She found an inexplicable veeritas in his eyes. Robert Langdon teams up with scientist Vittoria Vetrathe daughter of murdered scientist Leonardo Vetra. They spoke in hushed tones for ten seconds. Again he wondered who the anonymous Illuminati sculptor had been. Alas, he realized, it was not to be.
|Published (Last):||11 January 2006|
|PDF File Size:||3.17 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.80 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In my amendments I have tried to retain as much as possible of the gist of them which are indisputably accurate. However it seems to me that the result is a highly unbalanced lead which gives unnecessary weight to the Church controversy. The main reason for my amendments to the edits is that parts of them were inaccurate.
Specifically: "[The geocentric view] was considered by scholars to be backed by the Scripture" This is an at least disputable over-generalisation and uses a form of wording that needs to be backed up by reliable sources. I have replaced it with a less general statement and provided a good source. I have never been able to find support for the claim in the primary or any reputable secondary literature. At the very least it is not NPOV. The following statement from his Letters on Sunspots "And perhaps this planet also [viz.
Saturn], no less than horned Venus, harmonises with the great Copernican system, to the universal revelation of which doctrines propitious breezes are seen to be directed towards us, leaving little fear of clouds or crosswinds. These writings consisted of: his Letter to Castelli. Galileo started this in late or early in response to the alarming incidents which had occurred at that time.
He had intended to circulate this widely amongst his friends and supporters, and possibly even to have it published. However, Copernicanism was condemned by the Congregation of the Index before he had had a chance to do so, and it does not seem to have circulated much, if at all, at that time.
Some of this is also contained in volume 5 of the Edizione Nazionale of his works. A round of lobbying in person in Rome at the end of and beginning of in an attempt to clear himself of suspicions of unorthodoxy and to stave off an anticipated condemnation of Copernicanism.
With the exception of the less important items of correspondence, English translations of all the above-mentioned writings have been given by Stillman Drake in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo and Maurice Finoccharo in The Galileo Affair--a documentary history. I have read them all, and not one of them contains any claim by Galileo that the evidence for Copernicanism is conclusive, let alone that it was an "indisputable truth.
He was merely warned that the Inquisition had determined that heliocentrism was false and contrary to Scripture and that as a consequence he could not hold or defend it. It is possible or perhaps probable—there is much controversy over this point that he was also served with a formal injunction not to teach it "in any way whaterver, either orally or in writing".
The decision of the Inquisition meant that the only way Copernicanism could be discussed that would be acceptable to the Church was as a convenient mathematical fiction that was nevertheless false. During the Inquisition investigated two complaints against Galileo, but found insufficient evidence to charge him with anything. As a consequence of its investigations and perhaps other incidents the Congregation of the Index issued the edict in which Copernicanism was condemned.
As I understand it, the sketch is 1 Galileo had a very high idea of himself he could, of course and was very polemical in his defending the Copernican views, which upset his opponents.
Indeed, the distinction between "truth", "error" and "working hypothesis" is a modern one, and the way inquisition formulated it is black-and-white quite normal for Dominicans, btw ;o : since Copernican views have not been proven "true", they were to be considered "false" - in-between status was apparently nonexistent at that time; but the prohibition had been not to teach them as being true, which was the best they could formulate it.
These reflections on what is Truth and what is certain and what is proven in science and philosophy lead to Cartesianism, btw, so in its very special way, the Galileo affair has also been very beneficial to science The big picture, as I understand it by reading the article, mostly , is that the church was involved in a scholar dispute, first issued a moderate decision in , and then sanctioned Galileo for not respecting it in This clearly shows the problem of having an interference between research and juridical sanction, but for the Catholic church it was not a problem of faith per se Bellarmino was open-minded and ready to accept a decisive proof, had Galileo presented one - the link between faith and cosmology was made by scholars because of scholar disputes, not the other way around, and presenting it as an opposition "of the Church" as an institution, because of catholic dogmas seems POV and not backed by facts.
Galileo went twice before the inquisition, and in both cases, the real question is: what was the charge? Inquisition could not care less about Copernicus or Ptolemy, this was outside its jurisdiction. IMHO, the first charge had been statements about "truth" that could be interpreted as challenging the faith, and the second charge was simply not to respect the decision - a kind of "contempt of court", hence the expression.
