Table Of ContentDeFenDIng CoPernICus anD galIleo
Boston stuDIes In the PhIlosoPhy oF sCIenCe
Editors
roBert s. Cohen, Boston University
JÜrgen renn, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science
Kostas gaVroglu, University of Athens
Editorial Advisory Board
thoMas F. glICK, Boston University
aDolF grÜnBauM, University of Pittsburgh
sylVan s. sChWeBer, Brandeis University
John J. staChel, Boston University
MarX W. WartoFsKy†, (Editor 1960–1997)
VoluMe 280
DeFenDIng CoPernICus
anD galIleo
Critical reasoning in the two affairs
Maurice a. Finocchiaro
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Maurice a. Finocchiaro
university of nevada, las Vegas
las Vegas, nV
usa
[email protected]
IsBn 978-90-481-3200-3 e-IsBn 978-90-481-3201-0
DoI 10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0
springer Dordrecht heidelberg london new york
library of Congress Control number: 2009931215
© springer science+Business Media B.V. 2010
no part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written
permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose
of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Printed on acid-free paper
springer is part of springer science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments ...................................................................... ix
Introduction: A Galilean Approach to the Galileo Affair ............................ xiii
Part I Defending Copernicus ...................................................................... 1
1 The Geostatic World View ........................................................................ 3
1.1 terminology ....................................................................................... 3
1.2 Cosmology ......................................................................................... 4
1.3 Physics ............................................................................................... 10
1.4 astronomy .......................................................................................... 12
2 The Copernican Controversy ................................................................... 21
2.1 Copernicus’s Innovation .................................................................... 21
2.2 the anti-Copernican arguments ....................................................... 24
2.3 responses to Copernicanism ............................................................. 34
3 Galileo’s Stances Toward Copernican Astronomy ................................. 37
3.1 historical testing of Methodological Models ................................... 37
3.2 Conceptual Clarifications ................................................................... 38
3.3 historiographical Considerations ....................................................... 43
3.4 Periodization ...................................................................................... 45
3.5 Indirect Pursuit (Before 1609) ........................................................... 46
3.6 Full-Fledged Pursuit (1609–1616) ..................................................... 51
3.7 the Post-1616 Period ......................................................................... 61
3.8 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 63
4 Galilean Critiques of the Biblical Objection .......................................... 65
4.1 Preliminary Considerations ................................................................ 65
4.2 Copernicanism and scripture ............................................................. 69
v
vi Contents
4.3 Ingoli ................................................................................................ 72
4.4 Foscarini ........................................................................................... 76
4.5 galileo .............................................................................................. 79
4.6 Campanella ...................................................................................... 89
4.7 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 93
5 Galileo on the Mathematical Physics of Terrestrial Extrusion ............. 97
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 97
5.2 the extruding Power of Whirling .................................................... 99
5.3 restatement of the anti-Copernican argument ................................ 101
5.4 tangential extrusion Versus secant Fall .......................................... 102
5.5 linear Versus angular speed ........................................................... 103
5.6 Physical Processes Versus Mathematical entities ............................ 105
5.7 escape extrusion Versus orbital extrusion ...................................... 106
5.8 exsecants Versus tangents, or achilles and the tortoise ................. 108
5.9 Distance Fallen, Distance to Be Fallen, and speeds of Fall ............ 112
5.10 exsecants Versus exsecants .............................................................. 113
5.11 a Definition of Physical–Mathematical reasoning ......................... 114
5.12 galileo’s reflections on Physical–Mathematical reasoning ........... 115
6 Galilean Rationality in the Copernican Revolution ............................... 121
6.1 the Copernican revolution and the role of Criticism .................... 121
6.2 Copernicus and explanatory Coherence .......................................... 123
6.3 Physics and reasoning ..................................................................... 124
6.4 the telescope and the role of Judgment ......................................... 129
6.5 Critical reasoning ............................................................................ 132
