On the whole in my activities as a historian of science I have mostly tried to avoid Galileo Galilei; as far as I’m concerned there are many much more interesting cases to be researched. Naturally as a historian of the early modern period I have long been aware of the main details of his life and scientific activities. Last year was The International Year of Astronomy in which I was intensively active and as the year was created to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s first use of the telescope in astronomy I could not avoid reading a vast number of popular and semi-popular article about Galileo and his activities. Beyond this I was asked by a writer to recommend research literature for such an article and as a result I decided that I should read up on the newest research results concerning the Tuscan polymath, which I duly did.
Now anybody reading, in particular, the popular literature on Galileo with a half way critical mind will very rapidly become aware that it is all permeated with an incredible level of hyperbole, it would appear that Signor Galileo is superhuman. If we just take some of the statements from the, on the whole fairly good, Wikipedia article we have the following collection of exaggerated statements:
Galileo has been called the “father of modern observational astronomy” the “father of modern physics” the “father of science”and “the Father of Modern Science.” Stephen Hawking says, “Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science.”
At the bottom of the article we have the following title: The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History.
I have also in my reading come across the following claims: “G is the inventor of the scientific method”, “G was the first to apply mathematics to science”, “G discovered the first mathematical law of science” and so on and so forth…
The image of Galileo Galilei has been inflated like a dirigible airship that floats above the early modern period obscuring the efforts and achievements of all the other scientists, his shadow only being broken by the light of that other god of science Isaac Newton. Unfortunately this image is total bullshit and its propagation leads to a major distortion in our understanding of the historical development of science. In what follows I shall be pulling the plug, extracting the stopper, puncturing the balloon and letting the gas out so that one can begin to judge Galileo’s achievements from a sensible standpoint.
Central to this image of Galileo is his supposed uniqueness; through his ‘once in human existence genius’ he single-handedly created modern science, the scientific method, observational astronomy and physics. This view is pure rubbish and is only possible if one totally ignores his contemporaries. Of these Johannes Kepler, Thomas Harriot, Christoph Scheiner, William Gilbert, Christoph Clavius, Francoise Vieta, Isaac Beeckman and Simon Stevin are all scientists who are on a level with Galileo both from their abilities and also from their scientific achievements and contributions. I think, in real terms, any attempt to sort scientists into some sort of league table is a waste of time and bound to fail but if forced, I would rank at least three of the above list above Galileo in terms of their ability and two of them in terms of their contribution to the development of science. There was absolutely nothing unique about Galileo.
On the specific claims, modern physics, for exampled developed out of the work of Galileo, Gilbert, Kepler, Stevin and a whole boat full of minor figures many of whom do not get the credit they deserve. The same applies to observational astronomy that grew out of the contributions of Galileo, David Fabricius, Harriot, Simon Marius, Christoph Scheiner and another boat load of so called minor figures. When people talk of modern science what they actually mean is a combination of modern physics, astronomy and ‘the scientific method’. Having dealt with physics and astronomy we will now turn to the latter.
The claim that Galileo invented the scientific method is not just wrong it’s grotesque! The scientific methodology that is utilised in Galileo’s work on mechanics was known to and used explicitly by Greek scientists such as Ptolemaeus and Archimedes. It was discussed and used extensively by Islamic scientists such as Al Haytham. It was also extensively discussed, but little used, in the High Middle Ages by Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon. Of Galileo’s contemporaries both Gilbert and Stevin had both published significant scientific works utilising the scientific method, as Galileo was still an unknown, unpublished professor of mathematics in Northern Italy. Gilbert’s De magnete, which is based not only on his own empirical scientific research but also on that of several other minor figures in the second half of the 16th century, was regarded as one of the most important guides to scientific methodology throughout Europe in the first half of the 17th century. Both Kepler and Galileo were fans of Gilbert’s work but Galileo criticised it as having too little mathematics, which brings us to our next point: Galileo, science and mathematics.
