Galileo as a 'bad theologian': A formative myth about Galileo's trial
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 (using Scripture to support astronomical hypotheses); 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 . 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 celebre it is today.
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (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.
Steffen Ducheyne (2006). Galileo's Interventionist Notion of "Cause&Quot. Journal of the History of Ideas 67 (3):443-464.
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.
Maarten Dycvank (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
Joseph C. Pitt (1988). Galileo, Rationality and Explanation. Philosophy of Science 55 (1):87-103.
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.
Maarten Van Dyck (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #213,425 of 1,911,652 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,010 of 1,911,652 )
How can I increase my downloads?