Part II Defending Galileo ............................................................................ 135
7 The Trial of Galileo, 1613–1633 ............................................................... 137
7.1 the earlier Proceedings and the Condemnation
of Copernicanism ............................................................................. 138
7.2 the later Proceedings and the Condemnation of galileo ................ 143
8 The Galileo Affair, 1633–1992 .................................................................. 155
8.1 the Condemnation of galileo (1633) ............................................... 156
8.2 Diffusion of the news (1633–1651) ................................................. 161
8.3 emblematic reactions (1633–1642) ................................................ 163
8.4 Polarizations (1633–1661) ................................................................ 166
8.5 Compromises (1654–1704) .............................................................. 171
8.6 Myth-making or enlightenment? (1709–1777) ................................ 175
8.7 Incompetence or enlightenment? (1740–1758) ............................... 179
Contents vii
8.8 new Criticism (1770–1797) .......................................................... 185
8.9 napoleonic Wars and trials (1810–1821) ..................................... 188
8.10 the settele affair (1820) ............................................................... 190
8.11 the torture Question and the Demythologizing
approach (1835–1867) .................................................................. 195
8.12 the Documentation of Impropriety (1867–1879) ......................... 198
8.13 theological Developments (1893–1912) ....................................... 203
8.14 tricentennial rehabilitation (1941–1947) ..................................... 207
8.15 secular Indictments (1947–1959) .................................................. 211
8.16 the Paschini affair (1941–1979)................................................... 216
8.17 John Paul II’s rehabilitation (1979–1992) .................................... 220
9 Galileo Right for the Wrong Reasons? .................................................. 229
9.1 the Problem ................................................................................... 229
9.2 the Dialogue and Its Critics .......................................................... 235
9.3 the Letter to Christina and Its Critics ........................................... 243
9.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 248
10 Galileo as a Bad Theologian? ................................................................. 251
10.1 relative Calm (1633–1784) ........................................................... 252
10.2 Mallet du Pan’s thesis (1784) ....................................................... 254
10.3 text of an apocryphal letter (1785) ............................................. 256
10.4 gaetani’s Forgery ........................................................................... 258
10.5 Diffusion and Development of a Myth (1790–1908) .................... 260
10.6 Metamorphosis of the Myth (1909–1959) ..................................... 273
10.7 Demise of the Myth (1979–1992) .................................................. 274
10.8 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 275
11 Galileo as a Bad Epistemologist? ........................................................... 277
11.1 Introduction: Duhem on saving the Phenomena ........................... 277
11.2 unificationism ................................................................................ 280
11.3 the Condemnation of galileo ........................................................ 281
11.4 Metaphysics ................................................................................... 282
11.5 Biblical authority .......................................................................... 284
11.6 Certainty ......................................................................................... 286
11.7 Proof strategies .............................................................................. 287
11.8 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 289
12 Galileo as a Symbol of Science Versus Religion? ................................. 291
12.1 the “Interaction” Between “science” and “religion” .................. 291
12.2 Conflictual accounts ...................................................................... 293
12.3 John Paul II’s harmony thesis ...................................................... 296
12.4 Morpurgo-tagliabue’s Version of harmony .................................. 298
viii Contents
12.5 Feyerabend’s Version of Conflict ................................................... 300
12.6 heresy or Disobedience? ............................................................... 301
12.7 science Versus religion in the subsequent affair? ....................... 305
12.8 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 313
Selected Bibliography ..................................................................................... 315
Index ................................................................................................................. 339
Preface and Acknowledgments
the literature on the galileo affair is so extensive that it may be useful to preface
this book with a sketch of the author’s own view of its scope, orientation, theme,
argument, thesis, and limitations. It will also be useful to clarify how this book dif-
fers from the author’s earlier books. the sketch and the clarification will hopefully
help the reader understand what is distinctive about this book vis-à-vis the many
others on the subject.