Now it is generally agreed that the so-called mathematisation of nature is a central feature of the creation of modern science but that this is largely attributable to Galileo is a myth. Like the scientific method the use of mathematics in science has its roots in the work of Ptolemaeus, Archimedes and other Greek scientists. Islamic opticians and astronomers mathematised extensively and Grosseteste and Bacon also praised it as the basis of good science. In modern terms the mathematisation of physics begins in the High Middle ages in the work of the Oxford Calculatores and the Paris physicists, whose work was known to and developed upon by Galileo. In the 16th century Italian mathematicians such as Tartaglia and Benedetti laid the foundation of much of Galileo’s work on mechanics, foundations that were also well known to Galileo. Both Kepler and Stevin were producing modern mathematical science long before Galileo and it is usually Kepler who is given the credit for the first mathematical law of nature for his inverse square law of the propagation of light; a law that inspired Ismael Boulliau to the first formulation of the inverse square law of gravity.
To give a couple of examples of actual developments in physics attributed falsely to Galileo, he is supposed to have been the first to note that bodies of unequal weight fall at the same speed in a vacuum when in fact this was first noted by Simon Stevin. Galileo is also credited with the foundation of hydrostatics in modern physics where again it was the significantly different approach of Stevin that was developed further by others in the 17th and 18th centuries. Lastly it is often claimed that Galileo provided Newton’s first law, The Law of Inertia. Now Galileo did take a first step along the road from the mediaeval concept of impulse towards inertia but his concept was still handicapped by a belief in the Aristotelian concept that natural motion is circular motion. This blemish is explained away by claiming that Descartes modified the Galilean concept from whence Newton took it over. Newton did indeed take over the inertia law from Descartes but Descartes had taken it not from Galileo but from Isaac Beeckman who had formulated it fully correctly in the form used by Newton
Having deflated the image of Galileo I will say that he was one of the leading scientists at the beginning of the 17th century who made significant contributions to the development of several disciplines but he was only one of them. All of this naturally raises the question as to how Galileo’s image became so inflated. In the 17th century he enjoyed a sort of pop star status for a time as a result of his astronomical discoveries, which faded at the end of the century as wow-look-sensationalism in astronomy was replaced by the more scientific approach of astronomers such as Hevelius and Cassini. The rest of his scientific endeavours were not so successful. Contrary to received opinion it was the works of Kepler that brought the breakthrough in the acceptance of the heliocentric world-view and not Galileo’s Dialogo, which by the way ignored Kepler’s work. Galileo’s work in mechanics was known but not particularly regarded and was largely superseded by Newton’s work at the end of the century. In the 18th century his light dimmed even further, so where does the inflated god of science come from?
In truth Galileo was canonised by the Catholic Church! The inflation of his image was a result of Galileo being declared the main scientific martyr in the greatest myth of the history of science, the totally fictitious ‘War Against Science’. Galileo’s inflated image is largely a product of the 19th century and the perception that he had been sacrificed on the altar of religion. A second factor comes into the picture as a result of the fact that most popular history of science is not written by scientists, this is that Galileo was an excellent writer. Reading Kepler’s works is hard work even for his fans. Scheiner’s Rosa Ursina is as observational astronomy way beyond anything that Galileo produced but even astronomers found it too tedious to read. I could make similar comments about almost my entire list of Galileo’s contemporaries added to the fact that several of them wrote works that can only be read by mathematicians. Galileo wrote wonderful polemic texts* that are still a joy to read for anybody with a good general education. This same factor of readability has led to an over emphasis of the significance of both Bacon and Descartes in the history of 17th century science, but that’s another story. The figure that people celebrate is the literary scientific martyr and not the real scientist from the 17th century.
My deflation also raises the question as to whether other gods of sciences could and should also be deflated, what’s with Newton, Darwin, Einstein? John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts has at regular intervals posted articles on his blog dislodging Darwin from his pedestal and relocating him into the main stream of 19th century biology and I assume he will continue to do so. Patricia Fara has written an excellent book, Newton: The Making of a Genius, which documents the inflation of Newton’s image throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. I haven’t come across any similar work on Einstein but if it doesn’t exist already it’s only a matter of time before one or more get written.
