On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you
are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for
Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
On 6/18/26 2:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John HarshmanWhy post that in this thread?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you
are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for
Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
I've looked at the site. I think he tries too hard in the bits I've
read, but I haven't read that one. Probably will.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:25:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John HarshmanWhy post that in this thread?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you
are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for
Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
Sory, I forgot that your newsreader deletes everything after a couple
of weeks. This was the subthread where you and I had a lengthy
discussion about Copernicus and whether the suspension and required
edits of his book was the Catholic Church trying to suppress science.
I don't want to resurrect that discussion but thought you might find
the article enlightening.
I've looked at the site. I think he tries too hard in the bits I've
read, but I haven't read that one. Probably will.
I don't think "tries too hard" is justified when he backs up
everything he says.
On 6/18/26 2:58 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:25:52 -0700, John HarshmanHe also characterizes and over-interprets many of the things he quotes
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John HarshmanWhy post that in this thread?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you
are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for
Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
Sory, I forgot that your newsreader deletes everything after a couple
of weeks. This was the subthread where you and I had a lengthy
discussion about Copernicus and whether the suspension and required
edits of his book was the Catholic Church trying to suppress science.
I don't want to resurrect that discussion but thought you might find
the article enlightening.
I've looked at the site. I think he tries too hard in the bits I've
read, but I haven't read that one. Probably will.
I don't think "tries too hard" is justified when he backs up
everything he says.
as evidence.
Still, isn't it good overall that the church has no control over the
state or science?
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 19:55:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:58 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:25:52 -0700, John HarshmanHe also characterizes and over-interprets many of the things he quotes
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John HarshmanWhy post that in this thread?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you >>>>> are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for
Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
Sory, I forgot that your newsreader deletes everything after a couple
of weeks. This was the subthread where you and I had a lengthy
discussion about Copernicus and whether the suspension and required
edits of his book was the Catholic Church trying to suppress science.
I don't want to resurrect that discussion but thought you might find
the article enlightening.
I've looked at the site. I think he tries too hard in the bits I've
read, but I haven't read that one. Probably will.
I don't think "tries too hard" is justified when he backs up
everything he says.
as evidence.
Don't we all :)
Still, isn't it good overall that the church has no control over the
state or science?
I agree totally though I'm far from convinced that giving someone like
Trump control of the state and someone like RFK Jr control of science
is an improvement.
On 6/19/26 12:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
I agree totally though I'm far from convinced that giving someone like
Trump control of the state and someone like RFK Jr control of science
is an improvement.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. At least they'll be gone in a few years. And, it appears, much less capable
of damage in a few months.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 19:55:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:58 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:25:52 -0700, John HarshmanHe also characterizes and over-interprets many of the things he quotes
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John HarshmanWhy post that in this thread?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you >>>>> are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for
Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
Sory, I forgot that your newsreader deletes everything after a couple
of weeks. This was the subthread where you and I had a lengthy
discussion about Copernicus and whether the suspension and required
edits of his book was the Catholic Church trying to suppress science.
I don't want to resurrect that discussion but thought you might find
the article enlightening.
I've looked at the site. I think he tries too hard in the bits I've
read, but I haven't read that one. Probably will.
I don't think "tries too hard" is justified when he backs up
everything he says.
as evidence.
Don't we all :)
On 6/19/26 12:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 19:55:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:58 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:25:52 -0700, John HarshmanHe also characterizes and over-interprets many of the things he quotes
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John HarshmanWhy post that in this thread?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you >>>>>> are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for
Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
Sory, I forgot that your newsreader deletes everything after a couple
of weeks. This was the subthread where you and I had a lengthy
discussion about Copernicus and whether the suspension and required
edits of his book was the Catholic Church trying to suppress science.
I don't want to resurrect that discussion but thought you might find
the article enlightening.
I've looked at the site. I think he tries too hard in the bits I've
read, but I haven't read that one. Probably will.
I don't think "tries too hard" is justified when he backs up
everything he says.
as evidence.
Don't we all :)
I find this rendering of the story (cited favorably by history for
atheists) more convincing and better argued than his:
https://galileo.library.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 12:32:28 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/26 12:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 19:55:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:58 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:25:52 -0700, John HarshmanHe also characterizes and over-interprets many of the things he quotes >>>> as evidence.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John HarshmanWhy post that in this thread?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you >>>>>>> are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for >>>>>>> Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
Sory, I forgot that your newsreader deletes everything after a couple >>>>> of weeks. This was the subthread where you and I had a lengthy
discussion about Copernicus and whether the suspension and required
edits of his book was the Catholic Church trying to suppress science. >>>>> I don't want to resurrect that discussion but thought you might find >>>>> the article enlightening.
I've looked at the site. I think he tries too hard in the bits I've >>>>>> read, but I haven't read that one. Probably will.
I don't think "tries too hard" is justified when he backs up
everything he says.
Don't we all :)
I find this rendering of the story (cited favorably by history for
atheists) more convincing and better argued than his:
https://galileo.library.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html
I've used that site a few times, it is useful for summaries but
doesn't go into the level of detail that O'Neill does. In that
Copernicus article, it doesn't really explain the Church's attitude
towards and treatment of heliocentrism. For example, it makes no
mention of Cardinal Nikolaus von Sch||nberg writing to Copernicus in
1536, encouraging him to publish his ideas. It also only mentions in
passing that 'De Revolutionibus' was placed on the Index of Forbidden
Books until corrected without any explanation of what those
corrections entailed which was the central part of our previous
discussion.
It does, however, confirm what I said about the work being regarded as hypothetical and rejected by his fellow scientists, not by the Church
- "The heliocentric hypothesis was rejected out of hand by virtually
all rCa".
But anyway, I have no desire to resurrect that discussion, I just
thought you mind find O'Neill's article interesting.
On 6/20/26 10:27 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 12:32:28 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/26 12:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 19:55:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:58 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:25:52 -0700, John HarshmanHe also characterizes and over-interprets many of the things he quotes >>>>> as evidence.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John HarshmanWhy post that in this thread?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you >>>>>>>> are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for >>>>>>>> Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
Sory, I forgot that your newsreader deletes everything after a couple >>>>>> of weeks. This was the subthread where you and I had a lengthy
discussion about Copernicus and whether the suspension and required >>>>>> edits of his book was the Catholic Church trying to suppress science. >>>>>> I don't want to resurrect that discussion but thought you might find >>>>>> the article enlightening.
