Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Galileo Galilei. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Galileo's lack of judgment?

I make the obligatory claim that the following entry is not just my bit of a society-wide flame war, but a matter relevant to the contents of the article: the entry on Galileo treats of Galileo and the Inquisition; it should do so; who did what to whom, and on what basis, is relevant to that treatment; certain things are asserted in that matter which can be checked against evidence.

In an unsigned comment that I won't take the trouble to track in the page history, /Archive 1 contains this text:
'"Lack of judgment" might be a bit strong, but if you actually read the Diologio[sic], you will understand exactly what whoever said that is talking about. It was more than a scientific treatise; it was also a rather vicious satire.'
NPOV time: I have read it, more than once, and I find no such thing at all. To be sure, the thing I read was a mere translation (the only full modern English translation there is); but then, the translator, having read the original Italian, also perceived no such thing [personal communication].

Going on, 'The speaker in the dialogue who represents the Aristotelean viewpoint is named Simplico (meaning buffoon or simpleton),...' This flat assertion could be made only by one entirely ignorant of the classical philosopher Simplicius. This isn't some profound obscurity dug up by Galileo's apologists to twist his meaning. Simplicius was well known and much admired around 1600, by people like Colombe and Cremonini (widely regarded as the real-life models for Simplicio). The young Galileo studied his work.

By the way, does it mean simpleton in Italian? I'm not an expert and don't happen to have a good dictionary handy, but I note that Babelfish never heard of simplicio, and the word for simple is semplice with an e.

Now, you may argue that Galileo was making a wicked pun here. Great, go ahead and argue it. Just don't omit relevant facts to hoodwink the non-specialists into thinking it's simple and indisputable.

Picking up, 'and this character is not only portrayed as a fool, but at many points directly parodies various church officials. For example, his final lines are a direct quote from Urban VIII...'
Two problems here: "many" and "parodies". The example given is the one that's always given, and I'd like to see a few of the others. And it's not a parody: it's what Galileo was directly ordered to insert in the text in order to get the license to publish the book. Church authorities claimed he hadn't put enough in.

Now, you or I might think that if we're ordered to insert the Church's official view, it would make sense to deliver it through the character who represents the conventional view throughout. And we might think it wise to give the Church the very last word. (Well, Salviati gets to express his approval of this "admirable and angelic doctrine", and even expand on it a little bit; that's pretty much like the last word, IMHO.) But when Galileo does it, it's a nasty satire?

It is widely believed (I'm not sure of the documents here) that the Pope thought he was being mocked. But his opinion on Galileo's intentions is not more conclusive than another man's, assuming that he was not speaking ex cathedra. There is not a shred of positive evidence of Galileo's having such an intention: nothing in G's papers, no dark hints in the words of anybody who knew him, nothing. It's one opinion, and not an opinion generally held, now or in Galileo's lifetime.

By the way, if a book really and clearly insulted the Pope, do you think it likely that his nephew would take a moderate line and even vote against the Inquisition's sentence?

Dandrake 19:52 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Brecht

Brecht wrote a play in which the main character is called "Galileo". It is, I suppose, no reflection on Brecht's thought or ethics that the play has little resemblance to the life of Galileo Galilei, because his theory of drama didn't have much to do with historical realism. But to apply the word "knowledge" to anything derived from that play is a bit much, so I de-applied it. Dandrake 02:04 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To user 210.54.108.162:
You appear to be a serious contributor (from your New Zealand edits), and you'd be welcome to discuss the question whether the Pope's position is a copout. But since that opinion is by no means universally held, simply dropping the word into a paragraph is not really NPOV at all. Dandrake 06:56, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Cannonballs

Isn't it true that

Galileo never actually performed the canonball experiment from Pisa (ambiguous here, contradicted at Classical mechanics)?

Well, the author of the Classical Mechanics piece seems to accept that the experiment was performed; but one can find plenty of people to assert the contrary. Hence this article's position that it is "not generally believed", which is about as weak as one can get. I really don't know on what grounds anyone positively asserts that it was not performed; grounds to believe that it was are in the article. Dandrake 07:43, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Galileo was actually in deeper trouble for proposing the immutablity of atoms, which irritated those who believed it contradicted with transubstantiation, and the Pope allowed him to confess to a lesser offense as a plea bargin?

