Assignment Submission Declaration

School of __Humanities and Social Sciences___

Name: Matriculation No: Title: Course and Code: Lecturer/Tutor: Submission Date:

Khoo Jia Ren Jeremy U0930146A HH207 Writing Assignment HH207 Science and technology in historical perspective Asst Prof Hallam Stevens 23/2/12

Keep a Copy of the Assignment

Please make a copy of your work. If you have submitted your assignment electronically also make a backup copy.

Plagiarism and Collusion

Plagiarism: to use or pass off as ones own, the writings or ideas of another without acknowledging or crediting the source from which the ideas are taken. Collusion: submitting an assignment, project or report completed by another person and passing it off as ones own (as defined in the NTU Honour Code. See www.ntu.edu.sg/sao/home for the University Honour Code and Pledge).

Penalties for Plagiarism and Collusion

The penalties associated with plagiarism exist to reward good academic conduct; those who cheat will be severely punished to reflect the seriousness with which NTU views cheating, and its commitment to academic integrity. Penalties may include: the requirement to revise and resubmit an assignment, receiving a lower grade, or receiving an F grade for the assignment.

Declaration

I declare that this assignment is my own work, unless otherwise referenced, as defined by the NTU policy on plagiarism. I have read the NTU Honour Code and Pledge. http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/yclai/

SignedJeremy Khoo. Date 23/2/12...

HH207 Writing Assignment

Galileos letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany outlined an entirely new way of understanding nature. Discuss.

Jeremy Khoo U0930146A

Galileos letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany definitely signified a dramatic change in the way in which people studied and related to nature. With most of Europe being deeply religious during that period of time, many of those in authority had preconceived notions about how the universe was based on erroneous [not to them] teachings of the Bible, without themselves studying the Scriptures deeper to understand the context better. This led to passionate defences of their way of seeing the world without actually having any evidence or proof (Halsall, 1997 page?). Galileo sought to change all of that with his impassioned letter to the Grand Duchess. I would not say that he outlined an entirely new way of understanding nature; rather, Galileo wanted scholars and other thinkers to view nature with a more open mind. [argument]

Interestingly, Galileo had seriously considered becoming a monk or a priest before entering the field of mathematics and science. Even at an early age, he already had a reputation among the older monks for being difficult, abrasive and opinionated, altogether quite full of himself (Reston, 2000:3). However, he slowly got more accustomed to the life at the monastery, and when Galileo expressed his desire to become a monk at the age of fifteen, his father pulled him out of the monastery. In 1581, Galileo was enrolled in the University of Pisa, where he was to study medicine, for his father desired to see his son become a doctor. However, Galileo clearly was not too interested in the human body, preferring to study the heavenly bodies instead. In 1609, Galileo heard that spectacle makers in Holland had invented a new device that would allow distant object to appear much closer (Cropper, 2001). Galileo tweaked this invention, and turned his prototype to the sky the first telescope.

Before Galileo came up with his discoveries, it was the general consensus that the heavens consisted perfect spheres and stars were all equidistant away from the earth. With the invention of the telescope, Galileo was able to see more about the physical heavens than any other man had ever seen before him. Through the improved magnification, he was able to better study the stars, as well as the Sun and the moon. Through his careful observations, he discovered that unlike what most people assumed, the Sun and the moon were not perfect spheres. He discovered spots and blemishes, and he knew his discoveries would shake the very foundations of what was believed at that time (Shapin, 1996:17). Other observations, such as discovering Jupiters moons, helped to question the belief that the universe was geocentric. Another important discovery was that the stars seemed to look the same whether it was through the telescope, or looking at them with the naked eye. This meant that the distance to the stars was so huge, that even the magnification of the telescope did not affect how they looked like. With these new discoveries, he was able to support his argument that the way in which the Church was thinking was wrong. Also, by asserting the similarities of heavenly and terrestrial bodies, Galileo implied that studying the properties and motions of ordinary earthly bodies could afford understanding of what nature was like universally (Shapin, 1996:18).

One of the main arguments Galileo had in his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina was that those who were against him, mainly the Church, were more interested in defaming his name than to actually seek out the truth. He cites examples of other sceptics who were convinced of his findings when they finally had the opportunity to see for themselves what he had discovered. However, the members of the Church refused to believe what Galileo discovered was true, and he accused them of tak[ing] refuge in obstinate silence, and divert[ing] their thoughts to other fancies and seek[ing] new ways to damage [him]

(Halsall, 1997 page?). He also said that the church has had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from their very pulpits with unwonted confidence, with these men choosing rather to defend their faith blindly rather than to properly study the evidence available to them. Instead of listening to Galileo, these leaders have turned a deaf ear to his findings, and would rather fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the mantle of pretended religion and the authority of the Bible. By doing so, Galileo might have been trying to draw a parallel between him and the Saints of the early church, whereby they were being persecuted by the Christians because of their radical beliefs in Jesus, which went against all that the Jewish leaders believed. In Matthew 26:59, it says, now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death. By identifying himself with the sufferings of Jesus Christ, Galileo might have been attempting to gain sympathisers by likening himself to going through the same trials as Jesus, and being misunderstood by the religious authorities of the day. This may be a bit of a far fetch, but it definitely is a possibility. [i agree, it is a good point]

