Why was Galileo unable to defend himself?

[greswd]

Galileo was convicted of heresy and blasphemy for his heliocentric model.

However, during the trial, wouldn't Galileo be able to provide experimental evidence and physical proof that would vindicate him?

 

[n10Newton]

However, during the trial, wouldn't Galileo be able to provide experimental evidence and physical proof that would vindicate him?

He have to prove it in Religious community not the Scientific.

 

[SteamKing]

You are assuming that Galileo's accusers were rational men acting rationally. If one is unwilling to overthrow an existing dogma or world view, then the amount of evidence presented is irrelevant.

 

[greswd]

You are assuming that Galileo's accusers were rational men acting rationally. If one is unwilling to overthrow an existing dogma or world view, then the amount of evidence presented is irrelevant.

Well, if they had decided to shut themselves off.

Anyway, what was the evidence for heliocentrism at that time? How conclusive was it?

 

[n10Newton]

What you do when you Explain something well that is the Universal but the Front Learners don't want to hear that.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Galileo was convicted of heresy and blasphemy for his heliocentric model.

Galileo was accused of heresy but he was absolved of it when he agreed to "abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies..." In other words, he dodged the bullet by publicly renouncing the notion of Copernican Heliocentrism.

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 the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably 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, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

Blasphemy was never charged.

The 'crime' they actually pinned on him was that of rendering himself "vehemently suspect of heresy." What that means is that his writings about Copernicus sounded so much like he was supporting Copernicus that it had required a formal inquiry to sort the matter out. (Under direct questioning Galileo caved to fear and denied he ever subscribed to the idea of a heliocentric model. He claimed his thoughts about it were merely hypothetical. Anyone who reads his book knows better.) He was sentenced to "imprisonment" which actually took the form of a kind of lifelong probation where close watch would be paid to what he said and whom he talked to. Initially he was required to live in the household of a guy the inquisition trusted, but eventually he was allowed to return to his home, still constantly spied on, though.

What's interesting is that only seven of the ten cardinals who judged the evidence signed the sentence. The other three, it's assumed, would have absolved him of all wrongdoing.

Had Galileo made any attempt to convince the inquisition that the Earth revolved around the sun he would have simply proven he was a heretic and been tortured and authentically imprisoned.

 

[bahamagreen]

That which constitutes a prevailing argument has varied in different places and different times, and still does.

I know an attorney who works overseas. He was trained in the idea that a solid logical argument should prevail. What he found was that there are places where the winner of an argument is the one who keeps talking, says the most words, and has the last word.

A logical argument is based on a series of steps, each one firmly grounded and contingent on the previous step, the failure of a single step destroys the argument. This is like a math proof.

Some kinds of argument are based on a whole lot of "parallel" supports, stand alone supports - each of which contributes, the failure of anyone is not critical. This is like "a preponderance of the evidence" majority rules kind of argument.

Some arguments are much softer (debating style points).
Some are just whomever makes the most noise... (internet) :)

 

[zoobyshoe]

That which constitutes a prevailing argument has varied in different places and different times, and still does.

I know an attorney who works overseas. He was trained in the idea that a solid logical argument should prevail. What he found was that there are places where the winner of an argument is the one who keeps talking, says the most words, and has the last word.

A logical argument is based on a series of steps, each one firmly grounded and contingent on the previous step, the failure of a single step destroys the argument. This is like a math proof.

Some kinds of argument are based on a whole lot of "parallel" supports, stand alone supports - each of which contributes, the failure of anyone is not critical. This is like "a preponderance of the evidence" majority rules kind of argument.

Some arguments are much softer (debating style points).
Some are just whomever makes the most noise... (internet) :)

Bear in mind, Galileo ultimately won.

The Church eventually lifted the ban on Galileo's Dialogue in 1822, when it was common knowledge that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Still later, there were statements by the Vatican Council in the early 1960's and in 1979 that implied that Galileo was pardoned, and that he had suffered at the hands of the Church. Finally, in 1992, three years after Galileo Galilei's namesake spacecraft had been launched on its way to Jupiter, the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing.

http://4thefirsttime.blogspot.com/2007/09/1992-catholic-church-apologizes-to.html

The Catholic church has gone down in history as the bad guy in the Galileo affair. The solid logical argument did prevail, just not immediately.