Science is a collective enterprise and even people such as Galileo are only members of the collective and what ever they may or may not have achieved they very rarely earn the epitaphs that are given them by writers more interested in documenting sensation than the slow irregular evolution of science.
*An after thought: My friend Pierre who unlike me is a real Galileo expert as well as being a science event organiser and science publicist thinks that Galileo can be credited with a genuine achievement, he was the worlds first science publicist and very good at it!
70 responses to “Extracting the stopper.”
Pingback: Putting Galileo in his place « a simple prop
Nice post (and something I try to impress on my undergraduates all the time). Now I’ll just send them here and save my breath 🙂
Having read the Power Point slide shows of your lectures and also your article on history of science and education in Isis I feel deeply honoured by your recommendation.
I love Gilbert’s De Magnete: I studied it in history, of all subjects, as an undergrad, and was deeply impressed at how hard he tried to explain the phenomena of magnetism.
I have long had a soft spot for Gilbert as we both went to the same school. I however have the distinction of having been expelled whereas he only made it to private physician to the Queen.
I agree that De magnete is a wonderful book and in my opinion not adequately honoured in most accounts of 17th century science.
Pingback: More linkingnessheit « Evolving Thoughts
Pingback: Greek Mathematics
In some old history of the Industrial Revolution I recall reading the comment that there were two things you had to do to become a famous inventor. First, you had to be the one who figured out how to do something; and, second, you had to contrive to get credit for it. Except that the first requirement was optional.
As everybody knows, ‘Watt invented the steam engine’. 😉
Isn’t this a corollary of Stigler’s Law?
Well he was Scottish so he must have done.
Science and philosophy do have a particular relationship with European identity. Somewhat important to one other form of collective enterprise the “well beeing of a common-wealth” and it’s sense of place and entitlement in the world. Was rather struck after reading this, a passage from a text Ive just been looking at.
Walter Hamonds, Paradox in which he explains why the people of Madagascar are the happiest people in the world and noble savages of the 1640’s.
Here he rebuts one line of attack to his argument.
Still used today with regard to the Muslim world in particular.
“That their Simplicity appeareth in their ignorance of many Sciences, wherein the well beeing of a Common-wealth doth consist; as the Art of Navigation, by meanes whereof, wee are able to visite the remotest parts of the World, to transport our owne Commodities to them, and to import theirs to the enriching of ourselves; as also, that they know not Military Art, nor the use of Powder and Shot: all which are evidences of their stupid Ignorance, both in these and all other Sciences.”
My tribute to Gilbert was only modest, making his book a key source for the tragic villain of my first novel.
Ah Ha! An unnamed author who inspired my return to Galileo! Thank you.
So…not a fan then of Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers?
I’m not really sure how you reach that conclusion? Koestler denigrates Galileo, quite correctly in my opinion, in favour of Kepler; the middle part of the book being the first real English biography of Kepler. “The Sleepwalkers” is one of the books that turned an impressionable teenage RM into a historian of science.
I remembered Koestler describing Galileo as the first modern scientist, the last sleepwalker. However, I last read it at least 5 years ago, so quite possibly misremember it and have thus said something foolish on the internet. 😦
It’s more than possible that he did but that was 50 years ago and at that time Koestler was surprisingly negative about Galileo and sowed the seeds in my brain for a gradual withdrawal from the cult of Galileo worship.
Pingback: Friday Links (18-Jun-10) -- a Nadder!
Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – submissions so far « A Blog Around The Clock
Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – submissions so far | A Blog Around The Clock
Galileo was a genius of the highest order. Granted there were better observational astronomers at the time. Granted there were others who had understood inertial frames of reference before him or better than him. Granted there were people who knew that two objects of unequal weights, dropped from a height, hit the ground at the same time. Yet none of these people had the synthetic vision of Galileo to connect all these things into a coherent worldview . His astronomical observations, his physics experiments, and his ideas about inertial frames all come together and reinforce each other in his Dialogo and other work. Keppler did nothing like this. Nor, to my knowledge, did any of his contemporaries. His breadth and synthetic ability is what sets him apart, and why so many good scientists have been so impressed by his work.
