Geology and Earth ScienceGagging Galileo
The year is 1633. In a dimly lit room in the middle of Rome a sickly old man, well respected by his peers, stands before the Inquisition. His crime: wanting to teach the ideas of other scientists.
Years before, in 1609, he turned his new “spyglasses” on the night sky and revolutionized the science of astronomy. He observed that the Milky Way was made up of millions and millions of stars, that the moon was not smooth or perfect and that it had mountains, that four smaller bodies revolved around Jupiter, and—possibly the most important observation—that Venus appeared to go through phases, just like the moon.
I’m no Galileo but I know what that must have felt like. Just ask anyone who talked to me while I was writing my thesis and finally began collecting data that proved my point. It didn’t matter who you were: if you asked how it was going, you were going to get an earful about infrared spectroscopic theory or the dangers of arsenic in the environment or the plight of Bangladeshi.
If you were lucky, after about five minutes I noticed the glazed-over look in your eye and let you go; if you were smart, you just cut me off. That’s the way we are, we “science people.” That passion that leads us to constantly question the world around us is only outshone by our want, our need to tell everyone else what we found. But this isn’t true just for us “science people;” this is what makes educators educators.
Back to Galileo. Galileo was not a stupid man. He lived during a time when the Church ruled the western world, a time when saying something that went against church doctrine could mean death. Galileo was, however, in some ways lucky.
Just a few years after Galileo first turned his telescope to the heavens, in 1616, he wrote a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine. In the letter he argued for the nonliteral interpretation of the bible—at least when a literal interpretation contradicts facts about the physical world. Furthermore, Galileo, for the first time in his professional life, claims in the letter the Copernican theory is not just a mathematical model but a physical reality.
Later that year Pope Paul V ordered the Cardinals of the Inquisition to meet and discuss the Copernican theory. On February 24th, using evidence from the theological experts of the time, the Church condemned the teachings of Copernicus and forwarded their decision to Galileo. From this point on, Galileo was forbidden from holding or teaching Copernican views.
Now about that luck: Shortly after the Inquisition made its findings, a long-time friend of Galileo, Mafeo Barberini, was elected Pope Urban VIII, and Galileo was assured that the Church would not make an issue of the Copernican theory.
For the most part scientists are not political people. We relish this idea of academic freedom; the ability to freely debate ideas and theories and most importantly to teach all ideas is what moves science. It is also what moves the modern world. But this wasn’t always the case, and we cannot forget the errors of the past, the ability of one group to control the thoughts and ideas of an entire society is not taking us forward. In fact it is holding us back.
In true debate the people control thought, and the credence of fact controls the ability of that thought to survive. Ideas, theories, concepts—they survive not because law dictates that they must but because of the will of the people to accept them based on fact and/or the general consensus of belief.
Galileo believed the same. This is why when he finally decided to make his ideas public he did so in a way that he felt would not politically harm his friend Pope Urban VIII and yet would convey his Copernican belief.
In 1624 Galileo began writing The Dialogue. The text was simple; it was debate between a believer in the Copernican (sun-centered) model of the universe and a believer in the Ptolemaic (earth-centered) model of the universe. In the end, as you can imagine, the Copernican view seems to win.
Galileo was summoned to the Inquisition.
The year was 1633, in a dimly lit room in the middle of Rome, a sickly Galileo stood accused of breaching the conditions of the 1616 Inquisition. Galileo, this time, was not able to debate the facts of his theory. The 1616 Inquisition had already declared them false. This time, Galileo was found guilty of teaching his views and was sentenced to life in prison.
Today, as educators, we still squirm at the thought of Galileo’s fate but at the same time we sit tall, empowered by the idea of academic freedom. But should we?
Recently 7,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, have signed a statement that the current government administration has willfully censored, distorted, or abused scientific data in an effort to forward a specific political agenda. The data, the statement, and the case studies can be found at www.ucsusa.org/rsi .
We can now imagine how Galileo must have felt when he found that theologians have decided that Copernicus was wrong.
