Speaker philosophizes over Galileo 
November 16, 2009 by Pashtana Usufzy
Scientist’s controversial life and heresy trial examined
A discussion of the life and historic trial of Galileo Galilei dissected the scientist’s discoveries and the modern reception to his ideas.
UNLV philosophy chair emeritus Maurice Finocchiaro continued the university’s celebration of the International Year of Astronomy Thursday, hosting a University Forum lecture titled “Galileo’s Telescopic Discoveries, 1609-2009: Repercussions and Lessons” in a crowded Barrick Museum.
More than 150 people attended the night’s lecture, looking to hear more details about the life of the scientific legend from someone who has written several books on the subject matter.
“You rarely today have that kind of situation, where the intellectual community sits down and tries to [figure] it out,” said philosophy department chair Todd Jones, referring to the intellectual discourse in Galileo’s time.
Students also attended, some purely out of interest and others for class.
“I’m glad I came nonethless,” said Ashley Moreno, a junior who said attending the lecture was an extra credit opportunity for her Italian course.
Finocchiaro focused the discussion largely on Galileo’s relationship to the Catholic Church and the impact of the researcher’s book “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” on his relationship to Pope Urban VIII.
He said Galileo’s world was turned upside down in 1633 when he was forced to stand trial for heresy due to his supposed advocacy of a heliocentric world in his book, despite a friendly reminder from the pope to remain neutral.
“What the church did to Galileo was mistaken and wrong,” he said, discussing the decision to force Galileo to recant his assertions and place him under house arrest.
Churchgoers and community members also attended the discussion, anxious to hear more about one of the first defenses of the argument for a heliocentric universe.
“Although Galileo was aware of the explosive nature of this issue, he found that he could not remain silent,” Finoacchiaro said of Galileo’s defense of Copernicus’ theories.
Refutation of “the scriptual claims” and the willingness to answer “the physical, mechanical objections” of other scientists set Galileo apart, Finocchiaro said.
Moreno said she enjoyed the lecture, even though “it was very intense.”
“To hear that he was actually condemned for [his views]…” she said, expressing disappointment.
She added that the historical basis of the lecture added to what she thinks was the more basic information on Galileo that she entered the lecture with.
“I mean, honestly, I feel now that I had very limited knowledge,” she said.
Finocchiaro said Galileo deserves to be appropriately defended to the public, many of whom still do not understand his ideas or the goals of his research.
“The proper defense of Galileo should have the reasoned, critical, judicial, open-minded and fair-minded character which his own defense of Copernicus had,” Finocchiaro said, reading from a slide on his presentation as the audience looked on.
To this day, people still battle over Galileo, he said, adding that it seems that the church has taken up defense of Galileo as those who used to support him have begun to attack his ideas.
“As the church was trying to [reinvent] him,” he said, mentioning the efforts of Pope John Paul II in the early 1990s to clear Galileo’s reputation as a heretic, “[scholars] were trying to reconvict him.”
Jones said the discussion of what happened during the trial and afterward is necessary due to Galileo’s significance in science and philosophy.
“It’s a real sort of important event in scientific history… for 400 years since then, people have been arguing,” Jones said.
Finocchiaro said he believes there is still much left to learn about the universe, despite Galileo’s profound discoveries.
“Have we really made progress if we can sense that our ignorance exceeds our knowledge?” he asked, saying that he does not have a well-developed answer but still believes that researching is worth the effort.
“On the basis of this knowledge,” he said. “we can solve everything, [at least] more than we could before.”
Did Galileo Galilei get a fair trial?
No, but some have argued that Galileo got a fair trial for the conditions of his time. Before I answer that, here is another question.
Was the trial of Galileo about the conflict between science and religion?
No. Galileo was charged with breaking the law in 1632 and had his trial in 1633. The legal issues at his trial had nothing to do with science or religion. It had everything to do with the conflict between oppressive government and the sovereign individual.
