Galileo. Winemaker? Fashion Designer?
EmailWe are coming up on 400 years now since Galileo Galilei made a discovery that changed the way we look at the world. Quick — no peeking — do you recall what it was? A. He calculated the force of gravity. B. He found the first trade route from Europe to China. C. He discovered four moons of Jupiter. D. His work with refrigeration led to the first viable version of gelato. The answer, of course, is C. His observation that four objects were orbiting Jupiter was the first empirical demonstration — very upsetting to the order of things at the time — that not everything in the heavens circled the earth. Rice University has a comprehensive site about him HERE. If you did not get the right answer off the top of your head, you are far from alone. The Royal Astronomical Society in Britain, along with several other groups, commissioned a poll…and found that people there didn’t know either. "The results show that nearly one third (29 percent) of the UK is just as likely to associate the name Galileo with wine, fashion or a famous ship before associating him with astronomy," says the RAS in a statement. "Also of concern, almost three quarters of the UK (73 per cent) credit Galileo with erroneous discoveries, such as Neptune or the black hole at the centre of our Milky Way Galaxy, or simply don’t know what he discovered — the four large satellites of Jupiter." Apparently, says the RAS, people know other historical figures better. They know that Marco Polo made it to China, that Isaac Newton quantified gravity, and when you say "Einstein" to them, they say "relativity." But Galileo…well, Galileo was more disturbing in his time. He’s given credit (sometimes disputed) for hearing about a newfangled invention called the telescope, and thinking, before anyone else, to use it for an examination of the night sky. He looked at the moon, and reported that its surface was not perfectly smooth as people had believed. He later looked at Venus and saw it changing from crescent to gibbous to full phase — further proof, he argued, that Copernicus was right about a sun-centered universe. "The Starry Messenger" (Sidereus Nuncius in the original Latin) was his lab report. Bard College has posted a translation HERE; see p. 12 for his description of the Jovian satellites. For all this he was put under house arrest and made to recant by the Catholic Church, which finally apologized in 1992. (You can find differing versions of the story HERE and HERE.) 2009, to mark 400 years since all that began, is the International Year of Astronomy, and there’s an introductory video HERE on YouTube. You may separately like to check out a podcast called 365 Days of Astronomy. But back to Galileo. "In publishing the results of this survey we are not pointing a finger," says Ian Robson, the chair of Britain’s International Year of Astronomy, "just hoping to remind the UK how one man and one telescope changed the world forever."
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I didn’t know the Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter, but I at least did know that he publicly purposed the theory that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the opposite and was declared a heretic by the church.
Posted by: Calis | February 19, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Why NOT “point a finger?” Maybe there was should finally be some shame in being willfully ignorant.
Posted by: jock59801 | February 19, 2009, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
Hooray-o for Galileo. He had a lot of fortitude to buck the word of the Church. That kind of thing could get you burned at the stake in those days. I’m glad he had the knowledge and the guts to stand up for what he believed in, in the face of the most powerful force for ignorance the world has ever seen. Galileo quite literally led the world out of the darkness into the light.
Posted by: andyr | February 19, 2009, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
Actually, the Church put Galileo under house arrest and forced him to publicly recant his assertion that the Earth was not the immovable center of the universe around which everything else revolved (something that the discovery of the moons revolving around Jupiter disproved). Immediately after recanting, however, he is rumored to have muttered under his breath, “Nevertheless, it (the Earth) still moves.” I learned about Galileo and a good deal more that others apparently haven’t in public grade school. What are schools teaching kids nowadays? How to get in touch with their feelings and use contraceptives?
Posted by: Publius | February 20, 2009, 1:44 am 1:44 am
As a Space Nut, I certainly know what major contributions Galileo has made to Astronomy and Science. Besides his work in astronomy, Galileo also made the observation that two falling objects will fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. He didn’t discovered Gravity, but he started the path for Newton to follow up.
So I’m like a bit surprise some people do not even know him. He ranks up there with Newton, Eistien, etc., so how could anyone not know him. :(
Posted by: GWP | February 20, 2009, 7:05 am 7:05 am
As a proponent of intelligent design I don’t believe for one second that the discovery made be Galileo means that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I mean, the very idea that God did not create us as the center of the universe is blasphemy. When will secular, rational science finally cede to our all-knowing, all-perfect God?
Posted by: Jim | February 20, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
I knew he was an astronomer and I think he also built telescopes but I did not know about the moons. Interesting.
Posted by: Quietman | February 20, 2009, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm
Galileo also discovered the phases of Venus, which is more powerful evidence for the sun-centered solar system. The moons of Jupiter just showed that EVERYTHING doesn’t revolve around the Earth. The phases of Venus suggested that maybe NOTHING does (except our own moon, and now many thousand pieces of junk).