 

[Chronos]

And all of this occurred during the golden age of techonolgical advances in torture devices courtesy of the inquisition. Galileo's reluctance to confront his accusers with mere facts was entirely understandable.

 

[256bits]

Galileo ( 1564-1642 ) lived before the Age of Enlightenment, 17th and 18th century, when tradition, faith, dogma began to be questioned, and scientific arguments took on a greater acceptance.

Galileo had no defensible argument. He was either a heretic or was not, based upon the nature of the trials and permissable evidence at that time.

In defence of the church, the perspective of social peace ( using the term loosely ) plays a part here. The church was part of the rulling class, or at least had a very close relationship. Following church doctrine meant you were a good citizen and by simple reasoning a loyal subject.

 

[greswd]

so what was the physical evidence that led Galileo to his idea? was there strong evidence at that time?

 

[CompuChip]

If I remember correctly, one of the major things was that it was quite tricky to calculate the motion of the planets. They seemed to switch directions every once in a while, and people had to resolve to contorted constructions of circles on circles on circles ... to explain this. Assuming that all planets, including the earth, revolve around the sun in a normal circular (actually, elliptic) motion, resolves all that at once.

 

[Chronos]

The major influence on Galileo in supporting heliocentrism was philosophical. He was charmed by the idea the planets moved in simple circles. His evidence was, however, not compelling. His observations of the moons of Juptiter [which were rather obviously orbiting Jupiter] and the moon-like phases of Venus would have favored his case, but, were not conclusive. Furthermore, these observations required use of the telescope, which was regarded with ambivalence by the church. Actually, Galileo did not incur the wrath of the church until 1632 when he published 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems', which included a gratuitous slap at his former friend Pope Urban VIII. This led to his trial for suspicion of heresy. He had been investigated by the inquistion in 1615, but absolved of any wrongdoing in that case. The first compelling evidence favoring heliocentrism was probably Bessel's discovery of stellar parallax in 1832.

 

[zoobyshoe]

so what was the physical evidence that led Galileo to his idea? was there strong evidence at that time?

Galileo was persuaded by Copernicus' logic in interpreting the physical evidence. The observations Copernicus drew on didn't contain any revolutionary new information. He was simply able to think outside the box and envision a pattern that made a great deal more sense in explaining what we see in the sky than the other "chief world system," which was subscribed to by the followers of Aristotle, who were very influential in the Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

Galileo's professional life was all about debunking the Aristotelian Natural Philosophers. Those Philosophers, however, had long been something like pets or mascots of the Catholic Church. The Church liked their vision of the heavens as an embodiment of perfection. Regardless, the Church was intrigued by both Copernicus and Galileo at first, in a positive way. Seeing this, the Aristotelians, who feared losing their favored status, began collecting bits of scripture that could be taken as assertions that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around the earth. Armed with these, they poisoned as many minds in the Church as they could against Copernicus/Galileo, saying he was contradicting scripture.

 

[Permanence]

At the time you must understand that science was expected to be kept compatible with Christian theology. Developing ideas that contradicted the Church was one thing, but the notion of mocking the Church would not be tolerated.

Galileo essentially stole credit for the invention and innovation of the Telescope. Upon observing the rough surface of the moon he did not simply record his observations, he decided to take shots at the bible. He declared, "The astronomical language of the Bible [was] designed for the comprehension of the ignorant". That comment is was really got him into trouble, he was summoned into rome in 1616 by a papal admonition. Instead of behaving himself, he then decided to publish another text which essentially stated Copernicus was correct and Ptolemy was wrong. The inquisition then formally tried him. One does not simply throw numbers at the Inquisition and expect to walk away, he was convicted and forced to recant.

 

[NemoReally]

Have a look at page 43 of Longair's book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bA9Lp2GH6OEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false . In fact, buy a copy of his book! There were some reasonable (for the time) scientific arguments against the heliocentric model ...

 

[greswd]

One does not simply throw numbers at the Inquisition and expect to walk away, he was convicted and forced to recant.

Of course everyone had to adhere to church doctrine, but what numbers (if any) did he throw at the church?

 

[Permanence]

Of course everyone had to adhere to church doctrine, but what numbers (if any) did he throw at the church?

So after the papal admonition, he went ahead and published Dialogue on the two main world systems (1632). In the book he pretended to be bringing light to both sides of the argument, but essentially he was writing to say Ptolemy was wrong.

