"He's hated/persecuted, he must be right!"

Actually, nobody really laughed at Galileo. Even at his time, he was a highly respected scholar and researcher; he got involved in controversies with other researchers, of course — not only over the geocentrism issue, but also for example over the nature of comets — but he was internationally recognized as one of the leading scientists of his time. His many contributions were certainly not ignored during his life; and as for the inquisitors, well, I doubt that they laughed either.

A better example of a misunderstood scientist might perhaps be Alfred Wegener, whose ideas and results about continental drift were indeed met with ridicule...

edited 9th Oct '12 3:02:25 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I thought this thread was about racism or something.

Wasn't the real reason Galileo was imprisoned was because he was essentially trying to pass his stuff as concrete fact, despite the fact he didn't have adequate proof or approval from fellow scientists, and only right by luck?

edited 9th Oct '12 6:02:57 PM by washington214

I think it was because he was basically making fun of the pope in his book. :p

The pope let him write his book, so long as he put the Geocentric point of view in it. So Galileo did! ...And made a dialogue where the holder of the POV was a buffoon.

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᔪᐃᑦᑐᖅ

I am tempted to inboke Godwin's law here.

They do have medals for almost, and they're called silver!

There is more about Galileo in Eric Flint's 1632-verse book, called, funnily enough, 1634: The Galileo Affair. All of the historical background, i.e. everything that takes place before Grantville lands on the Thuringia region of Germany like a fist from god, is a spot on portrayal of exactly how Galileo ended up in such deep shit. In short, he was a bit of a dick. And that is putting it RATHER mildly.

I learned more from that book and subsequent research than I ever learned about Galileo on school.

Nah, not really. He did observe the phases of Venus and the satellites of Jupiter, as well as craters on the Moon and so on; and he concluded correctly that this disproved a number of assumptions of Aristotelian cosmology. Also, his physics assertions — which were based on observation and experimentation — were definitely spot-on. Now, I heard different opinions about whether the early forms of heliocentrism were actually simpler than the corresponding forms of geocentrism, and I honestly don't know either nearly well enough to be able to tell; but the traditional system that the Church defended asserted a sharp distinction between the earthly world, that was subject to decay and change, and the heavenly spheres, which were eternal, immutable and perfect, and moved following circles because the circle is the most perfect of paths.

This point of view was demolished by Galileo's observations and writings: he demonstrated very convincingly that the same physical rules apply on earth and outside it, and that the physical heavens are as subject to change, imperfection and decay as the earth (which, by the way, also destroyed the idea — still rather common at the time — that the religious Heaven is, well, a material place in the sky.)

And yes, in his Dialogue the character who defends the Aristotelian conception could perhaps be taken to represent the Pope and ends up sounding like an idiot. But obviously, that's not valid grounds for jailing people and threatening them with torture.

edited 13th Oct '12 10:19:01 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Simplicio, the character you are referring to, was basically Pope Urban VIII`

`http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VIII.

Who was a Barberini first and a Pope second. Of which family^ the Italians had this to say:

"quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt Barberini"

"what the barbarians did not do, the Barberini did."

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barberini

edited 13th Oct '12 12:02:28 PM by TamH70

I heard some suggest that it might not have been Galileo's plan to compare that character to the Pope — Wikipedia, for example, says that

and quotes a few sources for that. I dunno.

EDIT: But yeah, the fact that "Simplicio" sounds a bit like "Semplicione" (Italian for "Simpleton") probably did not help.

edited 13th Oct '12 1:24:03 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Galileo would have said anything at the time to avoid the Office of the Inquisition really going to town on him.

Aww man you beat me to it. This argument is what's known as The Galileo Gambit. Another variation used in politics is when some group points to opposition as proof of how sound their position is. This would be like someone placing a twig on their head and claiming they're a tree. Somebody telling them they're just a moron who puts twigs on his or head becomes proof to them that their tree disguise is working.

edited 20th Oct '12 11:22:31 PM by CodyTheHeadlessBoy

"If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking"- George S. Patton

I think I know what I'm doing for Halloween this year!

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

It's an aspect of correlation problems with the human brain. Namely, that if you correlate how something is treated, you'll know if that something is correct or not. The only thing that makes something is correct is being correct, but figuring out what's correct tends to take time and resources so it's less popular than the correlation heuristic.

Fight smart, not fair.