The trial of Galileo is one of the three most famous (or infamous) trials in history, the others being the trial of Socrates and the trial of Jesus Christ. All these trials are about the power of the state to demand obedience from sovereign individuals. This goes for practically every well-known trial in history, including the trials of Joan of Arc, Martha Stewart, Oscar Wilde, Alfred Dreyfus, the Salem witch trials, Robert Oppenheimer, Susan B. Anthony, Ed Rosenthal, and Giordano Bruno.
The “conflict” of science versus religion is an intellectual conflict. There is nothing wrong with intellectual conflict, the clash of ideas bring us closer to the truth. Galileo himself said in his famous Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615) that both science and religion could live together in peace.
Did Galileo get a fair trial for the conditions of his time?
Before I answer that, let me say that it is very important for free people to study the trial of Galileo and other famous trials of history. That’s because, in all these trials, the government claimed they were delivering justice. People need to learn the lessons of history.
Here are some of the injustices against Galileo at his trial:
He didn’t have a defense lawyer.
He didn’t have the right to see the charges against him, confront adverse witnesses, or obtain his own witnesses.
He didn’t have a jury of his peers.
He didn’t even have a jury.
His judges were not impartial.
His trial was not held in public.
His trial was not held in the location were the alleged crime had been committed. It should have been held in Florence, his home area, rather than in Rome.
He didn’t have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The prosecution didn’t have to get a unanimous verdict (they only got 7 of 10 judges to vote guilty).
He did not have the right against self-incrimination.
The prosecution did not have to obtain an indictment from a grand jury.
He was threatened with cruel and unusual punishment, even though he was 69 years old and in poor health.
He wasn’t offered bail, even though he wasn’t a flight risk.
He freedom of speech and freedom of the press rights were violated.
The right of separation of church and state did not protect him. The Church and the State was the same thing.
His right to contract with book publishers was violated.
His property rights were violated.
He had no criminal intent.
His alleged “crime” did not have a victim.
OK, but did Galileo get a fair trial for the conditions of his time?
No, he did not.
In 1616, the Church expanded the “faith and morals” clause of the Council of Trent in the same way that modern liberals expand the “general welfare” clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Church made a declaration that the Copernican theory of the earth’s motion around the sun was false and heretical, even though motions of planets had nothing to do with salvation. Before 1616, Galileo had adopted the Copernican theory, modified it, and strengthened it. The Church declaration did allow the Copernican theory to be debated hypothetically, or used as a mathematical calculating device. The Church ordered the famous book by Nicolas Copernicus to be suspended until corrected. The Church also suspended another book by Diego de Zuniga, and totally banned a book by Paolo Foscarini. The Church declaration did not mention Galileo, nor mention his book Letters on Sunspots (1613), which said in it that the earth moved around the sun.
Galileo obtained a signed notarized letter from the prominent Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine that confirmed Galileo was not being admonished in any way, and that allowed him to debate Copernicus hypothetically, or use his theory as a mathematical calculating device.
In 1623, Galileo went down to Rome to visit the new Pope Urban VIII. Pope Urban told Galileo he could write a book if there was a fair and hypothetical discussion of the Copernican theory.
A few years later, Galileo finished his book. His book was a fictional dialogue between three people debating the theories of Copernicus. He then submitted his book to the Church censors who had to approve the book before it was published. He also went back to Rome in 1630 to visit the Pope again and discuss his book.
In 1632, after some changes, the book was published to widespread acclaim. It was called the Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems. 1000 copies were printed, an enormous number for the time, and they were sold out at once.
Two months later, Galileo was charged with breaking the law and ordered to come to Rome to stand trial. Galileo’s book was banned and its price on the black market went up to 10 times over the face value.
In 1633, Galileo went to Rome to stand trial.
Seven Things Not Fair, Even For the Conditions of the Time
1)
Since the book was approved and licensed by the Church itself, and Galileo was not an accredited expert on theology, the Church itself was at fault for the book, if anyone was. Galileo went through the proper channels of the time to get his work published. It’s important to remember that “the Church” at this time is the same thing as “the government”, so this fault of the Church was really a fault of the government.
2)
One of the charges against Galileo was that the preface was written in a different font than the rest of the book. Besides this being a frivolous charge, the publisher, not Galileo, decided the font and it was customary at the time for the preface to be in a different font than the body of a book. Nor did the Church censor specify what fonts were to be used.