One might say the same for Darwin or Einstein. Their greatness lies not in the details of their individual discoveries but rather in the breadth and granduer of the worldview they synthesised from those discoveries. This is especially true of Einstein, whose profound analysis of time and energy went far beyond any of his contemporaries, even if there were people who had worked out the math of length-contraction as a function of velocity, etc, before Einstein.
Pingback: Open Lab Update | Child's Play
Pingback: Good History and the Virtue of Sisyphus | Whewell's Ghost
Pingback: Good History and the Virtue of Sisyphus | Whewell's Ghost
Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – three weeks to go! | A Blog Around The Clock
Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – two weeks to go! | A Blog Around The Clock
Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – only eight days till the deadline! | A Blog Around The Clock
“The first science publisist.” [sic]
There we have the definitional divide, separating the common perception of Galileo with your much more accurate yet essentially untrue heterodoxical portrait.
As a mere layperson — a child acolyte of science gone astray — I would regard the Scientific Method as more than a methodical collection of facts employed to test a hypothesis.
The key development to its implementation and success, beyond the synthesis with which I agree Lou Jost in Galileo excelled beyond many of his peers, beyond the exchange of private letters among ones peers, is the bringing the argument **to the masses**.
That is the essential truth to Galileo’s deserved reputation, one upon which you precisely touched, Thony C., in your otherwise superb essay.
It is, perhaps, more than a little frustrating that Hollywood won’t greenlight the project that will engage the thousands if the one bankable star does not appear, yet many human endeavors are like that.
Galileo was, I contend, that necessary bankable star. However, I admit, it’s an idle contention.
Happy Thanksgiving, for the scientific revolution of which we are heirs!
The supposed synthesis that you and Lou Just refer to is a myth and is no where to be found in Galileo’s writings.
Galileo clearly realized that earth’s rotation had consequences for terrestrial physics, and in the Dialogo he showed the first steps towards making these two realms consistent . Not a full-blown axiomatic synthesis perhaps, but a real forward step. Maybe he is not the first to do this (you would know better than I) but he did make this step and other steps towards a unified theory of motion (starting with his De Motu), and these were important steps that lead to the key concept of inertial (“Galilean”) frames of reference.
I think you have started with a valid point (Galileo had many peers or predecessors who went farther than him in some aspects of science) but have ended up creating a caricature almost as unjust as the one you criticize.
Pingback: Only three days to go – Open Laboratory final stretch for submissions! | A Blog Around The Clock
Pingback: It’s getting hot – submissions for Open Laboratory 2011 are flying in by the dozens per hour… how about you? | A Blog Around The Clock
Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – the final stretch! | A Blog Around The Clock
Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – submissions now closed – see all the entries | A Blog Around The Clock
Pingback: The blatherings of Mr Wrong | The Renaissance Mathematicus
I often wonder why Darwin is practically deified in the scientific world while A.R. Wallace- who independently discovered the same basic evolutionary ideas as Darwin- is virtually ignored. Could it be because Darwin was the same sort of great scientific publicist as Galileo? Darwin’s books are much more famous than anythign Wallace ever wrote, but maybe that’s just pegging the question here. Could it be another instance of the perceived/contrived war between science and religion? Darwin’s general theory and outlook seem more amenable to a materialist worldview as far as I know, whereas Wallace seems to have been more open to religion and the idea that man was more than just a random product of Evolution. Not that every idea or belief of Wallace ever had was necessarily that great(same for Darwin), but he deserves more than just being an obscure footnote to Darwin’s supposed greatness
Darwin also came from a famous family.
If Chelsea Clinton had gotten a science degree and written a science book, it would get a lot more attention than if Bob Schmo or Jane Doe had written it.