There is a book about that, Galileo Heretic. The theory is surely even further from being unanimously accepted than the story of the cannonballs. As far as I know, the charges filed against Galileo made no mention of atomism, but treated only of heliocentrism. The bargaining between the hierarchy and Galileo didn't start till after the charges were filed, and Galileo (after being examined under oath) had raised a very strong defense against a major part of the charges. If there's any evidence of atomism coming up in the bargaining or in the trial or in the preparation of the charges (working backwards here), someone should present that.

Though Galileo showed a good deal of sympathy for ideas of atoms as proposed in classic times, I know of nothing at all in his work, published and unpublished, that would support an inference that the miracle of the Eucharist could not be real. There still may be something somewhere; maybe someone can help out here. But is there anything in the Vatican records to support the idea that powerful officials were concerned about Galileo's position on this? Contrast this with the treatment of Copernican ideas, which were attacked early and often after 1610, at all levels in the hierarchy; Vatican records from 1616 and 1632 make it quite clear that the Popes of those times had a strong position on the matter. Dandrake 07:43, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

I don't remember any references to these two statements, unfortunately. Paullusmagnus 14:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Satellite observation

Hi! I've added a pic of a Galileo publication to the article. If you click on the pic, you get what the source says is a translation of the manuscript. Since I don't know any Italian, can anyone say if the translation is of that manuscript? Thanks.
Adrian Pingstone 10:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The English text is definitely from the Sidereus Nuncius. The manuscript page isn't clear enough to be checked against the text by a person whose knowledge of Italian is below rudimentary; but I've found a reference for the page. It's Galileo's first known notes on observing moons of Jupiter, from January 7, 1610, jotted down at the bottom of an old draft of a letter. See Galileo at Work, p. 149. This was a few days before he recognized them as moons; here they're perceived as three tiny stars in an odd configuration.

So the caption is not strictly right. We should probably give a translation of the actual text of the page. That's not hard to get, but I probably can't do anything till next week. Dandrake 21:14, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Just a minor point but I'm not sure why you say the words are not clear on the manuscript. Perhaps you didn't notice that I provided a Larger Version link at the bottom of the caption? The manuscript is then very readable (IMHO).

Adrian Pingstone 22:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just meant that for me to make out the words, with a less than rudimentary knowledge of Italian, it would have to be really crystal-clear, preferably reduced to type! Anyway, I can probably dig out a usable translation next week.Dandrake 03:55, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding you.

Adrian Pingstone 09:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Secret Societies

Did anyone know that Galileo was the head of the Illuminati, one of the most famous anti-church/pro-science organisations in those days? There is a book named Angels & Demons (German title: Illuminati) by Dan Brown which deals with a plot of the Illuminati order against the Catholic Church.

No, I didn't know it, and I see no reason to believe it. Since there was no particular connection in that time between anti-church and pro-science, it would be interesting to see any evidence of an anti-church position on Galileo's part. The documentary evidence, in things like his letters and his friends' letters, points the other way. Dandrake 00:13, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Last I checked, Dan Brown writes fiction, anyway. --Fastfission 02:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Galileo was also a strong supporter of the Catholic faith and Church. He sought to unify religion and science. He was never anti-church.

Footnotes

Footnotes are, for me, one of the most vexatious subjects in Wikipedia. We can't agree on a single standard; there's no way of auto-hyperlinking them; and of course hardly anyone uses them because it's more fun to free-associate what I think I know than to document how I know it. But for this article, since we're trying to make one that's well founded in what's known, would anyone mind if the style gets changed consistently to one that's more maintainable??

What I have in mind is to replace the [1] [2] [3] system, which would be fine if it created hyperlinks, with the bulky scientific style; e.g., (Einstein, 1905) referring to an alphabetical list of documents at the end. The [4] style has drawbacks in maintainability and in conflicting with the [] notation for non-Wikipedia hypelinks.