I've looked at the site. I think he tries too hard in the bits I've >>>>>>> read, but I haven't read that one. Probably will.
I don't think "tries too hard" is justified when he backs up
everything he says.
Don't we all :)
I find this rendering of the story (cited favorably by history for
atheists) more convincing and better argued than his:
https://galileo.library.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html
I've used that site a few times, it is useful for summaries but
doesn't go into the level of detail that O'Neill does. In that
Copernicus article, it doesn't really explain the Church's attitude
towards and treatment of heliocentrism. For example, it makes no
mention of Cardinal Nikolaus von Sch||nberg writing to Copernicus in
1536, encouraging him to publish his ideas. It also only mentions in
passing that 'De Revolutionibus' was placed on the Index of Forbidden
Books until corrected without any explanation of what those
corrections entailed which was the central part of our previous
discussion.
True, though it does point out some other things, notably why the church >paid so little attention to Copernicus until Galileo started promoting >heliocentrism. It became a threat only after it began gaining ground as
a description of reality rather than a mathematical convenience.
And you will note that the purpose of the "corrections" to De
Revolutionibus was to remove any claims that heliocentrism had anything
to do with reality. It's clear from the pattern that the reasons for >suppressing heliocentrism and earth's rotation were theological and
became increasingly prominent as the science began turning (so to speak)
in that direction.
It does, however, confirm what I said about the work being regarded as
hypothetical and rejected by his fellow scientists, not by the Church
- "The heliocentric hypothesis was rejected out of hand by virtually
all rCa".
And thus no problem for the church until scientists started accepting it.
But anyway, I have no desire to resurrect that discussion, I just
thought you mind find O'Neill's article interesting.
Did. But again, I think O'Neill's take makes less sense than the one
above, even if it doesn't present every detail.
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 19:40:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/20/26 10:27 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 12:32:28 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/26 12:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 19:55:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:58 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:25:52 -0700, John HarshmanHe also characterizes and over-interprets many of the things he quotes >>>>>> as evidence.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/26 2:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:03:31 -0700, John HarshmanWhy post that in this thread?
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Not sure if you are still seeing additions to this thread but if you >>>>>>>>> are, you might find this article interesting in the "history for >>>>>>>>> Atheists" site I've posted about elsewhere.
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/07/the-great-myths-6-copernicus-deathbed-publication/
Sory, I forgot that your newsreader deletes everything after a couple >>>>>>> of weeks. This was the subthread where you and I had a lengthy
discussion about Copernicus and whether the suspension and required >>>>>>> edits of his book was the Catholic Church trying to suppress science. >>>>>>> I don't want to resurrect that discussion but thought you might find >>>>>>> the article enlightening.
I've looked at the site. I think he tries too hard in the bits I've >>>>>>>> read, but I haven't read that one. Probably will.
I don't think "tries too hard" is justified when he backs up
everything he says.
Don't we all :)
I find this rendering of the story (cited favorably by history for
atheists) more convincing and better argued than his:
https://galileo.library.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html
I've used that site a few times, it is useful for summaries but
doesn't go into the level of detail that O'Neill does. In that
Copernicus article, it doesn't really explain the Church's attitude
towards and treatment of heliocentrism. For example, it makes no
mention of Cardinal Nikolaus von Sch||nberg writing to Copernicus in
1536, encouraging him to publish his ideas. It also only mentions in
passing that 'De Revolutionibus' was placed on the Index of Forbidden
Books until corrected without any explanation of what those
corrections entailed which was the central part of our previous
discussion.
True, though it does point out some other things, notably why the church
paid so little attention to Copernicus until Galileo started promoting
heliocentrism. It became a threat only after it began gaining ground as
a description of reality rather than a mathematical convenience.
And you will note that the purpose of the "corrections" to De
Revolutionibus was to remove any claims that heliocentrism had anything
to do with reality. It's clear from the pattern that the reasons for
suppressing heliocentrism and earth's rotation were theological and
became increasingly prominent as the science began turning (so to speak)
in that direction.
It does, however, confirm what I said about the work being regarded as
hypothetical and rejected by his fellow scientists, not by the Church
- "The heliocentric hypothesis was rejected out of hand by virtually
all rCa".
And thus no problem for the church until scientists started accepting it.
You are working with the modern day concept of scientific theory being provisional based on the best explanation for available evidence; essentially a continuum proposition -> hypothesis -> theory. Things
didn't work that way in 1616, ideas and propositions were classified
binarily as 'demonstrated' or 'false', treated as false until there
was conclusive demonstration for them. That is what Cardinal
Bellarmine was referring to when he stated that if real proof of heliocentrism was established, then the Church would have to review
its interpretation of related Scripture.
In that context, the Inquisition were right to declare heliocentrism
as "foolish and absurd in philosophy"
(astronomy was classed as
philosophy at that time) because that was the way that scientists overwhelmingly regarded it including Galileo himself as stated in one
of his unpublished notes from 1615:
"It is the highest prudence to believe there has been no demonstration
of the mobility of the earth rCa. and we do not ask anyone to believe
this point without demonstration. rCa. If the proponents of [it] were to
have no more than ninety percent of the arguments on their side, they
would be rebutted."
[Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible (Notre Dame,
1991), Appendix IX, p. 271]
Galileo did of course go on to create what we now know as 'the
scientific method' but that was a gradual process beginning with his unpublished letter to Duchess Christina in 1615 but only fully
developed in 'The Assayer' in 1623, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems' in 1632 (the one that got him into trouble with
the pope) and 'Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to
Two New Sciences' in 1638 (his final book). According to Wikipedia:
"Discourses was written in a style similar to Dialogues, in which
three men (Simplicio, Sagredo, and Salviati) discuss and debate the
various questions Galileo is seeking to answer. There is a notable
change in the men, however; Simplicio, in particular, is no longer
quite as simple-minded, stubborn and Aristotelian as his name implies.