As a scientist and an educator I like to think that the world has changed because of science. Science is about making progress about advancement. Turn on the TV or the radio and I guarantee that you will hear that phrase at least once in reference to some political stand point. The world is definitely different. But how has the world changed? Has the world changed so much so that we have returned to the 17th century? Shall we once again return to the days of the Inquisition, or have we already?
9 Comments:
In the article; “Gagging Galileo,” the author provides some great facts and evidence linking today’s world to the world of the 17th century both politically and scientifically. I would have to guess that Galileo’s feeling to the church’s decision on the Copernican Theory could be the very same feeling the author has about the current U.S. administrations views on the theory of Evolution. But, the author forgets about the scientific progress that has been made since the 17th century to today. He fears that conservatism in the U.S. could turn the country into a theocracy and censor all scientific theory and progress in the name of religion. This is the science communities feeling now and it has been the same since the days of Galileo and much earlier than him too.
I am a man of religious faith but I am also a man of great scientific faith as well. According to the bible God has been able to cause massive plagues, destroy cities, cause major droughts, moved mountains, parted seas, and reeked havoc with cataclysmic storms on nations of people who shun aside belief in him and/or his commandments. However, in the past five thousand years of recorded history God has never been able to stop the progress of science even if it contradicts his teachings. Science and the people who believe in it have always been able to avoid, deal with, or overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of its advancement one way or another. Today’s conflicts with the religious right in America are no different than that of the 17th century inquisition. Although it took some time and sacrifice to overcome, science eventually came out on top and prevailed over the inquisition. That is why it is ridiculous and a waste of time running around in horror over ideas of a return to the dark ages.
Also, in the name of being fair, I think that the science community has had a wrong and unfair attitude towards conservative and religious groups, be they in the local communities or in the highest level of government. The science community has viewed them all as crusaders and attackers of science but I think that much of their acts and attitudes are defensive reactions and not offensive ones. The basis of being conservative is exactly what its route word means, to conserve. These people grew up around religion in their households and communities, saw the good in it and want to see their tradition carried on by their children and not have to worry about them being condemned or persecuted as well. The science community should see this and recognize the fact that even though at times these people are very mislead and ignorant to facts they really want to do good.
Whatever may come out of these recent debates in our nation today on where to draw the line between science and religion, I believe a nice middle ground will emerge. The preservation of faith and the progress of science will go on and the two groups of people who support them will learn to deal with one another, work things out, and coexist.
As a student I find it hard to believe that things were completely censored during the time of the inquisition. The fact that it was forced upon students the theories of the church really depresses me. If there is hard evidence out there then I believe that the students should hear the evidence and theories. I feel that times are retrogressing and that the times of the inquisition are coming back. With the government suppressing the release of information and doubts about possible new evidences it is quite hard to be able to convey the information that students need to know in order to progress with scientific research.
Why go back to the closed minded ideas of the inquisition when we can press forward and develop new medical practices and scientific research? How can we move forward if important government officials are backing the people that are trying to get the United States to move back in time?
Especially in our country where church and state are suppose to be separate. Why are religious groups fighting to get the teaching of evolution out of schools? Aren’t schools part of the state run organization and not run by the church? I see how you could compare the situation that Galileo was in to the situation that we are facing today in science. It is a shame that people must take a closed mind approach to teaching.
Granted we are not condemning people who go against the churches to a life in prison in today’s society, but what stops us from eventually doing so? Could our President eventually put someone in jail because they are siding with a belief that goes against some individuals beliefs in religion? It seems certain now that that is not a logical concept, but it was with Galileo.
I feel as a student that if facts were suppressed from the global community and educators were unable to teach important concepts that could eventually enhance out society, there is no point in civilization. Civilization is based on the principle of growing and learning. Do we become uncivilized completely because of the beliefs of a few extremists? I feel that the article was clearly written in a manner that conveyed the same concerns as curious students like myself feel. Learning has been my passion and I continue to feed off of the information given to me by my professors and from society itself. I feel that the original article was written in a professional manner and that it expressed the ideas that may be striking a lot of intellectuals around the globe. I mean what if we do turn into a world like Galileo lived in? How would that affect our learning institutions? I for one would not like to find out.