First, there is the topical and chronological scope of this book. the subject mat-
ter is the Galileo affair in its twofold connotation: the original affair climaxing with
the trial and condemnation of galileo by the Inquisition in 1633, and the subse-
quent controversy following his condemnation and acquiring a life of its own and
continuing to our own day.
next, the book stresses a particular, although crucial, conceptual orientation,
namely the notion of critical reasoning. here, critical reasoning means reasoning
aimed at the interpretation, evaluation, or self-reflective presentation of arguments;
and an argument is a piece reasoning that justifies a conclusion by supporting it
with reasons or defending it from objections. In this sense, the book provides a
case study of the role of critical reasoning in the Copernican revolution and the
galileo affair.
the book’s title attempts to capture a simple but elegant theme meant to avoid
both oversimplifications and inflated complications: that an essential aspect of the
Copernican revolution was the need to defend the geokinetic hypothesis from
many apparently conclusive objections; that an essential aspect of galileo’s work
consisted of undertaking and carrying out such a defense; that an essential aspect
of the trial of galileo was the Church’s attempt to stop his defense of Copernicus;
that an essential aspect of the subsequent galileo affair has been the emergence of
a host of objections to his defense of Copernicus; and that equally essential is the
fact that galileo has been or can be defended from such objections. Finally, the title
is also meant to suggest the project of comparing and contrasting galileo’s defense
of Copernicus and the defense of galileo, with an eye toward understanding both
affairs better, as well as toward providing the groundwork and the framework for a
resolution of the second affair or ongoing controversy.
less obvious than this subject matter, conceptual orientation, and simplifying
theme, just described, the reader can find the thread of the following main argument.
ix
x Preface and acknowledgments
the Copernican revolution required that the geokinetic hypothesis be not only
supported with new arguments and evidence, but also defended from many power-
ful old and new objections. this defense in turn required not only the destructive
refutation but also the appreciative understanding of those objections in all their
strength. one of galileo’s major accomplishments was not only to provide new
evidence and arguments supporting the earth’s motion, but also to show how those
objections could be refuted, and to elaborate their power before they were answered.
In this sense, galileo’s defense of Copernicus was reasoned, critical, open-minded,
and fair-minded. now, an essential thread of the subsequent galileo affair has been
the emergence of many anti-galilean criticisms, from the point of view of astronomy,
physics, theology, hermeneutics, logic, epistemology, methodology, law, morality, and
social responsibility. It is important to understand both that such criticisms arise
naturally and legitimately and that galileo can be defended from them. accordingly,
this book advances the following particular and yet overarching thesis: that today
in the context of the galileo affair and the controversies over the relationship
between science and religion and between institutional authority and individual
freedom, the proper defense of Galileo should have the reasoned, critical, open-
minded, and fair-minded character which his own defense of Copernicus had. and
this is a thesis that has both interpretive and evaluative dimensions.
With regard to the book’s limitations, it should be noted that the treatment is not
meant to be complete or exhaustive, but is rather illustrative and selective. It is obvi-
ous that one could select other points of view (besides critical reasoning) from
which to study the same material, and that even from the point of view of critical
reasoning, such an account could cover much more material and include many
more studies than are included in this book.
Furthermore, this book does not pretend to be a comprehensive, definitive, or
final synthesis, if for no other reason than that such a synthesis would have to wait
for the assimilation and digestion of the overarching thesis advanced here. I have
indeed begun working on such a synthesis, whose primary aim would be the sys-
tematic exposition and polished presentation of an account based on a body of
established historical and philosophical theses. however, the present book operates
more in the context of the discovery, formulation, and justification of the overarch-
ing thesis mentioned above. to paraphrase Kant’s eloquent and colorful words at
the beginning of the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (academy edition,
vol. 4, p. 255), here the aim is “not … the systematic exposition of a ready-made
science, but … the discovery of the science itself … [the former] must wait till
those who endeavor to draw from the fountain of reason itself have completed their
work; it will then be [its] turn to inform the world of what has been done.”
however, on a personal, subjective, and autobiographical note, this book is a
kind of synthesis of my previous work on galileo. let me explain. on the one hand,
there is a partial overlap in subject matter with The Galileo Affair: A Documentary
History (1989), which covers the original trial in the years 1613–1633, and with
Retrying Galileo, 1633–1992 (2005), which is an introductory survey of the subse-
quent controversy. and there is a partial overlap in conceptual orientation with
Galileo and the Art of Reasoning (1980) and Galileo on the World Systems (1997),
