Talk:Galileo Galilei

GAR reassessment

Galileo Galilei

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. 20 citation needed tags and no one has stepped up to work on the considerable issues identified. (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

As was noted this summer, this article has a fair amount of citation needed tags, unsourced paragraphs, and broken citations. I am also concerned about the writing quality given all the short stubby paragraphs in certain sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

On Galileo’s intentions regarding Simplicio

It is stated in the article (under ”Controversy over heliocentrism”) that: ”Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.” The reference provided for this statement in no way shows that ”most” historians think this way: it only includes the opinions of one historian (Stillman Drake) and one author-journalist (Arthur Koestler) on the matter of whether Simplicio represented Pope Urbanus VIII or not – which is not even directly related to the statement in question (i.e., whether or not Galileo made Simplicio a foolish Aristotelian out of malice towards the pope or not).

In fact, Simplicio says in the Dialogue that he has received his (Aristotelian) views from a ”high and learned person in front of whom one must keep silence”, which could be a reference to the pope even though Simplicio himself does not represent the pope.

Therefore, I propose removing or amending this statement unless concrete evidence of the views of ”most historians” can be shown. 88.115.56.38 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Jupiter's moons - referenced manuscript is probably a forgery

The section on Jupiter's moons references a draft letter allegedly written by Galileo Galilei and currently held in the University of Michigan Harlan Hatcher Graduate Library.

This draft letter has been recently identified as a probably forgery, as discussed in the following Ars Technica article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/librarys-prized-galileo-manuscript-turns-out-to-be-a-clever-forgery/ 195.59.198.57 (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Unity of measure

I read in the page distances only in miles, I suggest to indicate them also in kilometres 151.43.204.178 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The word "mile", taken from the sources cited, is a translation of the Italian word "miglio" that occurs in the primary sources. The length of this unit varied from place to place in Italy, and even from time to time in any given place. Presumably, the "mile" which the Accademia del Cimento used would have been the Florentine mile of the 1660s, when the experiment described in the primary source was performed.

Galileo's description of his experiment was written at Arcetri, just outside Florence, in the 1630s, but no-one, as far as I know, has any idea where or when (or even if) the experiment he described actually took place. It could well have been performed before 1610 when he was living in Padua, so we can't be sure whether the "mile" he was referring to was a Venetian mile of that period, or a Florentine mile of the later period when he was writing.

I do believe it would be worth adding a footnote giving a brief explanation of the ambiguity in the meaning of the word "mile", and a range of its possible values in kilometres. Judging from the article Italian units of measurement, a range of 1.6 to 1.8km would be about right.

Freda Nurk (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei

Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642) was an Italian astronomer, physicist and engineer, sometimes described as a polymath. Commonly referred to as Galileo, his name was pronounced /ˌɡælɪˈleɪ.oʊ ˌɡælɪˈleɪ.iˌ/ (GAL-ih-LAY-oh GAL-ih-LAY-ee, Italian: [ɡaliˈlɛːo ɡaliˈlɛi]). He was born in the city of Pisa, then part of the Duchy of Florence.[4] Galileo has been called the "father" of observational astronomy,[5] modern-era classical physics,[6] the scientific method,[7] and modern science.[8]

Galileo Galilei Darshan Tarsariya (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"Middle Finger" on Display

Is there anything deliberately symbolic about the fact that his middle finger from his right hand is on display. I know what it means today. Did it mean the same thing several centuries ago? Did they take the middle finger for this reason? Is Galileo "giving the finger" to the world, for all eternity? If so, I think the Article should mention it. Darshan Tarsariya (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Copied content to "The Assayer".

Copied "Controversy over comets and The Assayer" to the article "The Assayer". The Cosmic Ocean (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Scientific contributions intro blockquote

Says Wikipedia:Quotations essay:

Quotations should generally be worked into the article text to avoid interrupting the flow. Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. Long quotations crowd the article and distract attention from other information.

However, I think this quote is unusually relevant at this place, and well in line with content of the article in general. But maybe it would be better with some text to introduce or comment on the quote. The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Calendar

Is the date of Galileo's birth (15th February 1564) according to the Julian calendar, which was in force when Galileo was born, or according to the Gregorian calendar, which was introduced when Galileo was 18? 15th February 1564 in the Julian calendar corresponds to 25th February 1564 in the Gregorian calendar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.67.35 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Mythography

Arthur Koestler writes in The Sleepwalkers (1959):

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

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

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

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

Galileo and The Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for sources start with Maurice Finocchiaro “Myth 8 – That Galileo was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism” in "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion" (ed. R. Numbers, Harvard, 2009, pp. 68-79)[1] and The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989)[2]. I'd also reference science historian James C. Ungureanu's piece here[3], which is freely accessible.

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

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

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

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

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