His arguments are representative of Galileo's own early beliefs, as
Sagredo represents his middle period, and Salviati proposes Galileo's
newest models."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_New_Sciences]
But anyway, I have no desire to resurrect that discussion, I just
thought you mind find O'Neill's article interesting.
Did. But again, I think O'Neill's take makes less sense than the one
above, even if it doesn't present every detail.
What parts of O'Neill's arguments do you think are over-interpreted?
On 6/28/26 5:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 19:40:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
And thus no problem for the church until scientists started accepting it. >>You are working with the modern day concept of scientific theory being
provisional based on the best explanation for available evidence;
essentially a continuum proposition -> hypothesis -> theory. Things
didn't work that way in 1616, ideas and propositions were classified
binarily as 'demonstrated' or 'false', treated as false until there
was conclusive demonstration for them. That is what Cardinal
Bellarmine was referring to when he stated that if real proof of
heliocentrism was established, then the Church would have to review
its interpretation of related Scripture.
Why should the church enforce any opinions on science?
And anyway, you can't really treat every proposition as false until its >truth is demonstrated. That way a proposition and its negation must both
be considered false, which is logically contradictory. What this
actually looks like is a presumption that one's interpretation of
scripture is true until proven false, not some general principle of >pre-modern science.
In that context, the Inquisition were right to declare heliocentrism
as "foolish and absurd in philosophy"
What business would that be of the Inquisition's?
(astronomy was classed as
philosophy at that time) because that was the way that scientists
overwhelmingly regarded it including Galileo himself as stated in one
of his unpublished notes from 1615:
"It is the highest prudence to believe there has been no demonstration
of the mobility of the earth rCa. and we do not ask anyone to believe
this point without demonstration. rCa. If the proponents of [it] were to
have no more than ninety percent of the arguments on their side, they
would be rebutted."
Now that's a quote-mine as egregious as the one about Darwin and the
eye.
Unless of course we are to suppose that his opinion changed
radically within a year.
[Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible (Notre Dame,
1991), Appendix IX, p. 271]
Galileo did of course go on to create what we now know as 'the
scientific method' but that was a gradual process beginning with his
unpublished letter to Duchess Christina in 1615 but only fully
developed in 'The Assayer' in 1623, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems' in 1632 (the one that got him into trouble with
the pope) and 'Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to
Two New Sciences' in 1638 (his final book). According to Wikipedia:
"Discourses was written in a style similar to Dialogues, in which
three men (Simplicio, Sagredo, and Salviati) discuss and debate the
various questions Galileo is seeking to answer. There is a notable
change in the men, however; Simplicio, in particular, is no longer
quite as simple-minded, stubborn and Aristotelian as his name implies.
His arguments are representative of Galileo's own early beliefs, as
Sagredo represents his middle period, and Salviati proposes Galileo's
newest models."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_New_Sciences]
But anyway, I have no desire to resurrect that discussion, I just
thought you mind find O'Neill's article interesting.
Did. But again, I think O'Neill's take makes less sense than the one
above, even if it doesn't present every detail.
What parts of O'Neill's arguments do you think are over-interpreted?
I will have to re-read to recall. Perhaps later.
Why should the church enforce any opinions on science?
I wasn't ...
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 09:14:21 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/26 5:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 19:40:52 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
That's enforcing an opinion on science. That it may have been a majority opinion at the time isn't relevant.And thus no problem for the church until scientists started accepting it.
You are working with the modern day concept of scientific theory being
provisional based on the best explanation for available evidence;
essentially a continuum proposition -> hypothesis -> theory. Things
didn't work that way in 1616, ideas and propositions were classified
binarily as 'demonstrated' or 'false', treated as false until there
was conclusive demonstration for them. That is what Cardinal
Bellarmine was referring to when he stated that if real proof of
heliocentrism was established, then the Church would have to review
its interpretation of related Scripture.
Why should the church enforce any opinions on science?
I wasn't - it was doing the opposite, going with scientific opinion.
That's what it has always done from at least as far back as AugustineBecause at that point it was a lost cause. The church had a scripture-based bias in favor of geocentrism, which it maintained and enforced as long as possible. There was no great need for enforcement until Galileo started convincing people. Copernicus posed no threat as long as he was presented as merely proposing a mathematical model.
in the 5th century. If the Church was so opposed to heliocentrism, why
do you think they didn't even bat an eyelid when heliocentrism did
become accepted scientific opinion as a result of work by Kepler and
Newton and the eventual detection of stellar parallax?
Seems odd? It's clearly incoherent and self-contradictory. And again, I don't see evidence that this was a general principle of science even 400 years ago.And anyway, you can't really treat every proposition as false until its
truth is demonstrated. That way a proposition and its negation must both
be considered false, which is logically contradictory. What this
actually looks like is a presumption that one's interpretation of
scripture is true until proven false, not some general principle of
pre-modern science.
Like it or not, it *was* the general principle then. You can't rewrite history from 400 years just because the way people thought at that
time seems odd by today's standards.
Again, what business does the Inquisition have policing science? The moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, and Galilean relativity falsified several of the main arguments against heliocentrism. Why did the Inquisition need to weight in?In that context, the Inquisition were right to declare heliocentrism
as "foolish and absurd in philosophy"
What business would that be of the Inquisition's?
As explained ad nauseum, if it was determined to be true then the
Church would have to review its interpretation of some passages from
the Bible. Essentially the Church's reaction was "nothing to see here,
move on."
It's not necessarily your quote-mine. But how can it be reconciled with Galileo's known views?(astronomy was classed as
philosophy at that time) because that was the way that scientists
overwhelmingly regarded it including Galileo himself as stated in one
of his unpublished notes from 1615:
"It is the highest prudence to believe there has been no demonstration
of the mobility of the earth rCa. and we do not ask anyone to believe
this point without demonstration. rCa. If the proponents of [it] were to
have no more than ninety percent of the arguments on their side, they
would be rebutted."
Now that's a quote-mine as egregious as the one about Darwin and the
eye.
There is already one person here tossing around unfounded accusations
of quote-mining against me like confetti and that is one more than
enough. Please identify how I have misrepresented Galileo in that
quote or else withdraw the accusation.
1615 to 1616. Not a 31-year period. Given that in 1616 Galileo was convinced of heliocentrism, how can you reconcile that with the quote?Unless of course we are to suppose that his opinion changed
radically within a year.