Pingback: A revisionist historian of science on the Scientific American Guest Blog. | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: Shakespeare was clairvoyant. | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: A little learning is a dangerous thing | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: Zusammenfassung der Woche ab 29.07.2013 | IRON BLOGGER ADN
Pingback: Results for week beginning 2013-07-29 | Iron Blogger Berlin
Pingback: The BBC and the History of Science: Light and Shadows. | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: OPUS 500: A retrospective | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: How much can you get wrong in an eight hundred word biographical sketch of a very famous sixteenth and seventeenth-century mathematicus and philosophicus? – One helluva lot it seems? | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Reblogged this on συμποσίον ἀκταῖος κατακηλέω and commented:
Enemies of truth.– Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Avoiding Galileo Galilei…
Pingback: The specialist in causing pain. | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Reblogged this on backup of isomorphism.es.
I do wonder, from your quote from Wikipedia, who this ‘Stephen Hawkins’ fellow is.
That apart, I don’t think you should underplay the effectiveness of Galileo’s science communication. ‘On Two New Sciences’ (admittedly I’ve only read it in translation) is very readable still today – very few of his contemporaries seemed capable of producing such an approachable text.
I wouldn’t argue with you that Galileo was a brilliant writer and above all polemicist, also Two New Sciences is without doubt his most important book. Unfortunately it tends to get rather ignored with most people concentrating on Sidereus Nuncius and Two World Systems. The former made him famous but actually contains very little real science being more of a press report than a scientific one. Contrary to popular opinion the latter had far less impact on the acceptance of heliocentricity than the works of Kepler and its historical importance within the history of science is vastly overrated.
I don’t deny Galileo’s impact on seventeenth-century science, which come mostly from Two New Sciences but the point of my post is that it is no greater than the impact of quite a large number of his contemporaries.
Pingback: Founders of science? | The Renaissance Mathematicus
It seems to me that the author of this post is so anxious to avoid overstating the achievements of Gailieo that he ends up underestimating them, in that manner that is so common to a certain type of revisionist historian.
One suspects the problem is a lack of technical understanding of the physics – to truly place Galileo’s strides forward in mechanics, relativity, optics and astronomy in context requires a knowledge of all of these fields.. ,
I think that’s quite wrong. Technical prowess may be a general challenge when trying to understand Laplace or Bohr, but Galileo’s mechanics are pretty accessible to anybody with a general education who is willing to bone up on them. I’ve read a lot in the Galileo literature and rarely have the impression that academic historians don’t understand the science involved. (And even there, the boning up required to read Galileo’s serious technical work Two New Sciences is mainly in Euclidean geometry, not modern optics or relativity.) If anything, I think it’s that relative accessibility that makes Galileo such a mythologized figure. He allows non-scientists to think science is easy, a simple matter of looking at problems the right way.
Really Cormac an argument ad hominem rather than a refutation of the arguments that I present that is, I find, rather sad. Calling a historian a revisionist implies that his arguments a factually wrong but you make absolutely no attempt to show, which, if any, of the statements that I make in my post are factually incorrect. Then to go on to say that I lack technical understanding of the physic is a low blow indeed. I find this especially galling, as although I am on occasions prepared to pontificate on subjects where my knowledge is somewhat shaky, I am of the opinion that when it comes to the mathematical science in the Early Modern Period I possess a modicum of expertise. To quote Newton’s famous put down of Halley as he ridiculed astrology, “I, sir, have studied the subject.” You will note that I don’t refer to physics because in the early seventeenth century physics meant something rather different to what it means today. In fact neither astronomy nor optics would have ben regarded as physics in Galileo’s times.