Reactions? Better ideas? The suggestion needs a little time to settle down, especially with watchlists diabled today. Dandrake 19:50, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the point <g> I've inserted text that requires 2 more footnotes before the existing one, which would require renumbering the old ones, which I haven't done pending changes in format. Dandrake 20:50, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree the format should be changed - manual renumbering is a PITA. As a policy wonk, I also think we should have clearer rules on that issue.—Eloquence

Changed all the references, unless I missed something, to the common science-journal format like (Darwin, 1859). I think the treatment of the footnote to White, which seemed to have picked some ambiguity between the plain footnote notation [1] and the Wikipedia meaning of [1] works out all right. Comments and suggestions that it should all be done differently are solicited. Dandrake 07:09, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is possible that Galileo Galilei belonged to the secret society the Illuminati, everything fits the profile, a scientist that couldn't express his discoveries openly for fear to the chrurch forms a secret society in which they could be protected and also exchange important information. You also have to remember that Galileo Galilei was christian, so it was not an anti-christian society at first, it became anti-christian when the chrurch started hunting the scientists after Galileo's arrest. [201.128.194.149 forgot to sign this note]

The Trial. Again?

Every time more detail goes into the account of the trial, still more detail goes in, to give context and all that. I'm the first to concede that the section as it stands is repetitive, not well organized, and probably over-long. But I'm not sure what to do about it. Maybe I'll try taking a hatchet to it, or a chainsaw. If anyone tries it, including me, there should be a notice here about the project. Dandrake 07:40, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

How about just replacing it with Eddie Izzard's summary? "Galileo said 'The earth goes around the sun!', and the pope was overjoyed at the truth of his words, and locked him up for twenty years. That pope is known to history as Pope Shit For Brains, the Ninth."

I'd rather see more detail. We can always move it to a separate article The trial of Galileo Galileo and summarize the section if it gets too long.--Eloquence * 07:50, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Another way to do this would be to for the "Church controversy" or "trial" section to contain a summary of only those details that are verifiable from primary sources, and then move interpretation of these events to a later section entitled "Galileo in historiography" or somesuch, which would be about what historians have had to say about the whole affair. Shimmin 15:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The separate article would be a good idea. Certainly there is a large body of verifiable thingies (one doesn't want to say facts) concerning the trial; what one almost always gets is third-hand reinterpretations, and Wikipedia could do better than that. (And think of the hot edit wars we'll get when the article Examination of intention gets written. Still, it would be useful to do.) Dandrake 18:39, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

BTW does anyone have a good source concerning Galileo's defense on May 10? I don't think I've seen that text, which looks to be worth reading. Dandrake 19:43, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) (Found a good source. Dandrake 04:16, May 10, 2004 (UTC))

The sort of rewrite I envision wouldn't so much shorten the section as totally reorganize it and replace a certain amount of material; probably the result would be longer yet. The more I learn, the more I like the idea, but I'm not at all sure I can make it happen. BTW, if one does cut a huge chunk out of an article and make a new one out of it, what happens to the edit history? Does it stay with the old article, forcing anyone who really, really cares about the ancient history to go back there for the history of what the new article started with?

Anyway, I can't resist putting in interesting new stuff. For instance, that Barberini probably didn't refuse to endorse Galileo's sentence. I don't know whose side that argues for, but that question is less interesting than the information. Dandrake 04:16, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

How long he lodged at the Holy Office: He was examined on April 12 and held for more questioning; after the April 30 session he was sent back to the Tuscan embassy. So says the Tuscan ambassador in a letter of May 1. That means that everybody else is wrong, saying that it was 22 days. I dunno. But the May 1 letter is in Favaro's collection, as is a confirmation from Inquisition records. See Fantoli's book, p 319. Dandrake 04:37, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Father of astronomy

Tsk! Here I try to be polite to the Kepler fans, who tend (not without reason) to be sensitive to snubs and to apparent over-reaching on behalf of other great scientists, and Anthony zaps it as original research. <g> How many little philosophico-scientific bastards did Galileo sire, anyway? But it's OK with me. In fact, I'd have to cop to hiding POV under weasel words, anyway. Dandrake 19:53, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Was Galileo an astrologer?

Somebody has recently added that Galileo was an astrologer. Is that true?