If what had happened then to Galileo, could possibly be happening now to modern day scientists and the supporters of their theories, maybe we should be taking the same sort of approach that Galileo had taken in his day. If it worked for him then, in the days of theocratic governments (or close enough to it), then it should definitely work for us now, at a time when we shouldn’t be called heretics for our beliefs. When I mean worked for him, I mean not having a public execution for what he had said or done.
He had definitely done the right thing by not blatantly shoving his ideas in peoples in people’s faces. When he came out with these ideas in written works, like in the Dialogue, he had posed both sides of the debate, such as the ideas of supporters of a Heliocentric and a geocentric universe. He never put his opposition down for what they believed. All that he had done was state what he thought he had proven to be correct and along with this he was hoping to share this knowledge with all. There was and still is no harm in this act. Sometimes people will take this as a direct threat to their way of life, it can be taken personally. Then, they may think they need to defend themselves in any way possible, even if it is to rule out a theory that seems unmistakably true. This will probably always occur.
Science and religion will always face back to back in their beliefs. There are times when the sciences can trickle into the faith and both can coexist and become comfortable with one another, but now seems not to be the time. For as long as I can remember and with all of the history I have been taught, there have been religious wars, rivalries, and persecutions. All that this proves to me is that Faith is older than a lot of things, including science, and therefore those who have faith will continue to hold onto their history and what they have been taught for as long as possible.
This is even more difficult of an issue because science and religion are opposite in that way, altogether. In science, we question and try to find new ideas to add onto old ones. In religion, we already know what we believe, our morals and religious figures have been set, and there is nothing new to add to a holy book. The history that religion is trying to teach cannot be altered, for most religions and their books date back hundreds to thousands of years old. This becomes a problem when science comes into play and attempts to basically change history with every new theory that is discovered. I think we are both going to believe what we are going to believe and it is impossible to change the views of either side.
Regarding the issue of evolution, which was so loosely mentioned in the article that I am not even sure if that is what was meant, I believe the best way to solve the problem would be for children who attend religious schools to be taught about their religious history and a little about the theory of evolution and for children who attend public schools to learn about evolution and many different religions as well. Then, in public school, I believe children should have a choice each year on whether they would like to concentrate on the sciences or religion and then they would be taught a little more about what they are interested in.
This is because I believe if you practice a religion or even if you don’t practice a religion, there should be nothing holding you back from learning about the rest of the world’s beliefs. But regardless, with that set up, parents can choose which school their children will attend, knowing the curriculum, and then the parents can hopefully stop complaining about the style in which their children are taught. Otherwise, no one ever ruled out home-schooling.
Science and Religion have been the greatest clash debate for hundreds of years. Religious people believe science goes against God (intelligent design), while scientists believe religious accusations and beliefs are restraining and questionable, for which they try to defy. What may surprise some people that don’t know this is Galileo, at first, wanted to be a monk. This just show’s that Galileo was indeed a believer in a higher power, what would make a person want to be a monk if he did not believe? However this was not exactly what a father had in mind for his gifted son, so Galileo was withdrawn from the monastery. In 1581, at the age of 17, Galileo entered the University of Pisa to study medicine, as his father wished. Later on in his life he focused his studies on science and astronomy. The idea that the Catholic Church condemned the teachings of Copernicus is very upsetting; it was a logical, proven discovery dismissed by fear of the Catholic Church due to it threatening their published belief. The belief was Ptolemy's geocentric system, according to which the earth is at rest in the center with the rest of the planets revolving around it. The claim that all planets revolve around the sun had been raised in ancient times, but Copernicus was the first to succeed in describing the movements of the planets using an astronomical theory which placed the sun at the center. Instead of the Church embracing the idea, Galileo was called as being a heretic. Out of respect and fear he did not publish his findings till he was on his death bed. Galileo seemed like a respectable and intelligent man, I believe his intentions were not to cause division but to just simply state his findings, as would anyone. I think in this case the Church was restraining and their actions are very questionable. How could they have accused him to be a heretic? The fact that he could have possibly been put to death for this is unimaginable, seems like at that time religion was used to control and manipulate people to act according to what the Church decides. This makes me cringe at the thought of such bounded freedom. However if it was not for example Galileo’s “going against the grain”, we would not be entitled to the expressive freedoms we are allowed today. I think Galileo had a great respect for Science and for God, and I believe he did not choose one above the other. For he said, "But whatever the course of our lives we should receive them as the highest gift from the hand of God, in which equally reposed the power to do nothing whatever for us. Indeed, we should accept misfortune not only in thanks, but in infinite gratitude to Providence, which by such means detaches us from an excessive love for earthly things and elevates our minds to the celestial and divine."
