Stick with it. I think you are not quite getting the argument he is making. I don't think he's saying that Galileo didn't do anything meaningful, but he is saying that Galileo is getting more credit than he deserves.

> This is why Galileo is the idol of the humanists and the bane of the mathematicians. The philosophers say he invented modern science; the mathematicians that he’s a poor man’s Archimedes. The issue cuts much deeper than merely allotting credit to one century rather than another. Much more than a question of the detailed chronology of obscure scientific facts, it is a question of worldview and how one should approach and understand history.

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. There are plenty of people who were bad at science that also made great contributions. There are also plenty of people who were not great contributors who also were able to establish a big name for themselves. I'll stay out of politics for the most famous current one, but I think I'm safe to point out the age old Woz vs Jobs thing people have talked about.

Viktor also does bring Tycho Brahe, which I think people are much more comfortable dunking on now a days. But in his time he lived it up in the limelite. He held many parties and was well known for his intelligence and brilliance, by the public. Brahe was known by all, but now he's just a footnote and an impedance to Kepler.

Do you not think it is true that some peoples' stories get embellished? Do you not think it is true that some are greatly so? Do you not think history gets retold to make better stories? Do you not think people who have made great contributions have been ignored? Certainly in the long history all this has happened. Do they not deserve credit? If they do, then the unfortunate reality is that this must be "taken" from those that it was misattributed to. Especially in the progression of knowledge where we over attribute contributions to those that cross some "finish line." Or in the words of Einstein: I stand on the shoulders of giants.

> I say that the traditional view of the “Galilean” scientific revolution is not only historically wrong but fundamentally inconsistent with the nature of mathematical thought. When I say Galileo boo, Archimedes yay, my point is not who was the “first” or who should “get credit” for this or that. That’s not so interesting. But Galileo is a window into more important things.

What is the relation between mathematics and science? Was mathematics before Galileo a technocratic enterprise? Compartmentalised, limited to certain computational tasks, blind to its own potential? Was mathematics stuck in that ditch until it was liberated by a “conceptual” breakthrough from without, so to speak; from philosophy? Or was mathematics always an expansive, empirically informed, interconnected study of all quantifiable aspects of the world?

The latter, of course, if you ask me. In any case, Galileo is ground zero for grappling with these questions. And that is why we study him.

Edit:

I think there is also a relevant recent HN post as well[0] and I'll point out a comment of mine[1]. The mathematics is a necessary component for the explainability, for the causality. These are the essence of physics and science, and the only language we really have to express them through is the language of math. I am biased though, you can check my comment history as I make similar arguments about our approach to machine learning.[2] And I do think we should understand these things. And in my reply to
jebarker you'll find a reason for why I believe understanding the history, in an accurate form, is so important for learning how to move forward.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43344703

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43349216

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43348954