>>It's time to put on our thinking caps and interpret the significance of what we've been
exploring! Unless it explains, history is trivial. Did you discover anything unexpected
this week that needs to be explained? In your explorations of Galileo's life and work, you
encountered many different, sometimes contradictory explanations. With Galileo, misconceptions
and urban legends abound. Interpretations of Galileo have varied immensely over time,
and continue to be disputed even today.
Imagine that you are at a coffeehouse talking about Galileo with a friend. Your conversation
touches upon some of the most common misconceptions and contested interpretations. These include
the following ideas: That Galileo defiantly said to himself, after his recantation, "And
yet it moves." That Galileo experimented with dropping balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
That Copernicanism was pronounced heretical by the Catholic Church. That Galileo was convicted
because of his belief in Copernicanism. Or that Galileo was convicted because he engaged
in theology. That he was tortured, burned at the stake, or had his eyes gouged out.
That the Catholic Church has apologized for its conduct in Galileo's trial. That we have
enough evidence to understand actually what happened with a high degree of confidence.
Or that scholars are agreed in reconstructing the Galileo Affair.
Are these conceptions widespread? How profoundly do they shape our perception of Galileo today?
Which of these do you and your friend agree are misconceptions? What is the kernel of
truth behind them? How would you reply to a friend who asks you about them? Are there
other common but disputed interpretations about Galileo you would add to this list?
Two of the most significant aspects of Galileo's work for the history of science are:
First, Galileo's trial is the paradigm example of the potentially stormy relations between
science and religion. And second, Galileo's advocacy of the power of mathematical methods
in science is a paradigm example of how novel interdisciplinary methodologies can be profoundly
underestimated by those with more conventional disciplinary training.
With respect to the trial, what is your explanation of the trial proceedings and of the verdict
passed upon Galileo? Suppose that you are now transported back to the early 1600s. You
will eventually become one of the cardinals who refuses to sign Galileo's sentence. But
at the moment, that sentence lies still in the future. The trial has not yet begun. Now,
trained as a theologian for the Church, you are asked by the pope to serve on an advisory
panel to manage the case of Galileo. What advice and counsel would you offer, given
the historical setting, that might avert the tragic events of the trial? What points would
you make? How would you couch your argument?
Finally, with respect to new methodologies, Galileo wrote: "Philosophy [or physics] is
written in this grand book--I mean the universe--which stands continually open to our gaze, but it
cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the
characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters
are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible
to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth."
How does this quotation from The Assayer illustrate Galileo's significance for the development
of a mathematical approach to physics? Why was the power of mathematical methods applied
to problems in physics so underestimated at the time? How has your understanding of Galileo
changed as a result of the readings this week? What is the most significant implication of
what you have learned this week? What is your interpretation?