While doing research on a documentary for my Medici class, I came across this document which is very interesting in understanding the Copernicus/Galileo controversy. This document shows that Copernicus idea of heliocentrism was rejected by the Catholic Church not because the actual science of the theory contradicted church teaching but because Copernicus appealed to the power of God to support his theory when he failed to defend it against the logic proposed by the geocentrist scientists of the time. The church condemned this replacement of logic with an assumption of Gods will, not the actual theory of heliocentrism. arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.6168.pdf I would start reading at page 11 if i were you. Here is the highlight of the document: [FYI The consultants statement is the inquisitors response to the proposition that the Sun in the center of the Universe: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy; and formally heretical, since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture] Putting things briefly, anti-Copernicans could claim as their own one of the most prominent astronomers of the time, Tycho Brahe. They could cite careful measurements of star diameters which showed that, were the Copernican system correct, stars would be enormous. The sun compared to even an average Copernican star would be like the period at the end of this sentence compared to a grapefruit. By contrast, under a geocentric system, the sizes of celestial bodies would all fall into a consistent range. The moon would be the smallest celestial body, the sun the largest. The stars would be comparable to, but smaller than, the sun. Copernicans could not argue with the data.They resorted to justifying the absurdly large stars in their system by appealing to Divine Majesty and Omnipotence: an infinitely powerful God could easily make such giant stars. This issue was definitely in play in 1616. Several anti-Copernicans had recently cited the star size problem, including Simon Marius and Georg Locher in 1614, and Francesco Ingoli in 1616 (just weeks prior to the consultants statement). From a modern perspective, invoking the power of God to solve a problem with a scientific theory is indeed scientifically untenable. Thus, in light of what we now know about opposition to the Copernican system, the consultants assessment [the assessment of the inquisitors that is] makes more sense. The interesting historical curiosity that is the consultants statement and its punctuation may be in several ways a boon for public perception of science and science education. First, the statement is an interesting story. People are fascinated by the twists and turns involved in the spread of information, correct or otherwise. Second, the statement undermines the science denial that has gained a certain popularity in recent years. “Apollo deniers”, “9-11 Truthers”, “vaccine deniers”, and those who assert science to support the universe being 6000 years old all build their claims on the idea that science is a matter of controversies and cover-ups regarding basic truths; that in science, powerful forces suppress inconvenient scientific discoveries. Many members of the public, as well as many students in introductory science classes, maintain the unfortunate view that science is about such controversies. By undermining the narrative that, at the beginning of the history of modern science, powerful forces conspired to suppress a scientific idea, declaring it to be “foolish and absurd” only because it was religiously inconvenient, the consultants statement should aid in undermining the entire idea of conspiracy and cover-up that is behind the science denial phenomenon. Third, the statement is interesting to see. I had expected the document to be a bumptious masterpiece of calligraphy, with an imposing appearance of formality suitable for an Important Proclamation. But with its very ordinary (and less-than-clear) script and its heavy use of abbreviation, this document -- containing one of the more notorious statements in the history of science -- has less the look of an Important Proclamation than of the hastily scrawled notes from a less-than-important meeting. Perhaps had the consultants written more neatly, there would be less confusion about the punctuation
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:37:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015