Journal of the History of Philosophy

BOOK REVIEWS 307 Maurice A. Finocchiaro. Galileoand the Art ofReasoning: RhetoricalFoundations of Logic and Scientific Method. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, no, 61. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 198o. Pp. xx + 478. $42.00, cloth; $~ 1.oo, paper. Although the title does not indicate this, the book under review is one of the most exhaustive studies of Galileo's Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systemsthat has yet been undertaken. Maurice Finocchiaro has been analyzing this work for a number of years, and now he gives us the fruit of his labors by focusing on Galileo's logical skills as a rhetorician. His interpretation, despite its novelty, is cogently argued and convincing, so much so that it promises to inaugurate a minor revolution in Galileo studies, and indeed in the evaluation of other scientific classics as well. Moreover , Finocchiaro's qualifications are not merely those of the historian; he is also a philosopher of science, and he employs his acute analytical skills to draw a number of lessons for contemporary practicioners of that discipline, particularly relating to problems of rationality, scientific method, and the limitations of formal logic for dealing with the actual progress of science. The resulting work makes for difficult reading at times, but every page will repay serious study, not only for the learning and erudition the study displays as a whole but also for the new insights it provides into the Dialogue and possibilities for its rational reconstruction. Though the book's argument is complex, the articulation into seventeen chapters assists the reader in grasping its main thrust. Following an introduction that situates the Dialogue in Western culture, the first seven chapters concentrate on various aspects of the classic itself. Chapter 1 locates the rhetorical form of the work within the general context of faith and reason, and particularly Galileo's objective in writing it, namely, not to demonstrate Copernicanism but rather to urge its acceptance by Church authorities. Chapter 2 gives a detailed summary of the logical structure of Galileo's arguments in each of the four days of the dialogue, and Chapter 3 supplies abundant evidence of the work's rhetorical character: its various emotional and aesthetic appeals, and its persuasiveness in general. The following four chapters then concentrate on the concrete methodology employed by Galileo in developing his case. Chapter 4 accents points that would be accepted by modern-day scientists as typifying their own methods and convictions, whereas Chapter 5 identifies all of Galileo's methodological remarks throughout the entire Dialogue and shows how rich the book is as a treatise on methodology. Chapters 6 and 7 then make two important points about Galileo as a methodologist and logician: the first stresses his ability to proceed dialectically, that is, to use a variety of principles and resources (even those opposed to each other) to solve concrete problems, and thus to present a position essentially devoid of philosophical system; and the second, his ultimate concern with the practice of logic and with skill in reasoning, which are found to underlie most of his methodological statements. The following six chapters turn in a slightly different direction and develop critiques of historians or philosophers whose works are variously related to Galileo's Dialogue. Here Finocchiaro's play with inverted titles--"The Rationality of Science 308 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY and the Science of Rationality," "The History of Science and the Science of History," and so on--seems rather forced, but the materials he develops under each rubric are nonetheless worth examining. The chapters focus successively on rationality, history, erudition, psychology, rhetoric, and logic, and permit Finocchiaro to develop significant critiques of Feyerabend, Koyr6, Favaro, Drake, Clavelin, and others. Here, as in his previous book (Historyof Science as Explanation), he is not afraid to take on the acknowledged masters in the field, treating them with respect but at the same time pursuing relentlessly the shortcomings he detects in their works. As the criticism progresses Finocchiaro shows himself more sympathetic to the thought of Scriven, Toulmin, Bar Hillel, and Perelman, while aiming to go beyond these authors in developing his own views. The concluding four chapters, together with an epilogue, constitute Finocchiaro's attempt...