There always been a struggle between belief and fact in are world . It mostly deals with sceince and religoun . For many years there been an ongoing battle . And in Galileos day some were even killed over it . The only reason he wasnt killed was beacuse he had a friend on the other side . But why should someone died for there discoveries , and findings . During " G's" time the roman catholic church had surpreme rule . it was also filled with corruption , and greed . The popes of the time didnt want anything to get in between there belivers . So people were killed for herecey . The only reason for the is was that the church was a majority . Belivers of the scientific method in thoughs days were considered the minority , so there were easy to whipe out . Now though we dont have this . Without the punishment scienctisit have made huge advancements in medicine , and technology . Galileo situation was one of a kind . Because of his connections , his life was spared , but let think about how many lifes were lost for the name of science .
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo galilei
I’m not the smartest man in the world but if you are developing a new idea or belief that goes against the norms and values of society of any period in time, you have got to be prepared for an altercation with the government or in this case the church. These are two horrifically powerful organization which are hard to bring down or change there ways in any form, whether it’s an idea, belief or way of living these organizations are going to fight you. Galileo was practicing an idea which he discovered and knew it went against the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church during the 17 century and long after believed that the center of the universe was earth and that everything including the sun revolved around us. It was this belief that put we were in the center and this made superior. Clearly they were wrong. It is a good thing that Galileo did know a pope because he could have been executed at this time if the wrong person was in the pope’s position. I would have not said anything at all knowing the church would not accept this new idea, no matter how much evidence I had to prove it. I would be assuming that they have the education the instruments that used or the math or whatever else. Then you would probably ask if he didn’t say anything people would have thought the wrong thing and would we know the right info. now? The point is, when you are going up against a big organization you have to have the back and I me money and power. He needed somebody that had power and didn’t have the same beliefs or at least somebody who was open to new ideas, people who have funded ventures. People didn’t think back then, the same way we do now. He was too busy with his new found theory, he couldn’t wait to tell someone and the person he told was his friend who put him jail. Well duhhhh. He was the pope. I understand “the need to tell”, so other people are educated and science people love to question everything.
All I’m saying if you were Galileo and you have this attitude of going against every by questioning everything and everyone you better be prepared to die and then and only then is your fight legitimate, stupid but legitimate and people would now this new idea and that you found it. If you went the power and money way, you would already have followers building up to support you and then you wouldn’t be the only person saying it and not everyone has to believe you as long as you have some, right? If you went the anonymous route and published a book with out your name. Most people can’t handle new knowledge and if you try to just talk about it they don’t even want to hear about it because they don’t know what you’re talking about. Galileo was and is right, but I wouldn’t have given up my freedom to tell people something they didn’t want to hear, I would have been self satisfied knowing the truth and that I could leave for someone in the future would discover and examine. But, like I said, I’m not the smartest man in the world.
