Finocchiaro Defending Copernicus and Galileo

Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs
1. Auflage 2010
ISBN: 978-90-481-3201-0
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Wasserzeichen (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 350 Seiten

Although recent works on Galileo's trial have reached new heights of erudition, documentation, and sophistication, they often exhibit inflated complexities, neglect 400 years of historiography, or make little effort to learn from Galileo. This book strives to avoid such lacunae by judiciously comparing and contrasting the two Galileo affairs, that is, the original controversy over the earth's motion ending with his condemnation by the Inquisition in 1633, and the subsequent controversy over the rightness of that condemnation continuing to our day. The book argues that the Copernican Revolution required that the hypothesis of the earth's motion be not only constructively supported with new reasons and evidence, but also critically defended from numerous old and new objections. This defense in turn required not only the destructive refutation, but also the appreciative understanding of those objections in all their strength. A major Galilean accomplishment was to elaborate such a reasoned, critical, and fair-minded defense of Copernicanism. Galileo's trial can be interpreted as a series of ecclesiastic attempts to stop him from so defending Copernicus. And an essential thread of the subsequent controversy has been the emergence of many arguments claiming that his condemnation was right, as well as defenses of Galileo from such criticisms. The book's particular yet overarching thesis is that today the proper defense of Galileo can and should have the reasoned, critical, and fair-minded character which his own defense of Copernicus had.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Finocchiaro, Maurice