-- Sundar 08:05, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Those times, about every astronomer also did astrology. After all, that was what makes you paid. If you were, say, a duke's court astronomer, then the duke would often ask you for horoscopes. But it might be a bit unfair to mention this in the article at some prominent place. At least to my knowledge, Galilei did not write any treatises about astrology. Simon A. 09:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is precisely the point I wanted to make. Sundar 13:04, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Before he became a celebrity, Galileo was professor of mathematics at the University of Padua. Astrology was one of the disciplines that a professional mathematician of that day would be expected to be knowledgeble of, so much so that up until the early 1600's, the word mathematician was used to mean an astrologer (which makes sense, given the amount of computation needed to determine the positions of the planets at a given date and time). Similarly, Kepler held the office of Imperial Mathemetician to two Holy Roman Emperors, a position in which his chief duty was to cast horoscopes. Kepler certainly did take the auspicious properties of the heavenly bodies seriously, and his published writings refect this.

I don't know enough to say whether Galileo also took astrology seriously, or just did it to pay the bills, but a brief look around found a few references to papers published about Galileo and astrology, some apparently based on some of his correspondence and other posthumously published material. Someone who knows more could fill us in there.

However, I don't see why it would be unfair to call Galileo an astrologer, even prominently. It was a serious scholarly pursuit in the early 1600s, and if he studied it, he studied it. It isn't unfair to call Kepler an astrologer; it isn't unfair to call Newton an alchemist and theologian. Many scholars tend to have somewhat rambling interests, and if centuries after the fact some of those interests no longer seem respectable, it is nonetheless disrespectful to the time they lived in to censor their lives to better reflect how we would like to remember them. Shimmin 18:12, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough; but I don't think the analogy to Newton is very good. Newton really was interested in occult stuff (as we'd call it) and actively pursued things that we regard as a waste of his precious time. Galileo devoted extremely little attention to astrology, so far as one can tell. His dedication of Sidereus Muncius to the current Medici has a lot of astrological talk; it's also obsequious to a degree that a modern can hardly read without disgust. It's not clear that the former is any more sincerely Galileo's opinion than the latter. How much active interest he took in astrology and heavenly signs might be judged from his not having heard of the 1604 supernova till days after it appeared, and his not bothering to observe it till 18 days after. And then his interest was, according to the documents we have, in parallax: was it farther away than the Moon? It was, like Tycho's star before it, which was one in the eye for Aristotle. So I think that a listing as "astrologer" in the intro is misleading, not representing anything he paid serious attention to in his mature life. Dandrake 22:50, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the astrologer reference in the article... before reading this. Nevertheless, unless someone (such as the original editor) disputes with Dandrake, I guess I'll leave it out. Brutannica 06:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good. I just logged in with the idea of cleaning up the Intro characterizations by an actual principle, but it turns out that the astrologer item was the only one that would have gone, and it's already done.

The idea, which I think should be applied to aevery article in Wikipedia, is that a wikilink characterization appears in the opening if and only if it's significant. Duhh. In a biographical article this would mean that it's significant to (a) the person's contemporary fame or (b) the reasons for the person's historical fame or importance. A rule of thumb would relate this to (c) how much treatment the thing in question merits in the main text. Astronomer, philosopher (his job title), and physicist clearly work; astrologer is irrelevant on all counts. Dandrake 21:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. But then what about articles that have significant references in their intros, but don't discuss it any further in their bodies? (I'm thinking of Michael Faraday here...) Brutannica 02:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the rule I just invented, they have a problem, which must be solved by deleting references or adding relevant information to the article. I Have Spoken. And seriously, I'm adopting that rule for any article I take a serious interest in. Dandrake 21:42, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

If you are going to say that Galileo was an astronomer, then you are aware that astronomy and astrology were the same thing until about 1750. So I think the astrology heading should stay.

I can see that you think that. Instead of engaging in an edit war, it would be more productive to work towards consensus. For instance, I'll set up a poll below.