How on earth does development of ideas over a 31-year period become
radical change within a year?
[Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible (Notre Dame,
1991), Appendix IX, p. 271]
Galileo did of course go on to create what we now know as 'the
scientific method' but that was a gradual process beginning with his
unpublished letter to Duchess Christina in 1615 but only fully
developed in 'The Assayer' in 1623, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems' in 1632 (the one that got him into trouble with
the pope) and 'Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to
Two New Sciences' in 1638 (his final book). According to Wikipedia:
"Discourses was written in a style similar to Dialogues, in which
three men (Simplicio, Sagredo, and Salviati) discuss and debate the
various questions Galileo is seeking to answer. There is a notable
change in the men, however; Simplicio, in particular, is no longer
quite as simple-minded, stubborn and Aristotelian as his name implies.
His arguments are representative of Galileo's own early beliefs, as
Sagredo represents his middle period, and Salviati proposes Galileo's
newest models."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_New_Sciences]
But anyway, I have no desire to resurrect that discussion, I just
thought you mind find O'Neill's article interesting.
Did. But again, I think O'Neill's take makes less sense than the one
above, even if it doesn't present every detail.
What parts of O'Neill's arguments do you think are over-interpreted?
I will have to re-read to recall. Perhaps later.
On 6/30/26 12:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
(astronomy was classed as
philosophy at that time) because that was the way that scientists
overwhelmingly regarded it including Galileo himself as stated in one
of his unpublished notes from 1615:
"It is the highest prudence to believe there has been no demonstration >>> of the mobility of the earth rCa. and we do not ask anyone to believe
this point without demonstration. rCa. If the proponents of [it] were to >>> have no more than ninety percent of the arguments on their side, they
would be rebutted."
Now that's a quote-mine as egregious as the one about Darwin and the
eye.
There is already one person here tossing around unfounded accusations
of quote-mining against me like confetti and that is one more than
enough. Please identify how I have misrepresented Galileo in that
quote or else withdraw the accusation.
It's not necessarily your quote-mine. But how can it be reconciled with Galileo's known views?
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 09:34:56 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 12:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[Snip for focus]
(astronomy was classed as
philosophy at that time) because that was the way that scientists
overwhelmingly regarded it including Galileo himself as stated in one >>>>> of his unpublished notes from 1615:
"It is the highest prudence to believe there has been no demonstration >>>>> of the mobility of the earth rCa. and we do not ask anyone to believe >>>>> this point without demonstration. rCa. If the proponents of [it] were to >>>>> have no more than ninety percent of the arguments on their side, they >>>>> would be rebutted."
Now that's a quote-mine as egregious as the one about Darwin and the
eye.
There is already one person here tossing around unfounded accusations
of quote-mining against me like confetti and that is one more than
enough. Please identify how I have misrepresented Galileo in that
quote or else withdraw the accusation.
It's not necessarily your quote-mine. But how can it be reconciled with Galileo's known views?
Weasel words as a feeble effort to avoid the fact that you cannot show
how I misrepresented Galileo when there is no need to reconcile it
with what you claim to be his known views as it was written by Galileo himself.
Like that other poster, you seem to think that you can get rid of a
quote that contradicts your worldview by simply shouting "quote mine".
You demonstrate yet again how futile it is to try to have a rational discussion with you.
On 6/30/26 10:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 09:34:56 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 12:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[Snip for focus]
(astronomy was classed as
philosophy at that time) because that was the way that scientists
overwhelmingly regarded it including Galileo himself as stated in one >>>>>> of his unpublished notes from 1615:
"It is the highest prudence to believe there has been no demonstration >>>>>> of the mobility of the earth rCa. and we do not ask anyone to believe >>>>>> this point without demonstration. rCa. If the proponents of [it] were to >>>>>> have no more than ninety percent of the arguments on their side, they >>>>>> would be rebutted."
Now that's a quote-mine as egregious as the one about Darwin and the >>>>> eye.
There is already one person here tossing around unfounded accusations
of quote-mining against me like confetti and that is one more than
enough. Please identify how I have misrepresented Galileo in that
quote or else withdraw the accusation.
It's not necessarily your quote-mine. But how can it be reconciled with Galileo's known views?
Weasel words as a feeble effort to avoid the fact that you cannot show
how I misrepresented Galileo when there is no need to reconcile it
with what you claim to be his known views as it was written by Galileo
himself.
Like that other poster, you seem to think that you can get rid of a
quote that contradicts your worldview by simply shouting "quote mine".
You demonstrate yet again how futile it is to try to have a rational
discussion with you.
Stop clutching your pearls and respond.
How can you reconcile this
statement with Galileo's known position just the next year? In that year
he claimed to have proved that the earth moved
and was cautioned by
Cardinal Bellarmine not to say such things.
Where can one find this note without ellipses? I see that O'Neill gets
it from here: Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible
(Notre Dame, 1991). But I have no access to that book and have no idea >whether the ellipses were already there in the book. One is left to
address plausibility. Would Galileo have said this, and meant it in the
way claimed, 5 years after publication of Starry Messenger and the year >before his censure?
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:32:44 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 09:34:56 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 12:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[Snip for focus]
(astronomy was classed as
philosophy at that time) because that was the way that scientists >>>>>>> overwhelmingly regarded it including Galileo himself as stated in one >>>>>>> of his unpublished notes from 1615:
"It is the highest prudence to believe there has been no demonstration >>>>>>> of the mobility of the earth rCa. and we do not ask anyone to believe >>>>>>> this point without demonstration. rCa. If the proponents of [it] were to
have no more than ninety percent of the arguments on their side, they >>>>>>> would be rebutted."
Now that's a quote-mine as egregious as the one about Darwin and the >>>>>> eye.
There is already one person here tossing around unfounded accusations >>>>> of quote-mining against me like confetti and that is one more than
enough. Please identify how I have misrepresented Galileo in that
quote or else withdraw the accusation.
It's not necessarily your quote-mine. But how can it be reconciled with Galileo's known views?
Weasel words as a feeble effort to avoid the fact that you cannot show
how I misrepresented Galileo when there is no need to reconcile it
with what you claim to be his known views as it was written by Galileo
himself.