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Finocchiaro_Frontmatter.pdf;1
1.1;Preface and Acknowledgments;9
1.2;Introduction:;13
1.2.1;A Galilean Approach to the Galileo Affair;13
1.2.1.1;The Copernican Controversy;13
1.2.1.2;Galileo’s Defense of Copernicus and the Original Affair;15
1.2.1.3;The Subsequent Galileo Affair;18
1.2.1.4;Defending Galileo: Criticisms and Replies;20
1.2.1.5;The Current Spectacle: Catholic Hero or Socialist Villain?;31
1.2.1.6;An Overarching Thesis;37
2;Finocchiaro_Ch01.pdf;44
2.1;Chapter 1;45
2.1.1;The Geostatic World View;45
2.1.1.1;1.1 Terminology;45
2.1.1.2;1.2 Cosmology;46
2.1.1.3;1.3 Physics;52
2.1.1.4;1.4 Astronomy;54
3;Finocchiaro_Ch02.pdf;62
3.1;Chapter 2;62
3.1.1;The Copernican Controversy;62
3.1.1.1;2.1 Copernicus’s Innovation;62
3.1.1.2;2.2 The Anti-Copernican Arguments;65
3.1.1.3;2.3 Responses to Copernicanism;75
4;Finocchiaro_Ch03.pdf;78
4.1;Chapter 3;78
4.1.1;Galileo’s Stances Toward Copernican Astronomy;78
4.1.1.1;3.1 Historical Testing of Methodological Models;78
4.1.1.2;3.2 Conceptual Clarifications;79
4.1.1.3;3.3 Historiographical Considerations;84
4.1.1.4;3.4 Periodization;86
4.1.1.5;3.5 Indirect Pursuit (Before 1609);87
4.1.1.6;3.6 Full-Fledged Pursuit (1609–1616);92
4.1.1.7;3.7 The Post-1616 Period;102
4.1.1.8;3.8 Conclusion;104
5;Finocchiaro_Ch04.pdf;106
5.1;Chapter 4;106
5.1.1;Galilean Critiques of the Biblical Objection;106
5.1.1.1;4.1 Preliminary Considerations;106
5.1.1.2;4.2 Copernicanism and Scripture;110
5.1.1.3;4.3 Ingoli;113
5.1.1.4;4.4 Foscarini;117
5.1.1.5;4.5 Galileo;120
5.1.1.6;4.6 Campanella;130
5.1.1.7;4.7 Conclusion;134
6;Finocchiaro_Ch05.pdf;138
6.1;Chapter 5;138
6.1.1;Galileo on the Mathematical Physics of Terrestrial Extrusion;138
6.1.1.1;5.1 Introduction;138
6.1.1.2;5.2 The Extruding Power of Whirling;140
6.1.1.3;5.3 Restatement of the Anti-Copernican Argument;142
6.1.1.4;5.4 Tangential Extrusion Versus Secant Fall;143
6.1.1.5;5.5 Linear Versus Angular Speed;144
6.1.1.6;5.6 Physical Processes Versus Mathematical Entities;146
6.1.1.7;5.7 Escape Extrusion Versus Orbital Extrusion;147
6.1.1.8;5.8 Exsecants Versus Tangents, or Achilles and the Tortoise;149
6.1.1.9;5.9 Distance Fallen, Distance To Be Fallen, and Speeds of Fall;153
6.1.1.10;5.10 Exsecants Versus Exsecants;154
6.1.1.11;5.11 A Definition of Physical–Mathematical Reasoning;155
6.1.1.12;5.12 Galileo’s Reflections on Physical–Mathematical Reasoning;156
7;Finocchiaro_Ch06.pdf;162
7.1;Chapter 6;162
7.1.1;Galilean Rationality in the Copernican Revolution;162
7.1.1.1;6.1 The Copernican Revolution and the Role of Criticism;162
7.1.1.2;6.2 Copernicus and Explanatory Coherence;164
7.1.1.3;6.3 Physics and Reasoning;165
7.1.1.4;6.4 The Telescope and the Role of Judgment;170
7.1.1.5;6.5 Critical Reasoning;173
8;Finocchiaro_Ch07.pdf;176
8.1;Chapter 7;177
8.1.1;The Trial of Galileo, 1613–1633;177
8.1.1.1;7.1 The Earlier Proceedings and the Condemnation of Copernicanism;178
8.1.1.2;7.2 The Later Proceedings and the Condemnation of Galileo;183
9;Finocchiaro_Ch08.pdf;194
9.1;Chapter 8;194
9.1.1;The Galileo Affair, 1633–1992;194
9.1.1.1;8.1 The Condemnation of Galileo (1633);195
9.1.1.2;8.2 Diffusion of the News (1633–1651);200
9.1.1.3;8.3 Emblematic Reactions (1633–1642);202
9.1.1.4;8.4 Polarizations (1633–1661);205
9.1.1.5;8.5 Compromises (1654–1704);210
9.1.1.6;8.6 Myth-making or Enlightenment? (1709–1777);214
9.1.1.7;8.7 Incompetence or Enlightenment? (1740–1758);218
9.1.1.8;8.8 New Criticism (1770–1797);224
9.1.1.9;8.9 Napoleonic Wars and Trials (1810–1821);227
9.1.1.10;8.10 The Settele Affair (1820);229
9.1.1.11;8.11 The Torture Question and the Demythologizing Approach (1835–1867);234
9.1.1.12;8.12 The Documentation of Impropriety (1867–1879);237
9.1.1.13;8.13 Theological Developments (1893–1912);242
9.1.1.14;8.14 Tricentennial Rehabilitation (1941–1947);246
9.1.1.15;8.15 Secular Indictments (1947–1959);250
9.1.1.16;8.16 The Paschini Affair (1941–1979);255
9.1.1.17;8.17 John Paul II’s Rehabilitation (1979–1992)132;259
10;Finocchiaro_Ch09.pdf;267
10.1;Chapter 9;267
10.1.1;Galileo Right for the Wrong Reasons?;267
10.1.1.1;9.1 The Problem;267
10.1.1.2;9.2 The Dialogue and Its Critics;273
10.1.1.3;9.3 The Letter to Christina and Its Critics;281
10.1.1.4;9.4 Conclusion;286
11;Finocchiaro_Ch10.pdf;288
11.1;Chapter 10;288
11.1.1;Galileo as a Bad Theologian?;288
11.1.1.1;10.1 Relative Calm (1633–1784);289
11.1.1.2;10.2 Mallet du Pan’s Thesis (1784);291
11.1.1.3;10.3 Text of an Apocryphal Letter (1785);293
11.1.1.4;10.4 Gaetani’s Forgery;295
11.1.1.5;10.5 Diffusion and Development of a Myth (1790–1908);297
11.1.1.6;10.6 Metamorphosis of the Myth (1909–1959);310
11.1.1.7;10.7 Demise of the Myth (1979–1992);311
11.1.1.8;10.8 Conclusion;312
12;Finocchiaro_Ch11.pdf;314
12.1;Chapter 11;314
12.1.1;Galileo as a Bad Epistemologist?;314
12.1.1.1;11.1 Introduction: Duhem on Saving the Phenomena;314
12.1.1.2;11.2 Unificationism;317
12.1.1.3;11.3 The Condemnation of Galileo;318
12.1.1.4;11.4 Metaphysics;319
12.1.1.5;11.5 Biblical Authority;321
12.1.1.6;11.6 Certainty;323
12.1.1.7;11.7 Proof Strategies;324
12.1.1.8;11.8 Conclusion;326
13;Finocchiaro_Ch12.pdf;328
13.1;Chapter 12;328
13.1.1;Galileo as a Symbol of Science Versus Religion?;328
13.1.1.1;12.1 The “Interaction” Between “Science” and “Religion”;328
13.1.1.2;12.2 Conflictual Accounts;330
13.1.1.3;12.3 John Paul II’s Harmony Thesis;333
13.1.1.4;12.4 Morpurgo-Tagliabue’s Version of Harmony;335
13.1.1.5;12.5 Feyerabend’s Version of Conflict;337
13.1.1.6;12.6 Heresy or Disobedience?;338
13.1.1.7;12.7 Science Versus Religion in the Subsequent Affair?;342
13.1.1.8;12.8 Conclusion;350
14;Finocchiaro_Backmatter.pdf;352
14.1;Anchor 1;352