Readernaut

This is a highly unusual statement for the author to make. Standing popular conventional understanding of a fairly famous incident completely on its head. What evidence does he give to support this assertion? How does "demanding proof" compare to the standard process of the "scientific method" whereby theories are positted and then discarded or supported with evidence or analysis as studied? What sort of "blind assent" was Galileo "demanding?"

Hart actually makes a pretty good case; remember, his central thesis in the book is that our understanding of the triumph of modernity and science over the dark 'age of faith' is largely mythical, more akin to folklore at this point than historically based fact. Copernican heliocentricity, though intuitively correct, was still based on entirely fictional ancient Greek models of astronomy that employed inconceivably complex mathematical gymnastics to reconcile the observed motion of the planets with the universal presupposition that the heavens reflected theoretic perfection (ruling out, by definition, any thought of elliptical orbits). Copernicus's models updated Ptolemy's, but both resort to "secondary and tertiary motions and axes" (p. 58) (essentially, spirals and sub-orbits and orbital tangents). Neither could concieve of a vacuum in nature, nor of the property of inertia. The bottom line is, they hadn't the framework to correctly explain what they saw.

(continued...)

Hart acknowledges that Galileo was entirely right to appeal "to the church fathers, to Augustine in particular, in defense of his claim that the scriptures ought not to be regarded as a resource for scientific descriptions of reality" (p. 63), and the Church was actually not terribly concerned about his science as heresy. He enjoyed the support and reverence of influential Catholics and Jesuit astronomers. "Even when Galileo had more or less confessed himself a Copernican in 1613, he was not repudiated by his friends or censured by the church, and he even acquired new allies" (p. 64). Galileo's most direct patron was the future Pope Urban VIII, who showered him with "papal audiences, public accolades, costly gifts, a pension for Galileo's son -- [things] that most men could scarcely have hoped for... and did not so much as rebuke him for his Copernican sympathies when they first became obvious" (p. 64).

But Galileo was apparently something of a repugnant jerk, and "...his uncompromising demand for an absolute vindication of his theories precipitated the ecclesial consultation of 1616 that -- when it turned out that Galileo was unable to provide a single convincing proof of Copernicanism -- resulted in an injunction (of great gentleness, actually) admonishing Galileo against teaching the Copernican system. As for Galileo's decisive trial in 1633, it was, as Arthur Koestler has noted, 'not in the nature of a fatal collision between opposite philosophies of existence... but rather a clash of individual temperaments aggravated by unlucky coincidences' ('The Sleepwalkers,' New York: Macmillan, 1959, p. 426). Urban VIII himself had encouraged Galileo to write his 'Dialogue...', enjoining only that it include a statement to the effect that Copernican theory was just a hypothesis and that no scientist could pretend to know perfectly how God had disposed the worlds. Galileo did include such a statement in the dialogue, at its conclusion in fact, but decided to place it on the lips of a ponderously obtuse character whom he tellingly named Simplicio, a doctrinaire Aristotelian placed in the dialogue so as to provide a foil for the wise Copernican Salviati and a comical contrast to Sagredo, the clever scientific novice; and, to heap one insult upon another, Simplicio attributes the formula to an 'eminent and erudite personage, before whom one must needs fall silent.' This was, to all appearances, an unwarranted and tasteless affront to a cultured and generous friend, and Urban -- an Italian gentleman of his age, a prince of the church, and a man of enormous personal pride -- took umbrage." (p. 65)

(continued...)

Urban was right, Hart says: the Copernican model really was an unproved hypothesis, "and a defective one at that, and Galileo did not have either sufficient evidence to support it or a mathematical model that worked particularly well... It is not even certain that by 1632 he clearly recalled how the Copernican system worked. He did not avail himself (though he was perfectly and resentfully aware) of Kepler's elliptical planetary orbits, which were encumbered by none of the inconsistencies and internal corrections and physical impossibilities of the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems. Instead, he insisted... upon the circular movement of the planets, with all the mathematical convolutions this entailed. He had no better explanation than Copernicus for the absence of any observable stellar parallax... And his most cherished proof of terrestrial rotation -- the motion of the tides -- was manifestly ludicrous and entirely inconsistent with the observable tidal sequences (he dismissed Kepler's entirely correct lunar explanation of the tides as a silly conjecture concerning occult forces)." (pp. 65-66)

And here, then, is where the original passage comes in. Even granting that there was no concept, at the time, of any such thing as the modern scientific method, the reasonableness of Urban VIII maintaining that this was an unproved theory seems evident. What I found remarkable is that I've never, ever heard any of this -- like you, I'd assumed it hard fact that the Church wrongly censured Galileo out of blind biblical literalism, which turns out both not to be the case, and to be overly generous to Galileo himself.

I would guess my only comment here stems from my inability to respond intelligently. We all have assumptions and most of us rely entirely on credibility (faith), in determining who we believe. I know nothing of the lives of Galileo or Pope Urban VIII. I have no basis to assert or dispute the truth or fallacy of this writer's stance that conventional wisdom is false regarding the basic politics of this matter. I might be moved to read about Galileo on Wikipedia, but asside from then having a second opinion under my belt, I'd be little better off.

From what I recall, Mr. Hart uses no citations or end-notes in his work, so much of his scholarship remains unvarifiable, except through anecdote. And much like Dawkins, he writes editorially rather than scholarly. Both constitute appeals to emotion, and both resonate with a specific audience (entrenching existing prejudices). Mr. Hart makes a lot of claims in this work to support his positions, and I feel decidedly unable to aver or refute with them from any sort of expertise. Nor would I really desire to undertake the study required to master this broad range of topics sufficiently to handle them expertly.

I think to a large degree, this is the crux of my turmoil amongst contemporary editorial. To the un-studied (ignorant?), these works are indistinguishable from actual scholarship, and serve only to muddy the waters in moving forward. By and large, people as a whole lack the expertise to master the material required to effectively understand the myriad positions brought to bear in contemporary society, and are left instead to "throw their lot in" with those they trust, or those whose speech "resonates" with them.

I would only end therefore with the statement (towards both this work and Dawkin's) that I tend to default to a position of distrust towards someone attempting to sow discord (and especially conspiracy) regarding popular understanding surrounding an issue without serious scholarship to support the claims. Especially since, in a world of profound ignorance, it's so easy for someone with an agenda to lead people astray when so few are equipped to address the arguments at hand.

Hart is a recognized scholar of (especially Greek) patristics, theology and philosophy. He does provide endnotes to his work, including this section, and I've actually included some of them in the text above. The absence of a one-to-one fact-to-footnote ratio is probably because he's presenting documented history, which he doesn't feel needs re-corroborating. I'm presuming the historical record on Urban VIII is elsewhere clear, and of course we can read Galileo's 'Discourse' to see whether he does indeed put the "theory" language in the mouth of a simpleton. I don't think his intent is to sow discord; it's to correct the historical record against the popular understanding, in the service of a larger thesis.

I myself find the scholarship entirely credible. The book was published only recently; perhaps someone else will come along and refute it (as is customary in the course of scholarship), at which point I can revise my understanding. That said, my intent, I guess, is not to convince you, or anyone. I recorded it here, as I noted, because it was so surprising to me to hear the full history of this episode, and find it so unlike the received interpretation. I made a brief note to remind me; this discussion has actually helped me flesh out the note (so, thanks!).

Certainly, I was quite interested in this passage myself. I appreciate your willingness to correct my misconceptions. I look forward to enjoying this book someday myself.