Like that other poster, you seem to think that you can get rid of a
quote that contradicts your worldview by simply shouting "quote mine".
You demonstrate yet again how futile it is to try to have a rational
discussion with you.
Stop clutching your pearls and respond.
I'll stop 'clutching my pearls' when you stop making unwarranted
attacks on my integrity.
How can you reconcile this
statement with Galileo's known position just the next year? In that year
he claimed to have proved that the earth moved
Source?
and was cautioned by
Cardinal Bellarmine not to say such things.
Where can one find this note without ellipses? I see that O'Neill gets
it from here: Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible
(Notre Dame, 1991). But I have no access to that book and have no idea
whether the ellipses were already there in the book. One is left to
address plausibility. Would Galileo have said this, and meant it in the
way claimed, 5 years after publication of Starry Messenger and the year
before his censure?
So you don't know anything about what the book said yet you
immediately dismiss it as a quote-mine. You are like another poster
here, you have a particular conclusion based on your worldview and
just try to dismiss out of hand anything that contradicts it.
The Blackwell book (which I cited) is available online but knowing
that you are not particularly good at searching for stuff, I will post
the whole of Galileo's note below; the text is a conversion from a PDF
so there may be some minor typographical mistakes. Apologies to those
who don't like long posts but it seems the only way to put this to
bed.
The quote I gave comes from paragraph 6, p271 but you really should
read the whole note as it shows clearly how Galileo was personally
convinced about heliocentrism but recognised that he wasn't able to demonstrate that it was true.
In regard to his observations about Scripture, bear in mind that they
are in response to specific points Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini so
if you can't understand any point he is making (e.g. the one about
sons and dogs in Pr 4), you might want to check out that letter. It's available here:
https://inters.org/Bellarmino-Letter-Foscarini
=========================================================
APPENDIX
IX
Galileo's
Unpublished Notes 1615)
A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER TO FOSCARINI"
1. Copernicus assumes eccentrics and epicycles; these are not
his reason for rejecting the Ptolemaic system (since they undoubtedly
exist in the heavens), but rather other difficulties are.
2. In regard to the philosophers, if they be true philosophers,
i.e., lovers of the truth, they should not be irritated. Rather, if
they
realize that they have held a false belief, they should thank those
who
have shown them the truth; and if their opinion stands firm, they
will have reason to boast rather than be angered. The theologians
also should not be irritated. For if they find that this opinion is
false,
then they would be fre|- to condemn it; and if they discover that it
is
true, they ought to thank those who have opened the way to finding
the true sense of the Scriptures and who have prevented them from
falling into the grave scandal of condemning a true proposition.
In regard to falsifying Scripture, this is not and never will be
the
intention of Catholic astronomers, such as myself. On the contrary
our opinion is that the Scriptures agree perfectly with demonstrated
natural truth. However theologians who are not astronomers should
guard against falsifying Scripture by trying to interpret it contrary
to
propositions which could be true and proven about nature.
3. It could be that we would have difficulty in explaining the Scriptures, etc. But this is because of our ignorance, and certainly
not because there really is, or could be, an insuperable problem in reconciling the Scriptures with demonstrated truth.
4. The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not
a
269
270 Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible
"matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione ob- jecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de
fide
ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in the de-
cree of the council. It is replied that then everything which is in
Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and thus in
this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the coun-
cil. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council ought
to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be followed
for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters of faith
and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it seems that
the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith because of
the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of faith" to
hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog, because
the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not move,
granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves. The
reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would be
a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world
who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some-
one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that
someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence
there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in
such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative
and the negative would be equally credible to all men. But this is
not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the stability
of
the sun, which are propositions far removed from the apprehension
of the common man. As a result it has pleased the Holy Spirit to
accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the capacities of the
common man in such matters which do not concern his salvation,
even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
5. In regard to the location of the sun in the heavens and of
the earth outside the heavens, as Scripture seems to say, etc. This
truly seems to me to be simply a way of speaking in accordance with
our understanding and apprehension. For indeed everything which
is contained by the heavens is in the heavens, as everything which
is contained by the walls of a city are in the city. Or if there be
any advantage to be gained, something is more in the heavens or
in a city if it is in the middle, and as is said, in the heart of the
city and of the heavens. The qualification "in relation to us" arises
Appendix IX 271
because we inhabit the realm of the elements which surround the
earth and which are very different from the celestial realm. But this qualification will always be there no matter what the elements are.
And it will always be true that "in relation to us" the earth is down
and the heavens are up. For all the inhabitants of the earth have
the heavens above their heads, which is up for us, and the center of
the earth is under their feet, which is down for us. Thus in relation
to us the center of the earth and the surface of the heavens are the
most distant places; namely, the end points of up and down for us,
and they are diametrically opposed points.
6. It is the highest prudence to believe that there is no
demon-
stration of the mobility of the earth until such a proof has been
given.
And we do not ask anyone to believe this point without a demon-
stration. Rather we ask, for the good of the Holy Church, that what
the followers of this doctrine know and can offer be examined with
the greatest care, and that nothing be admitted unless it has a force
which is greatly superior to the reasons on the other side. If the
pro-
ponents were to have no more than ninety percent of the arguments
on their side, they would be rebutted. But when everything offered
by the philosophers and astronomers on the other side is proven
to be for the most part false and without any importance, then the
position of the proponents should not be scorned and be considered
to be a paradox because of the fact that it cannot be demonstrated conclusively. And indeed this can be a great advantage. For it is
clear
that those who are on the false side cannot have any argument or
evidence of value; while on the side of truth, there is the advantage
that everything agrees and is consistent.
7. It is true that to show that the appearances are saved by
the mobility of the earth and the stability of the sun is not the
same thing as to demonstrate that this hypothesis is really true in
nature. But it is equally and even more true that the other commonly
accepted system is not able to give reasons for these appearances.
The latter is undoubtedly false, just as it is clear that the former,
which corresponds to the appearances perfectly, could be true. No
greater truth can be, or ought to be, sought for in a position than
that it corresponds to all the particular appearances.
8. It is not asked that the interpretations of the Fathers be abandoned in a case of doubt, but only that one try to arrive at
272 Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible
certitude about what is in doubt. And therefore one should not scorn
what is, and has been, concluded by the greatest philosophers and astronomers, after having taken all necessary care to understand their conclusions.