By numbers I meant proofs and anything logical in nature. He had brought up some major points, that were scientific in nature, while arguing for Copernicus. I'm not too familiar with the entire trial, but I was getting at the idea that he couldn't expect to go into that trial and say here is the logic and reasoning behind my notions, I'll be on my way.

 

[NemoReally]

So after the papal admonition, he went ahead and published Dialogue on the two main world systems (1632). In the book he pretended to be bringing light to both sides of the argument, but essentially he was writing to say Ptolemy was wrong.

By numbers I meant proofs and anything logical in nature. He had brought up some major points, that were scientific in nature, while arguing for Copernicus. I'm not too familiar with the entire trial, but I was getting at the idea that he couldn't expect to go into that trial and say here is the logic and reasoning behind my notions, I'll be on my way.

No, he couldn't - Galileo wasn't the only one using logic and reasoning. There were a number of valid arguments against the Copernican model and both alternative explanations for some observations and lack of explanation for others in the Copernican model. Several of the people examining Galileo's arguments would likely have been as well versed as Galileo in logic and reasoning, but they would have been arguing from the POV that the Bible and the Ptolemaic system were valid (ie, they provided their axiomatic base) - it's fairly standard to assume the validity of the status quo and for arguments against it to carry the burden of proof.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Earth-centric, epicyclic model was capable of giving good agreement with observation and could, in principle, be refined to give more exact agreement.

 

[BobG]

Actually, Galileo did not incur the wrath of the church until 1632 when he published 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems', which included a gratuitous slap at his former friend Pope Urban VIII. This led to his trial for suspicion of heresy. He had been investigated by the inquistion in 1615, but absolved of any wrongdoing in that case.

This was the selling point. This was in the preface introducing the points that Galileo intended to discuss. In actuality, claiming this was intended as an insult to the Pope was pretty thin, but if enough people believed it was an insult, then the Pope had to act on it, whether he believed it to be an insult or not. The Pope had problems of his own and standing up for Galileo would have just made his own problems worse. In other words, the church really did do Galileo wrong.

Who knows what the motivation for persecuting him was. Different members of the church had different views on celestial mechanics - a Copernican model, a Ptolemaic model, and Tycho Brahe's model (that said the Sun and Moon orbited the Earth, while the planets orbited the Sun). There were legitimate arguments for and against each at the time, but the arguments tended to be as much personal attacks on people holding opposing view points as they were logical discussions.

In any event, the actual offense Galileo was found guilty of wasn't as important as finding him guilty of something, with his advocacy of the Copernican model being only one of his offenses.

Defending himself with physical evidence or logic really would have been inadequate for his era. He really needed his allies to mount more substantial personal attacks on his enemies and that involved risk. Personal attacks were not only decided by reputation, but winning these helped a person's reputation while losing these damaged a person's reputation. It wasn't an age dominated by science.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... which included a gratuitous slap at his former friend Pope Urban VIII ...

I'm glad someone mentioned this; Pope Urban VIII admired Galileo, and the two even had dinner semi-frequently. Galileo was given permission to write about the Copernican Theory, so long as he treated it as a hypothesis, and didn't try to make any bold claims. However, in Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World, he included an argument promoted by a character named Simplicio (which can be translated to "simple minded"). The argument was one for the omnipotence of God, which Galileo then dismantled and more or less destroyed in the rest of his book.

This argument was personally introduced to Galileo by Pope Urban VIII himself. As you can probably tell, the Pope no longer felt too inclined to defend Galileo. Thus the persecution.

The lesson for today is that it all comes down to who you know, and how well you treat them

 

[greswd]

Have a look at page 43 of Longair's book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bA9Lp2GH6OEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false . In fact, buy a copy of his book! There were some reasonable (for the time) scientific arguments against the heliocentric model ...

that sounds quite interesting.

 

[lpetrich]

I know an attorney who works overseas. He was trained in the idea that a solid logical argument should prevail. What he found was that there are places where the winner of an argument is the one who keeps talking, says the most words, and has the last word.

That reminds me of this joke about what a lawyer is to do:

If the law is on your side, pound on the law.
If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
If neither is on your side, pound on the table.

So bahamagreen's friend may have expected to win by pounding on the facts and the law, while in those places, one wins by pounding on the table.