3)
Galileo was accused of holding that the Copernican theory was true in his book, rather than just discussing it hypothetically. But Galileo’s book was a work of fiction and he never stated that he believed the earth moved.
Some argued that the character Salviati in the book held that the earth moved, and that this character represented Galileo. But the book does not say which characters and statements represented Galileo and which do not. No character in the book said the earth moved, while some said the earth did not move.
Some argued that the arguments contained in the book favored Copernicus over the Church’s position. But since the Copernicus position is true and the Church position is false, it is only natural that the arguments favoring Copernicus would be stronger.
4)
The decree of 1616 stated that the to believe the Sun was motionless was heretical. But Galileo argued in his book that the Sun moved because it rotated on its axis. Galileo also denied the “third motion” of the earth postulated by Copernicus. And the decree of 1616 never says arguing the earth moved was heretical, only that it was erroneous in faith.
5)
About halfway through the trail, when it looked like Galileo was winning, he was threatened extra-judicially. He was told he would be tortured if he didn’t confess.
6)
Halfway through Galileo’s trial, the original charges were thrown out, and a new, more serious charge was substituted. A switcheroo.
7)
As stated above, Galileo had a signed notarized document that permitted him to discuss Copernican theory hypothetically. But suddenly, an unsigned un-notarized document appeared that said Galileo could not discuss the Copernican theory “in any way whatsoever”.
The unsigned, un-notarized document should not have been permitted to be introduced as evidence, but it was. This document was used to convict Galileo. The Church claimed that Galileo got his license to publish his book under false pretenses, which is totally false. There is no evidence that Galileo had ever seen of heard of this document. The documented was probably planted. Even if it was not planted, it was not legitimate evidence.
Some have argued that Galileo did not prove that the Copernican theory was true. That’s correct, but the truth was not an issue at Galileo’s trial. Prior to his trial, Galileo has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the earth moved around the sun, and arguably by clear and convincing evidence, as most astronomers accepted his views within 20 years.
Conclusion
The trial of Galileo is very significant because it illustrates how destructive oppressive government can be. Everyone should study it.
James Madison, alluding to the trial of Galileo, said:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Important Core Reading for a Free, Moral, and Orderly Society
1) Books about the trial of Galileo
2) Books by Stillman Drake, the leading modern authority on Galileo
Response to Rolf:
Fortunately, we live in a country where the government allows people to express and publish whatever they want–even the most ridiculous and stupid theories, such as:
1) 9/11 was an inside job
2) The President is not a natural born citizen.
3) Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of scientists and government officials throughout the world.
Even though these “theories” are very destructive, no one has ever been denied their right to express their kooky ideas.
Rolf,
Most of the rights you said that Galileo are currently granted but did not exist back then but I have to agree that his trial was not fair.
Manny,
So far number three sounds more true than false but I do agree that the other two are hoaxes. If you haven’t looked at the news lately, there are thousands of emails sent by global warming scientists that were leaked (or taken by a hacker) and released that show that there are significant problems with the science behind global warming. Why would they dump data if it backed up what they said? Why would they use a “trick” to change data in thier models?
There are many more problems but here is a common sense one. If humans are the cause of global warming and our emition of carbon dioxide is warming the earth, then why did the earth cool after 1998 even though emissions increased?
Another problem I see is what benefit do we expect from cutting our emissions? Water vapor is about 60-70% of all green houses gases, carbon is about 25%, methane is about 9% and then other gases. Why are we not doing anything about water vapor when it is the largest culprit (and has nothing to do with human activity)? Why aren’t they looking at methane which is 21 times more effective than carbon at holding in heat?
The only answer is that those scientists pushing global warming don’t really think that humans are the cause they just see a great way to make a lot of money (ex. Al Gore, there is a great article in the NY Times about this).
Well I’ve said enough. If you want more information look at the opinion section, there are several articles there about global warming and I have cited to a lot of articles there to back up my arguments (including the one about Al Gore). I just didn’t feel like reposting them here.