David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (4):753-791 (2002)
For 150 years after Galileo’s condemnation in 1633, there were many references to the trial, but no sustained, heated or polarized discussions. Then came the thesis that Galileo was condemned not for being a good astronomer but for being a bad theologian ; it began in 1784–1785 with an apology of the Inquisition by Mallet du Pan in the Mercure de France and the printing in Tiraboschi’s Storia della letteratura italiana of an apocryphal letter attributed to Galileo but forged by Onorato Gaetani. This thesis is not only untenable and false but inverts and subverts the truth; it proved to be long-lasting and widely accepted; so it may be labeled a myth. It was held by such writers as Bergier; Bergier; B; Feller; Cooper; Purcell; Marini; Reumont; Madden and Duhem. Afterwards, it was generally abandoned, its death knell being pope John Paul II’s speeches in 1979–1992. The myth seems to have acted as a catalyst insofar as its creation encouraged the proliferation of pro-clerical accounts and the articulation of pro-Galilean ones, thus making the discussion of Galileo’s trial the cause célèbre it is today.Author Keywords: Galileo; Galileo affair; Science versus religion; Theology; Biblical exegesis; Myth
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem (1969). To Save the Phenomena, an Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory From Plato to Galileo. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
R. Niall D. Martin (1987). Saving Duhem and Galileo: Duhemian Methodology and the Saving of the Phenomena. History of Science 25 (3):301-319.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1992). To Save the Phenomena: Duhem on Galileo. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 46 (182):291-310.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1994). Methodological Judgment and Critical Reasoning in Galileo's Dialogue. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:248 - 257.
Citations of this work BETA
Thomas F. Mayer (2011). The Censoring of Galileo's Sunspot Letters and the First Phase of His Trial. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (1):1-10.
Similar books and articles
A. M. (2002). Galileo as a 'Bad Theologian': A Formative Myth About Galileo's Trial. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (4):753-791.
Peter Slezak (2011). Review of Maurice A. Finocchiaro: Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. [REVIEW] Science and Education 20 (1):71-81.
Steffen Ducheyne (2006). Galileo's Interventionist Notion of "Cause&Quot. Journal of the History of Ideas 67 (3):443-464.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1976). Galileo and the Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1976:130 - 139.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1988). The Louvain Lectures of Bellarmine and the Autograph Copy of His 1616 Declaration to Galileo, And: The Galileo Affair: A Meeting of Faith and Science. Journal of the History of Philosophy 26 (1):149-151.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2001). Book Review:Dialogo Sopra I Due Massimi Sistemi, Tolemaico E Copernicano Galileo Galilei, Ottavio Besomi, Mario Helbing; The Cambridge Companion to Galileo Peter Machamer. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 68 (4):578-.
Joseph C. Pitt (1988). Galileo, Rationality and Explanation. Philosophy of Science 55 (1):87-103.
Maarten Van Dyck (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
Maarten Dycvank (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
Marta Fehér (1998). Patterns of Argumentation in Galileo'sDiscorsi. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):17-24.
Marta Feh (1998). Patterns of Argumentation in Galileo's Discorsi. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):17 – 24.
Jan Marten Ivo Klaver (2008). The Galileo Case: Trial/Science/Truth. By Mario d'Addiothe Church and Galileo. (Studies in Science and the Humanities From the Reilly Center for Science Technology and Values) Ed. By Ernan mcmullinGalileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion. By Phil Dowe. [REVIEW] Heythrop Journal 49 (4):685–687.
Markus Schrenk (2004). Galileo Vs Aristotle on Free Falling Bodies. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 7 (1):1-11.
David Atkinson (2004). Galileo and Prior Philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35 (1):115-136.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads16 ( #228,587 of 1,907,058 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,221 of 1,907,058 )
How can I increase my downloads?