On top of accusing the Church of being stubborn and unwilling to listen, he also accused them of warping the Scriptures, and grossly misinterpreting them for their own selfish motives. He calls this a hypocritical zeal for religion, where they go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. He gives the example of Copernicus, who he said never actually considered the Bible to be erroneous, but was, like Galileo himself, disappointed with exegetes that rejected his theories without trying to fully understand them first. The Holy Bible was considered to be the infallible Word of God, and that it only spoke the truth. However, there were parts of it that was decidedly abstruse, which made it a bit more difficult to interpret. Psalms, such as Psalm 113:3 (From the rising

of the sun unto the going down of the same the LORD'S name is to be praised), were taken literally. People took the phrase the rising of the sun literally to mean that the sun was moving around the earth, and not the other way round. By suggesting that the earth revolved around the Sun, Galileo was questioning centuries of what people regarded to be the truth, and of course this did not sit well with the Church leaders. He did well to drive home the point that he was not questioning the Bible itself, but questioning the interpretation of the Bible by those in positions of spiritual authority. He found it not wrong to speak out when there is reason to suspect that other men wish, for some personal motive, to produce and employ such authorities for purposes quite different from the sacred intention of the holy Church (Halsall, 1997 you can cite this as Galileo [1616] 1997). Galileo wanted to ensure that people knew the truth, and he himself was quite confident that if the Bible really was the Word of God, it would not be contradictory to his findings. His view was not unlike what the Apostle John wrote in his letter, First John. 1 John 4:1 says, Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. One thing that Galileo could not come to terms with was how many of those who were against him and his theories were using the Scriptures for personal motives and revenge; they had been defeated on an individual basis, and because of that, they lose all sense of reason, leading to using their own interpretation of the Bible for personal revenge. Galileo believed that the only people that could censure a position as erroneous were the Supreme Pontiff and the Church Councils (Halsall, 1997).

One main point of contention was the difference between literal language and poetic language in the Bible. Clearly, as with other texts, there will be parts of it that can be interpreted literally, such as historical accounts and narratives, and there will be other parts that can be interpreted poetically/figuratively, such as the psalms and perhaps to a lesser

extent, the Book Revelation, which is full of imagery. Most of the interpretations that the Church leaders had about the heavens and its attributes came from the psalms and Genesis, which talks about the creation of the universe. Galileo was quick to warn that by limiting ones understanding to wholly literal interpretations of the Bible, it was easy to fall into error. He warned the Church of the dangers of taking their own assumptions and interpretations, and making them God-given truths. The responsibility of making such interpretations accurate was even heavier on the Church then than it is now, as during that era, the only people that had access to the Scriptures were the Church and the aristocrats; most of the lay people had never seen a Bible, and only knew it through what was being preached on the pulpit. This meant that whatever the non-aristocrats knew about God and His works, they only knew through what they heard from the Catholic hierarchy. Of course, the underlying assumption was that whatever the Church taught was taken to be as having come straight from God thus allowing them to could get away with almost anything. However, when scholars like Galileo and Copernicus started to question their interpretations, they would rather charge them with heresy than allow an alternative interpretation of the Bible. This seems to be a very short-sighted and self-preserving move on the Churchs part, as it was becoming obvious that their interpretations were inaccurate, but they refused to admit it was so. Galileos stance was when it came to physical descriptions of things in the Bible, the scriptures were not as specific, and allowed for more liberal, rather than literal, translations. He believed that the main purpose of the Bible was for the service of God and the salvation of souls (Halsall, 1997); these matters had nothing to do with whether the Sun revolved around the earth or whether the earth was stationary. Galileo believed that such descriptions in the Bible were deliberately abstruse because they were not as important as the message of salvation, and the original author did not want to confuse the layperson with matters of the universe.

To support his claim that some scholars may be grossly misinterpreting Scripture, Galileo cites the example of a man who has published his claim that the moon does not receive its light from the sun but is brilliant by its own nature (Halsall, 1997). He accuses those in authority of abusing the authority given to them, and taking whatever ill-thought interpretation they have had of the Bible to be biblical truth. Because these men were abundant in numbers, and those who actually put in the time and discipline to study the Word were few and far between, it was a losing battle for Galileo (Halsall, 1997). The Church itself was self-righteous, thinking its authority and interpretation to be infallible. It thought itself too high to stoop to the investigation of fallacies in the subordinate sciences; it is sufficient for her merely to determine the truth of a given conclusion with absolute authority, secure in her inability to err (Halsall, 1997). With this mind-set, it was almost impossible to reason with the Church, as they would not listen to Galileo, or any other scholar that suggested theories that went against their understanding of how the universe functioned.