Now, there is no reason of course to upset the equilibrium of the article. The affairs can be introduced in the main article, and detailed in the Galileo affair one, no problem. If you can put your finger on exactly what it is in the article that gave you this impression then it definitely needs to be corrected, since it is certainly false that the Church "wanted to defend the Ptolemaic system".
I am however completely baffled as to what could have given you that impression. The decree of the Congregation of the Index which instituted the ban merely described the "false Pythagorean doctrine Thus any physical theory that was both heliodynamic and geostatic would have been acceptable to the Church. It stated, quite correctly, that in the Church had condemned Copernicanism as contrary to Scripture.
The decision to do so was taken at a meeting of the Inquisition presided over by the Pope on February 25th, , and promulgated by the Congregation of the Index on March 5th. These events and their consequences are copiously documented in any number of good secondary sources by eminent experts on the history of the affair the collection of articles in McMullin for example. Your objection to this wording appears to be based either on misinformation or original research. Since the earlier lead was concise and accurate, and the current one is not, I have now restored a slightly amended version of the earlier one with citations to two reliable modern secondary sources.
If you wish to alter the wording again, please discuss it here first. Please check the documents of the Galileo trial available in the reference I provided and you supressed , not second-hand interpretations like the one in the reference you preserved , which are potentially biaised.
While the wording is not quite as tight as I would like, it is at least accurate and reasonably concise. The statement which I had placed in the lead represents a POV shared by a large number of experts in the subject, two of whom I cited. I know of no expert on the subject who would disagree with it please feel free to cite one, if you know of any.
That you disagree with it is irrelevant. You are of course perfectly entitled to include contrary POVs in the article if you can provide reliable authorititave secondary sources to show that they are held by a significant number of experts or even just a single prominent expert in the subject.
You are not entitled to delete or modify a properly attributed and documented significant POV simply because you disagree with it. I am quite familiar with the documents in the web-site you linked to. I am completely baffled as to why you think any of those documents contradict the claim that the reason the Church condemned Copernicanism was because it regarded heliocentrism as contrary to Scripture.
Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology" Now this is merely an advisory opinion of the Consultants, which the Church was free to accept or reject as it saw fit.
However, on the following day a meeting of the Inquisition presided over by the Pope did accept a slightly watered down version of this report and required that Galileo be officially warned of the consequences of that decision see the Inquisition Minutes of February 25th.
Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus But in any case, these documents are translations of primary sources. Conclusions based on the interpretation of such sources are required by Wikipedia policy to be supported by reliable secondary sources.
How do you know it "has not been the case"? So far you have presented no evidence except your own unsupported and completely baffling interpretation of a small selection of primary sources. Any sources are "potentially" biased.
I see no reason to accept your otherwise unsupported and completely baffling interpretation of a small selection of primary sources, when it contradicts a large number of very good secondary sources by experts on the subject. I gave secondary sources because the statement which they were supporting can only be justified by synthesis and evaluation of a large number of facts derived from primary sources, which is exactly what these secondary sources do.
Sources cited in support of such statements are required by Wikpedia policy to be reliable secondary sources. The authors of the cited sources are Michael Sharratt and Ernan McMullin, both widely acknowledged experts on Galileo. They are also both Catholic priests, so I see no reason to cast aspersions on their knowledge of the motives and actions of the Catholic Church.
In my amendments I have tried to retain as much as possible of the gist of them which are indisputably accurate. However it seems to me that the result is a highly unbalanced lead which gives unnecessary weight to the Church controversy. The main reason for my amendments to the edits is that parts of them were inaccurate. Specifically: "[The geocentric view] was considered by scholars to be backed by the Scripture" This is an at least disputable over-generalisation and uses a form of wording that needs to be backed up by reliable sources. I have replaced it with a less general statement and provided a good source.
Galileo's Diagramma della Veritas from Angels & Demons
He also had three sisters; Virginia, Anna, and Livia. Let me see that thing again. Galileo Galilei is forever remembered as the scientist who invented the telescope, turned it skyward, and started a controversial battle with the Roman Catholic Church. In physics, Galileo diagraamma to grasp the ideas that Isaac Newton did later. At twenty years old, Chartrand was the youngest guard on the force.