Review of Maurice A. Finocchiaro: Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Education 20 (1):71-81 (2011)
In reviewing Finocchiaro's book, I argue that Galileo deserved to be found guilty for the charges against him. A measure of Finocchiaro's scrupulously fair-minded presentation of the issues surrounding the Galileo Affair is the fact that a contrary case against his own exculpatory evaluation may be inferred from his meticulous scholarship. Specifically, to acknowledge that the standards of evaluation and judgment have changed since 1633 is not in any way to diminish Galileo's greatness but, on the contrary, to recognize his visionary insights. Even to acknowledge that he was justly condemned by standards that we no longer accept in science or theology is not to detract from his deserved place in the firmament of scientific genius.
|Keywords||Galileo Affair science and religion authority of scriptures|
|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
Jean Wagemans (2011). Review of M. A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (2):271-274.
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 (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo. Review of Metaphysics 64 (1):75-103.
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.
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.
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-.
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.
Gregory W. Dawes (2002). Could There Be Another Galileo Case? Journal of Religion and Society 4.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2005). Arguments About Arguments: Systematic, Critical, and Historical Essays in Logical Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Sj George V. Coyne (2013). Science Meets Biblical Exegesis in the Galileo Affair. Zygon 48 (1):221-229.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1975). Cause, Explanation, and Understanding in Science: Galileo's Case. Review of Metaphysics 29 (1):117 - 128.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1975). Review: Philosophising About Galileo. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26 (3):255 - 264.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1975). Philosophising About Galileo. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26 (3):255-264.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2003). Physical-Mathematical Reasoning: Galileo on the Extruding Power of Terrestrial Rotation. Synthese 134 (1-2):217 - 244.
Joseph C. Pitt (1988). Galileo, Rationality and Explanation. Philosophy of Science 55 (1):87-103.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-01-11
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?