Posted for Liz
I believe that Galileo should have been heard. I think people were just scared to hear something new that may have been true and possibly go against what they have believed. I’m sure there were people that did want to hear Galileo’s theory. When reading about Galileo we always read the outline, we never really hear about the public views, people’s expressions to Galileo, is this because he was not aloud to talk about it? I’m sure some how people knew what he wanted to talk about, although he wasn’t aloud. I some time’s do believe that we today are like the 17th century; some schools are not aloud to talk about evolution because it goes against churches. I believe that everyone should hear what they want. In today’s society there are much far worse things that should be stopped than the teaching of science or evolution or church. I understand that it was a much more religious time in the 17th century and going against the church could mean death but we still till this day hear about Galileo, he made an impact in our lives today. I sometimes believe that government is holding things back that we may need to know. This reminds me of the 17th century. But also in ways I don’t feel like we are going back to the 17th century I feel like we are moving forward. For example as we are coming to Christmas, all over the news people are staring to express Christmas as Christmas not as a holiday. Commercials on TV are not saying happy holidays they are starting to say Merry Christmas, which goes against some religions and churches. Stores are saying merry Christmas rather than happy holidays, a parade named The holiday parade in C.A is now called The Christmas parade” for years people have debated religions and beliefs during Christmas but I feel we are moving forward with this debate. I believe that we should be able to listen to what we want to and people should be able to say what they want to. If things were said, maybe it would uncover something we don’t know about.
Back in Galileo's day, the church was the main focus of everything. Going against the church was against the law. Luckily for Galileo, he was friends with the Pope, so instead of being executed he was sentenced to life in prison. Things are very different today, aren't they? Although the church is still a main focus in many peoples lives, it does not punish people for their thoughts or beliefs. Everyone is free to think what they want and believe in their own theories, right? It is unfortunate to see this happening today, in a day and age where personal freedom is taken for granted. The fact that government is censoring public information isn't right. Scientific data is proven evidence that relates to a hypothesis. You can't deny science, it is everywhere happening all the time. We learn from science, learn about what happened in the past and what to expect in the future. It isn't right and is not fair to the people to distort data in order to persuade people to believe a specific agenda. It's our right to see the data and evidence and then come up with our own conclusion. Government administration is reverting us back to the 17th century. With technology and science constantly moving forward into the future, it is a really big step backwards for mankind to revert back to the ways of the 17th century. I don't think this is common practice, to censor the discoveries made in science today, but one action is enough to open your eyes at what is happening today in a world that revolves around freedom.
From Anthony Angione
I am a person who is very open-minded to suggestions. It seems to me to be inconceivable that a cover up would occur over something such as the heliocentric theory. Why not treat it with an open mind. There maybe a kernel of truth behind it. But the Catholic Church didn’t think of it that way. The word of God was indisputable. The word of God was the earth was the center of the earth. Everything else was heresy. This was not a great time in human history. I believe that what the church did was wrong and such theories should be allowed to be studied and taken seriously. Censorship is wrong. It is like telling a baby they cannot have milk. The idea that Galileo proposed were revolutionary. It was also controversial. That the earth the center of light and humankind not the center of the world is depressing. But the truth is more important than beliefs or myths that the church persisted as fact.
We must all keep an open mind while hearing these ideas. Science is was growing at that time. It was the era of Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution. People began to break away from traditional Church teachings. People began to search for the truth the real answer. Galileo as was Copernicus before him were instrumental in bringing science into the new age. To help it grow and flourish. We must keep an open mind while hearing controversial things. Do you want to go back to close minded ideas that could be invalid. When we live in an age for cries of religious fundamentalism Galileo is bright spot to look to in the past for moving forward with humanity and the mind.
We see them today. People trying to get creationism or intelligent Design Taught in schools. These people are close minded and do not accept the progress of science. When Galileo looked at the universe he saw a that the sun was the center of the universe and learned how vast the world is. It is impossible to think that people don’t want this knowledge in schools.
Society and the world depends on growth and learning. Why should progress and the search for truth be held back. If not for Galileo would we know anything about the solar system. Would we know about the asteroid belts, the other solar systems, the possibilities for extraterrestrial life. Galileo was helpful in demonstrating a vital part of humanity. The power to think, to speak, and to keep an open mind and advance civilization throughout the ages.
Post a Comment
<< Home