Posted by: jock59801 | February 20, 2009, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
It’s the fault of our educational system. I’m lucky that I started school in Germany in the early 70′s.Lightyears ahead of American schools. Anyone who doesn’t know about Galileo has got a serious problem with the rest also.
Posted by: Ray Ray | February 22, 2009, 11:25 am 11:25 am
Jim, science will never “cede to our all-knowing, all-perfect God,” because science is about evidence and logical conclusions based on fact. Science will never endorse a particular group’s personal beliefs, which despite the group’s opinion, is not based on fact. But let’s say what you’re asking for happens; should “secular, rational science finally cede” to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews or another group’s view of reality that is not based on fact?
Posted by: Dave | February 22, 2009, 11:51 am 11:51 am
Dave, I’m pretty sure Jim was just being sarcastic. Reread his ridiculous assertion that it is blasphemy to not believe that God created us as the center of the universe. While on the topic of religion vs. science, all of you atheists who keep complaining about religion in general and Christianity in particular, ask yourself what would take its place if you had your way? Atheism? Well, then considering the fact that more people have been killed by wars brought on by atheism than by all the religious wars combined, how would having more atheism in the world make it a better place for your kids to live in than it already is?
Posted by: rennin1 | February 22, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
Rennin, I also hope Jim was being sarcastic. I’m also not an athiest, more of a pantheist. There’s nothing wrong with religion, until it starts to impose it’s views on the public; especially when those views are contradictory to fact. And I’ve never heard of any war waged from atheists. Just because a war wasn’t a religious war, it certainly doesn’t mean that it was brought about by atheists. I don’t think the world would better place with more athiests, but I also don’t think it would be a better place with more religious people. While many acts in name of a religion are good, there are probably just as many acts in the name of a religion that are bad.
Posted by: Dave | February 22, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
Dave, Step 1: Remove religion from the planet. Step 2: Introduce the next Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Nicolea Ceausescu, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, etc. Step 3: sit back and watch the carnage… Christ admonished his followers to turn the other cheek and to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” He never imposed his views on others and never incited others to violence.
Posted by: rennin1 | February 22, 2009, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
I’m not advocating a removal of religion from society. But if religion were removed from the planet, it is much more likely to be more peaceful. An absence of religion from society doesn’t mean governments will collapse. I admire Christ and the others who helped define principles of positive thought and behavior. But religions have often used their power to for the sole benefit of their organization and not society.
Posted by: Dave | February 22, 2009, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm
It took the Church until 1992 to forgive Galileo. I think it would be the Christian thing to do for Galileo to forgive the Church for the indignity they heaped on him.
Posted by: andyr | February 22, 2009, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
Dave, May I recommend Dinesh D’Souza’s book “What’s so Great About Christianity?”. See chapter 19 “A License to Kill: Atheism and the Mass Murders of History” for a scholarly treatment of atheism’s role in world history over the past 100 years.
Posted by: rennin1 | February 22, 2009, 5:56 pm 5:56 pm
Again, I’m not an atheist; I’m more of a pantheist. License to kill though… I think religion is, and has been, used as a ‘license to kill’ exponentially more than atheism.
Posted by: Dave | February 22, 2009, 11:33 pm 11:33 pm
rennin1: A system based on faith and dogma will have a propensity towards totalitarianism and intolerance. Communism shares these characteristics with religion and thus had similar results as a religion. Pointing out the dangers of Communism, for most atheists, it preaching to the choir; they already see the dangers of faith and dogma.
Posted by: goodusername | February 23, 2009, 12:58 am 12:58 am
Dave, you said “I think religion has been a license to kill more than atheism.” But that is why it would be a good idea for you to read Chapter 19 of D’Souza’s book. It will help you better understand why atheists have perpetuated this fallacy and to see who the real mass killers actually are.
Goodusername, where is the totalitarianism and intolerance in “turn the other cheek” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? Christianity is nothing like Communism; Communism is a godless, soulless, existential ideology that must put walls up to keep its subjects inside. Where there are walls keeping Christians inside, the Christians are among those trying to tear the walls down.
Posted by: rennin1 | February 23, 2009, 7:41 am 7:41 am
rennin1: Does “turn the other cheek” and “do unto others as you would
have them do unto you” do anything to prevent totalitarianism and
intolerance? Such teachings are relevant to how we treat each other, but
has little to do with how to govern. Surely Christianity doesn’t teach
anarchy. If the people in charge have faith that they have the truth and
are dogmatic, than why be tolerant of ideas that are KNOWN are lies? What
possible virtue can their be, with such a mindset, in letting such ideas
be openly taught? Add religion to the picture and such ideas even
threaten people’s eternal salvation. This was the mindset of the people in charge of Galileo’s day.
