Talk:Galileo Galilei

Arthur Koestler writes in The Sleepwalkers (1959):

"...the fame of this outstanding genius rests mostly on discoveries he never made and on feats he never performed. Contrary to statements in even recent outlines of science, Galileo did not invent the telescope; nor the microscope; nor the thermometer; nor the pendulum clock. He did not discover the law of inertia; nor the parallelogram of forces or motions; nor the sun spots. He made no contribution to theoretical astronomy; he did not throw down weights from the leaning tower of Pisa, and did not prove the truth of the Copernican system. He was not tortured by the Inquisition, did not languish in its dungeons, did not say 'eppur si muove'; and he was not a martyr of science."

I am thinking of adding this to the 'Legacy' section. Is it accurate? Is it worth including? Masato.harada (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Reply

Sounds like utter nonsense from someone who also "discussed paranormal phenomena, such as extrasensory perception, psychokinesis and telepathy" - DVdm (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Reply

I honestly don't think it is "utter nonsense", although I trust you're correct that the source isn't RS. I mean, exactly what is untrue about this statement? Does anyone here seriously believe Galileo "proved the truth of the Copernican system"? He certainly did not. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Reply

Well, he (probably) did not throw down weights from the leaning tower of Pisa, instead rolling balls down inclined planes. Even if he wasn't tortured, he was shown the instruments of torture, and was placed under house arrest. He may not have invented the telescope (Hans Lipperhey had the patent) but he did perfect it and turn it to the skies. He is credited with discovering sun spots. So the Koestler thing seems pretty tenuous. Charlie Faust (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Funny thing: Stillman Drake was a fan of Koestler for a long time; I know this personally from my father, Stillman Drake. When The Sleepwalkers came out, he was of course outraged by the ludicrous title and the vast number of plain errors - though he considered 'sleepwalker' to be appropriate for Kepler. BTW Galileo showed, before anyone else, that the sunspots visibly rotated along with the whole body of the Sun. And pretty much no one takes the Leaning Tower thing seriously; but see the Dialogue for a discussion of what would happen if tied them together loosely and dropped that! I don't think that any of the earlier philosophers thought of that thought experiment. ~2026-24583-78 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have read the Dialogues. The thought experiment with the falling bodies is fascinating.

The Leaning Tower story is almost certainly apocryphal but, like Newton and the apple, might be worth mentioning if we make clear it is almost certainly apocryphal. The discovery of sunspots which rotated with the sun, of the phases of Venus and the existence of Galilean satellites provided strong evidence for the Copernican model.

Stillman Drake! I have his Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Charlie Faust (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

While I haven't read the whole article, this part of the lead jumped out at me:

"Galileo's championing of Copernican heliocentrism was met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers."

It then goes on to say that the Church declared the Copernican model "foolish" and "absurd", and that's generally correct.

However, this leaves out crucial context: for one, Galileo did not gather any compelling scientific evidence for heliocentrism, and the consensus among scientists at the time opposed this model. It was not just "some" astronomers: it was consensus science. It was only after Galileo's death that circumstantial evidence was gathered (and views began to change), and not until the 19th Century that direct evidence was obtained (the technology just wasn't there in the 17th Century).

As some of you may know, the "Galileo Affair" is a major theme of the Conflict thesis, a defunct model in the history of science. If this information is in the body of the article, it needs to be in the lead; and if it isn't in either the lead or body, then it is time to improve these sections with reliable sources. Discuss. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Reply

From "The conflict thesis is wrong" it does not follow that "there have never been any conflicts between science and religion", nor does it follow that "Galileo was not punished for disagreeing with the Church's doctrine about the solar system". Stop whitewashing those assholes, and stop rewriting history. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, not on your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Reply

Wow, so first of all, I don't even believe in God (so, not "whitewashing those assholes"), and secondly, you shouldn't be blurting about "rewriting history" when you yourself are on unsure ground. This isn't a talk forum so I'll get right to the point, although it's worth mentioning that you are highly confused about the Conflict thesis and how common disputes were between the Church and "science" (it is largely an anachronistic concept, and doesn't really apply to Medieval or Early Modern Europe).

Galileo was not. on. trial. for. science. Heliocentrism was a hypothesis in Galileo's age -which everyone including Galileo acknowledged -while only a tiny handful of scientists agreed that Galileo's ideas were correct. Copernican heliocentrism was given small space, used mainly as a calculating device but widely viewed as a flawed cosmological model (Galileo was an exception to the consensus). That turned out to be enough to keep the idea alive until the late 17th Century (long after Galileo died), when theoretical evidence favored Kepler's model and mainstream views began to change. The problem is that this article misleads naive readers into thinking that because heliocentrism turned out to be true, that this was known by scientists in Galileo's time, which was far from the case. It's a classic example of the historiographical fallacy of presentism.

As for sources start with Maurice Finocchiaro "Myth 8 – That Galileo was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism" in "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion" (ed. R. Numbers, Harvard, 2009, pp. 68-79) and The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989). I'd also reference science historian James C. Ungureanu's piece here, which is freely accessible.

Also, are you the one who's been editing Galileo affair? I see that article contains many of the same children's bedtime fairy-tales. I guess religious people aren't the only ones who cling to myths. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Reply

Nobody is interesting interested in your religious beliefs. If you are aware that this is not a forum, just keep them for yourself.

You keep telling stories you seem to believe in, putting people down when they disagree with you. Your Finocchiaro and Ungureanu sources do not seem to be relevant since the article neither says that Galilei was jailed nor that he was tortured. Statements like Ungureanu's the Church had understandable reasons do not fly unless those reasons are given. BTW, being miffed at having a character named "Simplicio" wording your reasoning is an "understandable reason".

"it was consensus science" - when contradicting it gets you punished, consensus is easy to uphold.

Regarding "compelling scientific evidence" - well, it was obviously not "compelling" because it did not compel his opponents. You want to include that, you need to quote good sources saying it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Reply

• "Nobody is interesting in your religious beliefs." should really be "Nobody is interested in your religious beliefs." Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Charlie Faust (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Why the acrimony? Wikipedia, like any good encyclopedia, is supposed to present the summary of thought on an issue. Different interpretations of the Galileo affair are done in good faith and merit mention. Even if an idea contravenes the predominant narrative in the history of science, that by no means excludes it from being worthy of consideration (unless you agree with those who thought Copernicus was silly). Kackyoween (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Don't think Copernicus was silly. Galileo did have reasons to believe heliocentrism was correct: Jupiter's moons (almost a solar system in miniature), sunspots, and so on. It was a hypothesis, one supported by evidence. And yes, the event has been mythologized: Urban VIII initially gave Galileo permission to publish, later recanted. Galileo wasn't tortured, but was shown instruments and placed under house arrest. But Galileo believed he was honoring God by studying His creation.

"Nobody is interesting in your religious beliefs" gets my goat because it should obviously be "Nobody is interested." Imprecision in language infuriates me, especially on an encyclopedia, or a talk page. Charlie Faust (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

I just noticed that a year ago, someone complained twice about a typo I made. They probably have not slept a wink since then because of that horror, so I corrected that typo just now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for correcting your typo. Charlie Faust (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC) Reply