Galileo, to his credit, never attacked the Church as an entity. In fact, he wanted to warn the Church that its authority may be undermined if his theories were to be proven true, after they had publicly condemned them. Because of his very public manner, the Church felt threatened by his views (Langford, 1992: xi). Throughout the letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileos tone is one of imploration, asking the Grand Duchess to consider what he is putting forth to her, and to look at things with a more open mind. He constantly reminds the reader that he believes in God and the inerrancy of the Bible; it is just the interpretation, or the misinterpretation, of the Bible, that he finds fault in. He argued that without actually properly observing the Sun, the stars and other celestial beings, people have given them

inaccurate characteristics. For names and attributes must be accommodated to the essence of things, and not the essence to the names, since things come first and names afterwards (Shapin, 1996:18). By writing this letter, he was trying to show that what they were doing was erroneous, and it would be good for the Churchs reputation to properly consider and look into his theories before charging him for heresy. There is a great difference between proof and opinion, he argued, and it was definitely inadequate to base doctrine solely on the subjective opinions and interpretations of those in authority. Galileo also warned of the dangers of censuring the whole science. Much of Gods glory was manifested in nature and the heavens, and by preventing people from gazing into the heavens and making discoveries for themselves, Galileo likened it to censuring a hundred passages of holy Scripture which teach us that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvellously discerned in all his works and divinely read in the open book of heaven (Halsall, 1997). The Church, however, had no way of observing Galileos claims for itself. Galileo refused to share the technology behind his telescope, for fear of losing his intellectual property and patronage by the Medici. This created even more friction between the Church and Galileo with no one knowing whether they could rely on the telescope, as it was a new invention whose properties had not been fully studied.

For all his arguments, Galileo was not entirely successful in convincing those who were against him. In 1616, one year after he wrote his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, the earths motion was pronounced to be a rash view, philosophically false and contrary to scripture. That was the opinion of the theological qualifiers called in to decide the point (Langford, 1992: xi-xii). Despite all his logical standpoints, Galileo was still found to be in the wrong, and his view was declared to be false. However, many people saw his viewpoints as illogical simply because they went against what was taken to be the norms of

the day (Gingerich, 1982 page??). Another thing to his discredit was that although he did not go against the Church itself, he was not a tactful person; he loved to put people down and make them look ridiculous (Johnston, 1994 page??). In the years that followed his letters to the various people in authority, the Church did offer to have Copernicanism considered to be a hypothesis, one which was to be superior even to the Ptolemaic system, until further evidence could be gleaned, but Galileo refused this offer. He wanted Copernicanism to be seen and accepted as a fact, even though it had not been proven at that point in time (Johnston, 1994). This firm belief in what had not been proven did not earn Galileo many friends, and even though the Church was willing later on to listen to Galileo and his theories, his caustic manner and aggressive tactics caused him to lose whatever supporters he may have had for his cause. Unfortunately, it seemed as though Galileo did exactly what he was accusing the Church hierarchy of doing trying to force doctrine down others throats, without actually having concrete proof that supported the claim.

While Galileos letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany did not necessarily change the way people understood nature immediately, it definitely had an impact on the centuries that followed, and the Enlightenment Period was very heavily influenced by his works. However, change in the way people understood nature was gradual, and it was only in 1992, 359 years later, that the Catholic Church finally admitted that they were wrong about Galileos theories (www.newscientist.com, 1992). Galileo did not outline an entirely new way in understanding nature; what he did was attempt to open the minds of people to alternative ways of interpreting the Bible, when faced with new scientific evidence. Interpretations of the Bible may be flawed because of the limited knowledge that man has at any given point of time, but Galileo still believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, and what he

was trying to change was the way in which people reconciled Nature and the Bible. If Nature were really to be Gods Second Book, then it should echo what was said in His first.

References Cropper, William H., 2001. How the Heavens Go: Galileo Galilei in Great Physicists: the Life and Times of Leading Physicists from Galileo to Hawking. Oxford University Press, 2001. Gingerich, Owen, 1982. The Galileo Affair in Scientific American(abridged). Halsall, Paul, 1997. Modern History Sourcebook: Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615. Last retrieved 17 February 2012. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp ) Johnston, George Sim, 1994. The Galileo Affair in Lay Witness Magazine. Scepter Publishers Inc., New York, USA. Shapin, Steven, 1996. What was known? in The scientific revolution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press): 15-64. Reston, James, 2000. Galileo: A Life. Beard Books, 2000. Vatican admits Galileo was right, November 1992. Last retrieved 17 February 2012. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right.html)

Dear Jeremy, This is a well written and well researched paper. I especially like that you have stayed very close to the primary source and analyzed it in a good amount of detail. You also articulate a clear point of view about what exactly Galileo is trying to achieve in his letter to the Grand Duchess. The paper would have been improved by developing an even more specific and detailed argument about Galileos writing: how, precisely, was he making his arguments? What sorts of strategies was he using? This would elevate your paper to an ever higher level of analysis.