Contemporary historians of science have a tendency to deprecate the originality of the so-called scientific revolution, and to stress, instead, its continuities with medieval astrology and alchemy. And they have a point. It wasn’t that one day people were doing astrology in Europe and then there was this revolution and everyone started doing astronomy. Newton practiced alchemy; Galileo drew up all those horoscopes. But if you can’t tell the difference in tone and temperament between Galileo’s sound and that of what went before, then you can’t tell the difference between chalk and cheese. The difference is apparent if you compare what astrologers actually did and what the new astronomers were doing.
He became an ever more convinced Copernican, but he had his crotchets. He never accepted Kepler’s proof that the orbits of the planets in the Copernican system had to be ellipses, because he loved the perfection of circles; and he was sure that the movement of the tides was the best proof that the earth was turning, since the ocean water on the earth’s surface was so obviously sloshing around as it turned. The truth—that the moon was pulling the water at a distance—seemed to him obvious nonsense, and he never tired of mocking it.
The "Lynceographum" also stressed the dangers that contacts with women posed to the philosophers' intellectual life. 7 According [End Page 140] to Cesi, the Lincei were required to avoid "the attractions of Venus," "bad women and profane love," "Venereal lust," "prostitutes," "tempting lust," "low passions of the body," "carnal drives," "libidinous excitements," and "the body's inane desires." 8 Additionally, the "Lynceographum" ordered the academicians to stay clear of "scandals with boys," and legislated how violations of the Lincei's code of honor were to be reprimanded and punished. 9 Finally, not a maid but a male servant was supposed to be hired in each liceo to keep the place clean and to care for the academicians. A female servant could be hired only if she were elderly and unattractive. Cesi's prescriptions seem to reflect a Platonic privileging of male chaste love over heterosexual desire, something we find also in the earlier Florentine Platonic Academy and other humanistic academies in Renaissance Italy
CheeseDigestsAll: What bugged me about the article was how it cast Galileo as the first scientific empiricist. ("He took the competitive, empirical drive with which Florentine painters had been looking at the world and used it to look at the night sky.")
Vesalius had started down that road in medicine 100 years before, and it was Tycho Brahe's dedicated collection of data that allowed Kepler to derive the laws of planetary motiion - and as the article notes, Galileo rejected Kepler.
mobunited: In short, he was a crackpot who happened to be right, and his modern equivalent--a guy who claims to get hard to reproduce results with a less reliable model and whines that the academic establishment is against him--would be tossed on his ass.
The World Famous: It is reasonable for the scientific community to accept data and observations from the LHC as scientific and "reproducible" even though there's only one LHC, because those experiments and results are, in fact, reproducible.
"No, you're all confusing "popular to other scientists" with "scientific". If a man locked in a cell for life conducts experiments scientifically, draws logical conclusions, tests his hypotheses, and writes them down, he is hardly a crackpot: he is doing science. "
"OTOH, there are "scientific" papers published every single day that are horseshit, full of errors or lies, but accepted by the general scientific community because of the degrees and professional standing of the author(s); these are not "scientific"."
"His results were reproducible. "Easy" is a ridiculous requirement - how many labs could have produced and interpreted the crystallographic results of Russell's work on DNA?"
camdan: "whenever i get frustrated by the arguments of a new earth creationist, it heartens me that just 400 years ago we were just figuring out that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. i'm sure making an analogy between all the biblical passages which assert a fixed earth, which are now considered metaphorical, and all the passages asserting a young earth would have no effect."
"We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word."
IAmBroom: "His results were reproducible. "Easy" is a ridiculous requirement - how many labs could have produced and interpreted the crystallographic results of Russell's work on DNA?"
Blasdelb: Do you mean Rosalind Franklin or John Randall? Because if you mean Franklin there was probably only really one person on Earth stupid and arrogant enough to properly interpret her preliminary photo 51 alone, and it wasn't Franklin.
« Older Paola-4 | WUB CATS = BEST CATS Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments