I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.  I confess to having a difficult time at parsing many of your statements and identifying connections or lacks of connections within and between paragraphs.

I do have a continuing concern that in this thread a rather loose approach has been taken to appealing to various episodes in the history of philosophy and science, and in drawing conclusions (or solace) from this.  Galileo is an example since he seems to be held up as someone who had to struggle mightily to get his material published.  But this is not in fact the case, and at least some of of his work was actually reviewed and "pre-approved" by Urban II who encouraged the publication of The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.  (Subsequent to this there certainly were some "missteps" by Galileo of a strategic nature, and Urban fell victim to court intrigue and concerns for his own position.   But Urban had definitely approved versions of the book and Galileo was then surpirsed at the resulting backlash when it was published.)  Similarly, it is more than a bit peculiar to characterize the writings of "the ancient Greeks" as "more like poetic writings than scientific papers" -- especially if you want to include Aristotle and his followers in this (and others as well).  Perhaps you meant to include only some of the "ancient Greeks", but it is this sort of lack of clarity that makes following the points and support offered for them rather difficult.