You say that Galileo’s strides forward in mechanics, relativity, optics and astronomy requires knowledge of all these fields, knowledge which surprise, surprise I possess. I’ll start with astronomy. Most famously Galileo made a number of astronomical telescopic observational discoveries, but as I pointed out above, all of those discoveries were made independently by other astronomers at the same time so to talk of Galileo’s strides forward is to say the least somewhat one sided. All that can be said is that Galileo published first, thereby garnering the honours. Galileo only really developed two of those discoveries. Firstly he calculated the orbits of the moons of Jupiter but so did Simon Marius, who discovered them independently and in fact Marius’s figures for the orbits are more accurate than Galileo’s. However Galileo by now very famous, because he had published first, falsely accused Marius of plagiarism and ruined his reputation. Not very nice at all. In the end Cassini and Rømer redid all the orbital calculations based on their own observations so the whole thing became rather academic. Galileo’s second development was his work on sunspots and here he did achieve something. His careful analysis showed that the sunspots were really on the surface of the sun and that the sun rotates around its axis. None of this would have taken place if Galileo had not be challenged by Christoph Scheiner, who graciously accepted that Galileo was right and he was wrong. However, whereas Galileo rested on his laurels, Scheiner went on to produce the most thorough astronomical solar research carried out by anyone before the nineteenth century. His reward for his efforts? Galileo falsely accused him of plagiarism (do I detect a pattern here?) ridiculed his work and then plagiarised it in his Dialogo.
On the question of relativity, I find the acclaim for Galileo’s arguments somewhat strange as the same arguments can be found both in antiquity and in Copernicus’ De revolutionises.
The one field in which Galileo truly excelled was in mechanics. His empirical experimental proofs of the laws of fall are truly first class and place him in the first rank of seventeenth century researchers but, and that is the whole point of my post, they do not make him the ‘father of’, ‘founder of’ or whatever hyperbolic bullshit title people want to use of modern science. Modern science has many, many fathers of whom Galileo is merely one.
To close optics? The question mark is there because I really can’t think of any strides forward that Galileo made in optics and the history of optics is a field to which I have devoted a lot of time and effort. Galileo did not invent the telescope and his abilities as a lens grinder were not better than those of, for example, Thomas Harriot and Christopher Tooke and whoever supplied the lenses for Simon Marius’s telescopes. The telescopes of Harriot and Marius were, from the results that they realised, at least as good as those of Galileo. Galileo was one of several people who realised that if you look through a Dutch telescope the wrong way it becomes a microscope; a realisation that he, like others, used to construct simple microscopes.
Unlike Kepler or Scheiner Galileo wrote no works on optics, either theoretical or practical and in fact he ridiculed and dismissed Kepler’s Dioptrice, one of the most important theoretical works on optics written in the seventeenth century. He even used his authority as ‘the’ telescopic astronomer, gained through the publication of the Sidereus Nuncius, to block and delay the development of the Keplerian or astronomical telescope; an instrument far superior to the Dutch or Galilean telescope. A stride backwards for optics rather than a stride forwards. But then again, as you say, maybe I just lack the required knowledge of the field. Should this be the case, maybe you could be so kind as to point out to me the strides forward in optics that Galileo achieved.
Easy there, Thorny! No one is indulging in ad hominem attacks.
The point I’m making is a very old one, namely that, as you know, figures such as Galileo and Newton present a great challenge for historians of science (plural – not one in partocular) because their contributions span many areas of science – we historians have to attempt to become experts in all sorts of different areas (with modern figures like Einstein, it is more common to assemble teams with different contributions).
As I once heard the Harvard historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich say at a conference, you could spend your whole career studying Galileo’s astronomy alone.
Re Galileo’s optics, I’m no expert (that’s the point!) but Zik and Hon have given a nice summary of this aspect of G.’s science in recent years, for example. What I can say, as someone who has spent years teaching and thinking about relativity, is that Galileo’s insights into the subject are astonishing.
I like most historians of the telescope remain highly sceptical about Yakov’s very speculative thoughts on Galileo’s knowledge of optics.
The paper I’m thinking of is ‘ Galileo’s knowledge of optics and the functioning of the telescope’ by Zik and Hon (2013) at http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4963
From their study of Galileo’s telescopes, they argue that his improvements to the telescope were not merely empirical practice of existing theory (lens grinding etc), but a new and ingeneous combination of two distinct bodies of optical knowledge, the science of perspective and the science of refraction, resulting in substantial advances in illumination, resolution, field of view and magnification. This is a similar point made by Lou Jest above, and I think it’s a good one. I must say I enjoyed re-reading the Zik-Hon paper and I think it is respected by historians of astronomy – have a read, I suspect it’s the sort of study you might enjoy.
