Galileo Project (which is one of the cited external links) treats it seriously.  On the extra Scripture references,  the whole point was that the trial revolved on the meaning of Scripture,  so to double the number of references to Scripture seems relevant to me (as is the fact that multiple interpretations were available even then,  although I suppose Kepler's opinions - being a Protestant - may not be relevant?).  C.jeynes 01:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am not sure why the paragraph has a NPOV problem. It summarizes published material that gives additional context for the trial. If it is too much detail for this article, then maybe it could be moved to Galileo affair. JoshuaZ, can you explain the NPOV problem? Roger 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NPOV concern is that the opinion isn't (as far as I am aware) that common an opinion and so seems to have an undue weight problem putting it in this article. I would have less (or no) issue to put some form of it in Galileo affair which goes into more detail on the subject and so can more reasonably have such minority opinions. JoshuaZ 06:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough C.jeynes 10:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church controversy: new changes. 

message: I just added a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia. The material there is excellent and should be a must-read for anyone interested in the Galileo Affair.
The new link entry reads:
Galielo Galilei, in the Catholic Encyclopedia found online on New Advent, an orthodox Catholic website
God bless!
Manny Amador 11:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia 

message: The assessment of the Leaning Tower story keeps shifting. The claim that it is generally considered false is stronger than the claim that it is not generally accepted as true. If you want that text, give some justification for it, such as to be persuasive. You will not find it easy. Till then, it reverts.
Does techne look for the causes of ALL things? And if Aristotle said so, are we sure that his "all things" meant just what a modern reader would mean? Discuss.
Dandrake 00:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two recent drive-bys