9. We believe that Solomon and Moses and the other sacred
writers knew the constitution of the world perfectly; as they also
knew that God does not have hands or feet or anger or forgetfulness
or regret; nor would we ever cast doubt on this. But we would
repeat what St. Peter and especially St. Augustine have said about
this; namely, that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak in this way for
the reasons which they give, etc.
10. We come to recognize the error of the apparent mobility
of the beach and the stability of the boat after we have stood many
times on a beach as we observe the motion of a boat and many times
in a boat as we observe the beach. Thus if we could stand at one
time on the earth and at another time on the sun or on another star,
perhaps we could in each case come to a secure sensory recognition
of which of them was moving. But if we could observe only these two
bodies, it could always seem to us that the one on which we stand is motionless; just as for someone who can observe only the water and
the boat, it will always seem that the water is moving and the boat
is motionless. There is a great disparity between a small boat which
is isolated from all its surroundings and an immense beach known
by us to be immobile from thousands and thousands of experiences,
immobile, that is, in relation to the water and to the boat. And this
is quite different from the comparison of two bodies, both of which
are solid and equally disposed to motion and to rest. Hence it would
be more proper to make a comparison of two boats to each other:
in this case it would always appear that the boat on which we were
located was absolutely at rest, as long as all the time we could not establish any relations except between the two boats.
There is then a great need to correct the error regarding ap- pearances as to whether the earth or the sun moves, it being clear
that to someone who is on the moon or any other planet, it would
always seem that that star is fixed and the other stars move. But this
and many other more superficial arguments of the followers of the
common opinion need to be unraveled with very great clarity, so that
when they demand a hearing, they are not approved. But it is far
Appendix IX 273
from our concerns now to give such a detailed consideration of what
has been brought against them. Furthermore neither Copernicus
nor his followers have ever used these appearances concerning the
beach and the boat to prove that the earth is in motion and the sun
is
at rest. Rather they use this only as an example, not to demonstrate
the truth of their position, but to show that no repugnance would
arise, in respect to one simple appearance of the senses, between a
stable earth and a mobile sun, if the contrary were truly the case. If
this were Copernicus' demonstration, and if his other proofs did not
conclude with greater force, then I truly believe that no one would
applaud him.
B: ON TRUTH IN SCIENCE AND IN SCRIPTURE
The mobility of the earth and the stability of the sun could
never be contrary to the faith or to Scripture, if this were ever
actu-
ally proven to be true in nature by philosophers, astronomers, and mathematicians by means of sense experience, exact observations,
and necessary demonstrations. In such a case, if any passages of
Scripture seem to say the opposite, we should say that this is due to
the weakness of our intellect, which has not been able to penetrate
into the true meaning of Scripture on this point. For it is a common
and most correct teaching to say that one truth cannot be contrary
to another truth. Therefore those who would juridically condemn
something need first to prove that it is false in nature by
challenging
the arguments to the contrary.
Now as a protection against error, let us ask from what
starting
point should one begin; that is, from the authority of the Scrip-
tures or from the refutation of the demonstrations and evidence of
the philosophers and astronomers. I answer that we ought to be-
gin from the place which is more secure and far removed from any
occasion of scandal; and this is the starting point of natural and mathematical arguments. I claim that if the arguments to prove the
mobility of the earth are found to be fallacious and demonstrative
of the contrary, then we will have firmly established the falsity of
that proposition and the truth of the contrary, which we now say
is in agreement with the meaning of the Scriptures. Indeed one
could freely and without danger condemn that proposition as false.
274 Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible
On the other hand, if these arguments are found to be true and
necessary, there will not be any occasion of prejudice against the
authority of Scripture. For this will cause us to remain cautious
that in our ignorance we have not penetrated into the true mean-
ing of the Scripture, which we can then pursue aided by the newly
discovered natural truth. Thus the starting point of reason is se-
cure in every way. But on the contrary, if we stand solely on what
seems to us to be the true and most certain sense of Scripture,
and if we proceed to condemn such a proposition without exam-
ining the force of the demonstrations, then how great a scandal
will follow when sense experience and arguments prove the con-
trary? And who will have plunged the Holy Church into confusion:
those who have given the highest importance to demonstrations,
or those who have neglected them? Thus we see which path is
more secure.
We maintain that a natural proposition which is proven to be
true by natural and mathematical demonstrations can never be con-
trary to the Scriptures; rather in such a case it is the weakness of
our
intellect which prevents us from penetrating into the true meaning
of the Scriptures themselves. On the other hand, those who try to
refute and falsify that same type of proposition by using the author-
ity of the same passages of Scripture will commit the fallacy called
"begging the question." For since the true sense of the Scripture will already have been put in doubt by the force of the argument, one
cannot take it as clear and secure for the purpose of refuting that
same proposition. Rather one needs to take the demonstrations apart
and find their fallacies with the aid of other arguments, experiences,
and more certain observations. And when the truth of fact and of
nature has been found in this way, then, but not before, can we
confirm the true sense of Scripture and securely use it for our pur-
poses. Thus again the secure path is to begin with demonstrations,
confirming the true and refuting the false.
If as a matter of fact the earth does move, then we cannot
change nature so that it does not move. But we can easily eliminate inconsistency with Scripture simply by admitting that we have not
penetrated into its true meaning. Thus the secure way to avoid error
is to begin with astronomical and natural investigations, and not with Scripture.
Appendix IX 275
I realize that in their explanation of the passages of Scripture pertaining to this issue, all the Fathers agree in interpreting them
in
the most simple sense and according to the direct meaning of the
words; and that therefore it would not be proper, in response to a
different point of view, to alter their common interpretation, because
that would accuse the Fathers of inadvertence or negligence. I re-
spond by admitting that this is a reasonable and proper concern, but
add that we have a most ready excuse for the Fathers. It is that they
never explained the Scriptures differently from the direct meaning
of the words on this issue because the opinion of the mobility of
the earth was totally buried in their day. It was not discussed or
written about or defended. Hence no charge of negligence can fall
on the Fathers for not reflecting on something which was hidden
from all of them. That they did not reflect on this is clear from the
fact that in their writings there is not found one word about such
an opinion. To the contrary, if anyone says that they did consider it,
that would make it much more dangerous to try to condemn it; for
after considering it, they not only did not condemn it, but no one
even raised a doubt about it.