That is an interesting paper, Cormac. There is one point that the authors mention, but do not address, which is that the stop at the objective lens is oval not circular (p 16 of the paper), I was trying to think why Galileo should make a stop that is more difficult to manufacture, and it occurred to me that Galileo might have suffered from astigmatism. As Thomas Young was the first to discover this condition (in his own eyes) in 1801, it is conceivable that Galileo might have suffered from the condition without realising it.
Pingback: Whewell’s Gazette: Year 2, Vol. #32 | Whewell's Ghost
Pingback: A bit on the side | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: Гений плюс высокомерие минус скромность (2) | O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Pingback: The Great Man paradox | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: From decimal fractions to sand yachts – the unbelievably fertile mind of Simon Stevin | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: Does the world really need another Galileo hagiography? | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: The Galileo Circus is in town | The Renaissance Mathematicus
Pingback: "Aron Ra" Gets Everything Wrong - History for Atheists
This was one of the articles I read years ago that helped to turn me away from the mythic conception of Galileo and his place in the history of science – for which I heartily thank you – but it inadvertently convinced me that Galileo had no influence in the history of science whatsoever since everything he did was also done by someone else. As a way of turning away from that equally mythical view, what were Galileo’s contributions to science? If he still is an all-time great scientist, despite everything you say in this article, what made him great (besides his literary skills and inclined plane experiments)?
(In trying to answer this question, I’ve found that Heilbron says he was “the first to introduce effective quantification into physics,” while Cohen says “it was Galileo who first put the laws of motion to the test of rigorous experiment and proved that they could be applied to the real world of experience.” Do these labels have merit, that Galileo was the first to combine mathematical physics with quantitative experiment, even if others had mathematized physics or practiced experiments separately before him?)
(I can’t seem to edit my comment, so I’m just adding to it in this second comment.)
I’ve also since found that Westfall, in his Newton biography, says that “Galileo laid the foundations of a new science of mechanics,” and that “more than any other man, Galileo created the new mechanics.” Also, after writing about the Mertonian contributions to motion, Grant nevertheless says that “Galileo constructed a new science of mechanics and thereby laid the foundations of modern physics,” and that “this achievement alone suffices to include Galileo among that small group of extraordinary scientists who, from time to time, profoundly alter the character and direction of science.”
It does seem as though many of the historians I’ve read and admired consider Galileo to have made some important and unique contributions to the history of science, but since that is at odds with this article I’m not sure whether or not to believe them.
You will note that in the post above I write “that he was one of the leading scientists at the beginning of the 17th century who made significant contributions to the development of several disciplines, but he was only one of them.” I am, I admit overly rude about his achievements in mechanics and Westfall is correct to say that “Galileo laid the foundations of a new science of mechanics,” but and it’s a very big but, he did so on the bedrock of a lot of other research carried out by natural philosophers before him, as I have outlined in a later post here.
His Discoursi is a very important work in the history of mechanics and that is the work on which his reputation should rest and not his Dialogo. I think Grant’s formulation is wrong, Galileo dis not construct a “new” science of mechanics but formalised and gave shape to a science of mechanics that had been developing throughout the sixteenth century.
That’s starting to click. So in what sense was the Discoursi a very important book? Put another way, what was the influence that it had on the later investigators in physics in the 17th century? Did they take it as a starting point for their own work that rendered previous work in physics obsolete, or was it important in a different way? And were there any specific discoveries in mechanics that Galileo was indeed original in making?
Also, in the spirit of debunking, how valid then are Cohen’s claims that Galileo was “one of the first major scientists who made experiments an integral part of his science, along with mathematical analysis” and that “his combination of experimental technique and mathematical analysis (as in the experiment of the inclined plane) has quite properly earned him a place as a founder of the scientific method and inquiry”? In his biography, Heilbron echoes that claim when he says Galileo was the “first to introduce effective quantification into physics.” Was there, then, something methodologically different or expanded upon in Galileo’s work in mechanics?