Posted by: goodusername | February 23, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am
Goodusername, you said “Does ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ do anything to prevent totalitarianism and intolerance?” Since you seem to be equating Christianity with totalitarianism and intolerance, perhaps you can say what it is about Christianity that makes you want to say this?
You say “Surely Christianity doesn’t teach anarchy.” But what does the question of whether Christianity teaches anarchy have to do with an assertion that Christianity has a propensity towards totalitarianism and intolerance? I can easily imagine an ideology that promotes anarchy as a precursor for establishing totalitarianism: naziism’s use of anarchy to hasten its own rise to power in post-WWI Germany. Please explain.
You say “why be tolerant of ideas that are KNOWN are lies?” Well, considering the fact that Jesus admonished his followers to tolerate lies against them (Matthew 5:11), a better question to ask of Christians is why not be tolerant of ideas that are known to be lies?” I ask again, where is the totalitarianism and intolerance that you find in Christianity? Because, frankly, I just don’t see it.
Posted by: rennin1 | February 23, 2009, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
rennin1: I’m not equating Christianity with intolerance and totalitarianism, per se. In my original post I didn’t even mention Christianity. My point is that a system based on faith and dogma will have a logical propensity towards totalitarianism and intolerance. Surely I don’t have to review the last 2000 years to you to show that Christianity has had this propensity as well – for one tiny example you can simply read the story that we are commenting on. It’s no coincidence that the start of a relatively tolerant and free western world began with the dawn of the age of science. Instead of faith, science asks for skepticism; instead of dogma, science is always open to the possibility of being wrong.
I’m sure the puritans were very nice folks and that they were very kind, unforgiving, “turn the cheek” folk – but they also organized a very totalitarian intolerant society.
Taken literally and applied to gov, “Do unto others…” would mean not to send people to prison, Matt 5:11 would mean to allow perjury, and “thou shalt not kill” would mean no death penalty. There would be no point to having any laws at all and complete anarchy. But, again, the Christian teachings you quote have to do with interpersonal relationships, not how to govern the society. So add those teachings to Communism and it would have changed nothing.
There is an important lesson from Communism, and that is that the characteristics that have made religion dangerous are not exclusive to religion. Although I don’t believe they are very common – that’s a good lesson for dogmatic intolerant atheists out there.
Posted by: goodusername | February 24, 2009, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
rennin1 and goodusername:
Let’s all get some perspective here. It is provably true that the Church was responsible for more terror, wars, and death than any other single cause in history; remember the Crusades, when Christianity decided to “take back” the Holy Land from its rightful owners. And as for “Thou shalt not kill”, that is a translation error – the original Hebrew text is “You shall not murder”, quite a different thing.
Oh, and let’s not forget the Church’s ultimate Catch 22 – The Inquisition. That was some party! If you confessed to the crimes the Church accused you of committing against the Church, you were killed, very painfully killed. If you persisted in professing your innocence it “proved” you will in league with the Forces of Darkness, and you were very painfully killed. Guilty or innocent, you received the same death sentence.
As to the book that contends atheists actually caused more war and death than the Church, all I can do is note that books are printed every year that contain false information which the authors swear is true. Right now your neighborhood bookstore has selections that “prove” the Holocaust never happened; that blacks are genetically and morally inferior, and; that 9/11/01 was a put-up job devised by President Bush and carried out by the CIA – all pure male bovine excrement. Any book that claims atheists are responsible for more wars and death than the Church falls into this same category … someone with a position who is willing to do whatever it takes to prove his point, regardless of inconvenient facts.
Now, can we refocus on the accomplishments of Galileo? He IS the subject of the article, not the Church which condemned him. While we’re at it, let’s celebrate two of the most unremembered, most influential men of the recent past: Nikola Tesla, the man who invented the 20th Century, and Paul Diroc, a genius even greater than Einstein. That you are likely don’t know Tesla’s real contributions (ie, he invented radio, no matter what you may have heard about a certain Italian who stole Tesla’s patents), and are most unlikely to have even heard of Diroc, even though his work on gravity and antimatter are seminal. His theory that gravity is a decreasing variable has been proven, causing a realignment of almost all other scientific fields.
These things are important; nit-picking over what one religion or another has done in the past, or even recently, is a mugs game with no meaning. Reality doesn’t care one way or the other, so why should we?
Ned, do you want to get in on my quest to honor our forgotten hero’s of science?
Posted by: Walker Evans | March 3, 2009, 12:54 am 12:54 am