tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8438349.post5883625980918650392..comments2024-03-28T00:28:06.035+13:00Comments on leading and learning: Re-imaging education; lessons from Galileo and Brazil.Bruce Hammondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07031065790535111400noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8438349.post-2325685581244820842012-11-30T09:50:06.354+13:002012-11-30T09:50:06.354+13:00Thanks Scott - but I was only using Galileo as an...Thanks Scott - but I was only using Galileo as an analogy to illustrate one needs courage to stand up to authorityBruce Hammondshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07031065790535111400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8438349.post-45566645464775338542012-11-30T06:47:15.974+13:002012-11-30T06:47:15.974+13:00Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an e...Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time. <br /><br />Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues. <br /><br />Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were. <br /><br />Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully. <br /><br />Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds. Scott Whitfieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8438349.post-65295900386275179742012-11-29T20:14:53.801+13:002012-11-29T20:14:53.801+13:00Wow - great thoughts!Wow - great thoughts!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com