Back to Galileo and what he might have argued. I think that he had laid out many of the arguments that he could, both scientific and theological. Yes, theological. Some of his opponents charged that heliocentrism was contrary to the Bible, noting geocentrist parts of the Bible. The best-known of these is where Joshua told the Sun and the Moon to stop moving and not the Earth when he wanted to win one of his battles (Joshua 10:12-13).

Galileo's response was to argue Biblical geocentrism away as allegorical or metaphorical or phenomenological, as far as I can tell. He argued that the Holy Spirit tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Arguing away embarrassments as allegorical was already an old practice by then. Theologians who believed in an abstract sort of God had argued away the theological anthropomorphisms in the Bible, and I'm sure that Biblical flat-earthism was also argued away.

Even some pagans did allegorical interpretation. From Plutarch • Isis and Osiris (Part*1 of 5):

Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related.

The authors of the Bible had little interest in cosmology, so one has to infer their beliefs from off-hand remarks here and there. But 1 Enoch, a Hellenistic-era book that did not make the canonical cut, goes into much more detail, and it clarifies the cosmology in the Bible (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm). The Earth is flat, and the sky an inverted bowl over it. The celestial bodies move on its surface, and travel along the rim of the bowl from the setting places to their rising places. There is a jail for celestial bodies that dawdle.

 

[epenguin]

Defend himself with experimental evidence? I'm not sure you do that in an Inquisitorial system. You have already committed the crime of being accused and you don't want to make things worse for yourself.

"The past is another country, they do things differently there."

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't know how historically robust Albert Camus' "An Absurd Reasoning" is, but this thread reminded me of something he said:

Galileo, who held a scientific truth of great importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did right. That truth was not worth the stake.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't know how historically robust Albert Camus' "An Absurd Reasoning" is, but this thread reminded me of something he said:

Galileo, who held a scientific truth of great importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did right. That truth was not worth the stake.

I can relate with Galileo. Many years ago, I was pointing out things that were wrong at work. The powers that be, would tell me to shut up, as they were in charge, and my ideas were heresy. Later, the powers that be, had apparently dwelled on what I'd said, and would repeat what I'd said, at a future date, claiming it to be their revelation.

I worked the system, after I figured that out.

----------------------------
ps. I'm somewhat illiterate, and have only read Camus' "The Plague".

 

[HallsofIvy]

There is an interesting article in the latest "Scientific American" titled "The Case against Copernicus". It asserts that it was the scientists of the day who disagreed with Copernicus, not the church. Of course, Galileo's laws of motion were not known at that time and it was believed that some force would have to act on a "massive" body in order to for it to keep moving. So the motion of the planets was presumed to be due to the fact that the planets were made of some "ethereal" matter that did not have mass. But the clearly massive Earth could not move.

Copernicus' response to those arguments was that the Earth moved through "divine action"!

 

[NemoReally]

There is an interesting article in the latest "Scientific American" titled "The Case against Copernicus". It asserts that it was the scientists of the day who disagreed with Copernicus, not the church. Of course, Galileo's laws of motion were not known at that time and it was believed that some force would have to act on a "massive" body in order to for it to keep moving. So the motion of the planets was presumed to be due to the fact that the planets were made of some "ethereal" matter that did not have mass. But the clearly massive Earth could not move.

Copernicus' response to those arguments was that the Earth moved through "divine action"!

One of the things that the history of science has taught me is that things are rarely as clear as they are often portrayed to be. For example, Brahe had proposed an intermediate system in which the Moon and the Sun revolved around the Earth (one of the reasons being the one you gave) and the planets revolved around the Sun. Several Jesuit astronomers had noted Galileo's observations - with disbelief at first until they replicated them (eg, Clavius) - and had turned to the Tychonian system as a good alternative to the Standard Model(!) before Galileo's trial. One of the reasons Kepler turned to elliptical orbits was that a heliocentric circular orbit model wasn't that much better (if at all) than a geocentric circular model in terms of fitting the data. Interestingly, Galileo was aware of Kepler's ideas but stuck to the circular model in the Dialogue (I've only had a quick glance through the Dialogue and I'm more than willing to be corrected on this). In addition, the Dialogue had a different title (Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea) prior to publication - his theory of tides forms Day 4 of the dialogue and is wrong.