The defense of the Fathers is, then, quite easy and quick. But
on the other hand it would be most difficult, if not impossible, to
excuse and defend from a similar charge of inadvertence, the popes,
councils, and reformers of the Index who for eighty continuous years
have failed to notice an opinion and a book which was originally
written by order of a pope, which was later printed by order of a
cardinal and a bishop, which was dedicated to another pope, which
was so unique in regard to this doctrine that it cannot be said to
have
remain hidden, and which was accepted by the Holy Church, while
supposedly its teaching was false and condemned. Thus if the notion
of agreeing not to charge our ancestors with negligence should be
defended and held in the highest regard, as indeed it should, then
beware that in trying to flee from one absurdity, you do not fall
into
a greater one.
But if someone were still to think that it is improper to abandon
the common interpretation of the Fathers, even in the case of natural propositions which they did not discuss and whose opposites have
not come under their consideration, then I ask what one ought to
do if necessary demonstrations were to conclude that the opposite is
276 Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible
a fact in nature. Which of these two rules ought to be altered? That
which says that no proposition can be both true and false? Or that
which obliges us to take as a "matter of faith" natural propositions
learned from the common interpretation of the Fathers? If I am not
mistaken, it seems to me to be more secure to modify the second
rule, i.e., the one which tries to oblige us to hold as a "matter of
faith" a natural proposition which could by conclusive arguments be demonstrated to be false in fact and in nature. Furthermore it should
be said that the common interpretation of the Fathers ought to have
absolute authority for propositions which they examined and which
do not have, and certainly never possibly could have, demonstrations
to the contrary. Let me add that it seems to be abundantly clear that
the council obliges agreement with the common explanation of the
Fathers only "in matters of faith and morals, etc."
[Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible (Notre Dame,
1991)
]
On 7/1/26 8:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:32:44 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 09:34:56 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 12:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[Snip for focus]
(astronomy was classed as
philosophy at that time) because that was the way that scientists >>>>>>>> overwhelmingly regarded it including Galileo himself as stated in one >>>>>>>> of his unpublished notes from 1615:
"It is the highest prudence to believe there has been no demonstration >>>>>>>> of the mobility of the earth rCa. and we do not ask anyone to believe >>>>>>>> this point without demonstration. rCa. If the proponents of [it] were to
have no more than ninety percent of the arguments on their side, they >>>>>>>> would be rebutted."
Now that's a quote-mine as egregious as the one about Darwin and the >>>>>>> eye.
There is already one person here tossing around unfounded accusations >>>>>> of quote-mining against me like confetti and that is one more than >>>>>> enough. Please identify how I have misrepresented Galileo in that
quote or else withdraw the accusation.
It's not necessarily your quote-mine. But how can it be reconciled with Galileo's known views?
Weasel words as a feeble effort to avoid the fact that you cannot show >>>> how I misrepresented Galileo when there is no need to reconcile it
with what you claim to be his known views as it was written by Galileo >>>> himself.
Like that other poster, you seem to think that you can get rid of a
quote that contradicts your worldview by simply shouting "quote mine". >>>>
You demonstrate yet again how futile it is to try to have a rational
discussion with you.
Stop clutching your pearls and respond.
I'll stop 'clutching my pearls' when you stop making unwarranted
attacks on my integrity.
I said it might not be your quote-mine.
How can you reconcile this
statement with Galileo's known position just the next year? In that year >>> he claimed to have proved that the earth moved
Source?
It was his theory of the tides that he considered proof. Here, for
example: https://galileo.library.rice.edu/sci/observations/tides.html#3
and was cautioned by
Cardinal Bellarmine not to say such things.
Where can one find this note without ellipses? I see that O'Neill gets
it from here: Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible
(Notre Dame, 1991). But I have no access to that book and have no idea
whether the ellipses were already there in the book. One is left to
address plausibility. Would Galileo have said this, and meant it in the
way claimed, 5 years after publication of Starry Messenger and the year
before his censure?
So you don't know anything about what the book said yet you
immediately dismiss it as a quote-mine. You are like another poster
here, you have a particular conclusion based on your worldview and
just try to dismiss out of hand anything that contradicts it.
It's puzzling, though, isn't it? The "demonstration" (though fallacious,
but never mind) was less than a year away. And I think that the full
note (below) shows that Galileo thought the evidence of his position was >better than the incomplete quote seems to imply.
The Blackwell book (which I cited) is available online but knowing
that you are not particularly good at searching for stuff, I will post
the whole of Galileo's note below; the text is a conversion from a PDF
so there may be some minor typographical mistakes. Apologies to those
who don't like long posts but it seems the only way to put this to
bed.
Thank you. This is very helpful.
The quote I gave comes from paragraph 6, p271 but you really should
read the whole note as it shows clearly how Galileo was personally
convinced about heliocentrism but recognised that he wasn't able to
demonstrate that it was true.
If so, it was a short-lived recognition.
6. It is the highest prudence to believe that there is no
demon-
stration of the mobility of the earth until such a proof has been
given.
And we do not ask anyone to believe this point without a demon-
stration. Rather we ask, for the good of the Holy Church, that what
the followers of this doctrine know and can offer be examined with
the greatest care, and that nothing be admitted unless it has a force
which is greatly superior to the reasons on the other side. If the
pro-
ponents were to have no more than ninety percent of the arguments
on their side, they would be rebutted. But when everything offered
by the philosophers and astronomers on the other side is proven
to be for the most part false and without any importance, then the
position of the proponents should not be scorned and be considered
to be a paradox because of the fact that it cannot be demonstrated
conclusively. And indeed this can be a great advantage. For it is
clear
that those who are on the false side cannot have any argument or
evidence of value; while on the side of truth, there is the advantage
that everything agrees and is consistent.
This bit seems conclusive. Galileo is claiming that the opponents of >heliocentrism have false and/or trivial arguments while proponents have >consistent arguments even they can't demonstrate their point 100% >conclusively. Thus if we much choose a side, we must choose a moving
earth. At the very least we must not reject it, but I think Galileo here
is coming as close as he dares to say that his position is indeed >"demonstrated".
Coming right after the bit quoted, I'd say that this amplification of
his meaning does show a quote mine, whether intentional or accidental.
4On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:05:13 -0700, John HarshmanUnjustified? No. Misdirected. You are apparently just believing O'Neill.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:32:44 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 10:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 09:34:56 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/30/26 12:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[Snip for focus]
(astronomy was classed as
philosophy at that time) because that was the way that scientists
overwhelmingly regarded it including Galileo himself as stated in one
of his unpublished notes from 1615:
"It is the highest prudence to believe there has been no demonstration
of the mobility of the earth rCa. and we do not ask anyone to believe
this point without demonstration. rCa. If the proponents of [it] were to
have no more than ninety percent of the arguments on their side, they
would be rebutted."
Now that's a quote-mine as egregious as the one about Darwin and the
eye.
There is already one person here tossing around unfounded accusations
of quote-mining against me like confetti and that is one more than
enough. Please identify how I have misrepresented Galileo in that
quote or else withdraw the accusation.
It's not necessarily your quote-mine. But how can it be reconciled with Galileo's known views?
Weasel words as a feeble effort to avoid the fact that you cannot show
how I misrepresented Galileo when there is no need to reconcile it
with what you claim to be his known views as it was written by Galileo
himself.
Like that other poster, you seem to think that you can get rid of a
quote that contradicts your worldview by simply shouting "quote mine".
You demonstrate yet again how futile it is to try to have a rational
discussion with you.
Stop clutching your pearls and respond.
I'll stop 'clutching my pearls' when you stop making unwarranted
attacks on my integrity.
I said it might not be your quote-mine.
It was my quote that you attacked "as egregious as the one about
Darwin and the eye." Trying to backtrack with "might not have been" is
a weasel worded way of trying to get yourself of the hook without
admitting you were on it. Why don't you man up and admit it was an unjustified attack.
Not relevant. The subject is Galileo's opinion. I submitted that as evidence that Galileo's note didn't mean what it was claimed to mean.How can you reconcile this
statement with Galileo's known position just the next year? In that year
he claimed to have proved that the earth moved
Source?
It was his theory of the tides that he considered proof. Here, for
example: https://galileo.library.rice.edu/sci/observations/tides.html#3
*He* might have thought it proof but not his fellow scientists who
rejected it out of hand due to its obvious shortcomings. A response
that hardly endeared them to a man so well known for his arrogance.
It doesn't matter whether it failed. Again, we're talking about the meaning of that little quote.and was cautioned by
Cardinal Bellarmine not to say such things.
Where can one find this note without ellipses? I see that O'Neill gets
it from here: Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible
(Notre Dame, 1991). But I have no access to that book and have no idea
whether the ellipses were already there in the book. One is left to
address plausibility. Would Galileo have said this, and meant it in the
way claimed, 5 years after publication of Starry Messenger and the year
before his censure?
So you don't know anything about what the book said yet you
immediately dismiss it as a quote-mine. You are like another poster
here, you have a particular conclusion based on your worldview and
just try to dismiss out of hand anything that contradicts it.
It's puzzling, though, isn't it? The "demonstration" (though fallacious,
but never mind) was less than a year away. And I think that the full
note (below) shows that Galileo thought the evidence of his position was
better than the incomplete quote seems to imply.
There was no doubt about Galileo being personally convinced about heliocentrism but he recognised that he was not able to demonstrate it conclusively. "Discourse on the Tides" was an attempt to overcome that
but failed miserably.
He may or may not have been convinced after its reception, but the point is that he was convinced when he published it, and presumably when he wrote the quote too. You are consistently mistaking the point here.The Blackwell book (which I cited) is available online but knowing
that you are not particularly good at searching for stuff, I will post
the whole of Galileo's note below; the text is a conversion from a PDF
so there may be some minor typographical mistakes. Apologies to those
who don't like long posts but it seems the only way to put this to
bed.
Thank you. This is very helpful.
The quote I gave comes from paragraph 6, p271 but you really should
read the whole note as it shows clearly how Galileo was personally
convinced about heliocentrism but recognised that he wasn't able to
demonstrate that it was true.
If so, it was a short-lived recognition.
How was it short lived? Are you claiming that he was convinced that he
had conclusively demonstrated heliocentrism when his fellow scientists identified the obvious flaws in his proposition?
6. It is the highest prudence to believe that there is no
demon-
stration of the mobility of the earth until such a proof has been
given.
And we do not ask anyone to believe this point without a demon-
stration. Rather we ask, for the good of the Holy Church, that what
the followers of this doctrine know and can offer be examined with
the greatest care, and that nothing be admitted unless it has a force
which is greatly superior to the reasons on the other side. If the
pro-
ponents were to have no more than ninety percent of the arguments
on their side, they would be rebutted. But when everything offered
by the philosophers and astronomers on the other side is proven
to be for the most part false and without any importance, then the
position of the proponents should not be scorned and be considered
to be a paradox because of the fact that it cannot be demonstrated
conclusively. And indeed this can be a great advantage. For it is
clear
that those who are on the false side cannot have any argument or
evidence of value; while on the side of truth, there is the advantage
that everything agrees and is consistent.
This bit seems conclusive. Galileo is claiming that the opponents of
heliocentrism have false and/or trivial arguments while proponents have
consistent arguments even they can't demonstrate their point 100%
conclusively. Thus if we much choose a side, we must choose a moving
earth. At the very least we must not reject it, but I think Galileo here
is coming as close as he dares to say that his position is indeed
"demonstrated".
Coming right after the bit quoted, I'd say that this amplification of
his meaning does show a quote mine, whether intentional or accidental.
[rCa]
Your statement that Galileo is "coming as close as he dares to say"
that his position is indeed demonstrated is a de facto admission that
he knew it was NOT demonstrated.
That is precisely what I said when I
gave the original quote so it was not a quote-mine, neither
intentional nor accidental. As I said above, why don't you man up and
accept you misunderstood the situation instead of channeling another
poster and trying to handwave it away when your are clearly shown to
have misunderstood something.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:10:24 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,348 |