No, I don't 'think that' Galileo was an astrologer, it is a proven fact that he was! So why not acknowledge the truth--just because one of the greatest scientists who ever lived also studied and used astrology in conjunction with astronomy. It isn't an insult to his other work or myriad of achievements in mathematics, physics, technology, philosophy, optics, free speech, etc. Who cares--as stated before: astrology was a very scholarly subject in the 1600s; but it is the truth so it should be in the article. Why not put "Galileo was an astronomer/astrologer..."? Because he studied and used both, that is only fair. I am a scientist myself, but I have wide ranging interests, so why is it hard to acknowledge that maybe more than a few great scientific geniuses of the past studied astrology, alchemy, numerology, phrenology, mysticism, etc.-- these subjects are considered offbeat and bizarre in today's world so that this information is left out of the textbooks to paint an idealized, modern portrait of the pure, rationalistic, pseudoscience hating scientific genius? I THINK: There needs to be a word coined for the combination astronomer/astrologer--because remember most if not all of the early European astronomers were also astrologers--but everywhere in modern print they are ONLY called astronomers. Basically the reason many of them turned to astronomy was to produce ephemerides that were more and more accurate, thus improving their astrological methods. Maybe astronogy or astrolomy would work? I like astrolomy better--reminds me of Ptolemy--hey wait a second! He was of course an astronomer--and an astrologer! They considered them one in the same! Just like Galileo, Kepler, Brahe, etc. WAKE UP--so why not state the facts--science is all about facts right?

Science isn't all about facts. Science is about the study of the natural world and the production of models that represent reality. By the way, if you're going to opine, sign your post; otherwise, shhh! Adraeus 22:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Astrologer poll

Should Galileo be listed as an astrologer in the article's introductory paragraph? Please sign and date for your vote to be counted.

Note: This vote is now closed. See the follow-up vote below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes

I am convinced by the evidence set out below that he practiced astrology and this should get a mention in the article. I think it needs more evidence of belief before we can say he was an astrologer Lumos3 08:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused. You voted "yes", that he should be listed as an astrologer in the introductory paragragh. . . but then you indicated he shouldn't be listed as an astrologer. Would your vote more accurately be "no" to the question in the poll, but with the caveat that his practice of astrology be mentioned in the article? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
I vote yes. There's clear evidence that Galileo was able to draw up astrological charts, ergo he was an astrologer. This in no way undermines his achievement as a scientist and it is hopelessly anachronistic to try to divide the two fields in this period. (Just for the record, I think astrology is a load of old crock). The Singing Badger 13:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes. The first hit on Google for "Galileo astrology" is a whole volume of a journal devoted to "Galileo's Astrology". Take a look around the journal site; it appears to be a proper peer-reviewed journal. Look at the abstracts; apparently Galileo also made a horoscope for Cosimo II de Medici. His horoscope for his daughter also features in the Galileo project. To answer the one argument accompanying a No vote: It's not just a question of what he made notable contributions to; it's important to know what his life was like. He didn't make notable contributions to Catholicism, yet the article rightly mentions he was a devout Catholic. He made no notable contributions to the art of dropping out of university for financial reasons, yet the article rightly mentions this aspect of his life. On a more general note, the portrayal of Galileo as the forebear of the currently dominant reductionist trends in science is IMO problematic; mentioning that he was an astrologer would be a welcome correction to this one-sided view. Fpahl 21:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I read that Galileo was reluctantly involved with astrology primarily to earn extra money. So his primary field wasn't astrology; thus, he wasn't an astrologer by trade, but he was an astronomer, physicist, inventor, and mechanical engineer. He probably wouldn't want to be remembered as an astrologer either. I don't see anything wrong with mentioning that he involved himself with astrology in order to increase his value, but listing Galileo as an astrologer seems exaggerated. Adraeus 22:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - I am reluctantly involved with engineering, primarily to earn extra (or any) money. I am, without question, an engineer. To conclude from his reluctance and monetary motives that, "So his primary field wasn't astrology," is leaping to conclusions you already hold in the worst kind of way. --GoldenRing 03:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I vote yes. The man undisputedly "did" astrology, ergo he is an astrologer. Breaking this link is denying a fundamental of the English language, the formation of descriptive adjectives from verbs. Is it worth mentioning in the article? Yes. It was indivisibly part of what he did and who he was, as was the case with all astronomers at the time. The assumption that seventeenth century astronomy was the same as twenty-first century astronomy is one easily made, which is all the more reason to point out that they are not the same. Censoring the word 'astrologer' because it offends certain historical viewpoints is nothing other than unashamed POV. --GoldenRing 04:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

5. I vote yes. There is evidence not only that Galileo was an astrologer, but that he took the practice very seriously. Rather ironically, one of the first issues raised against Galileo by the Church was his belief in astrology:

Q: You said before that in the nativities that this Galileo makes, he calls his predictions certain; this is heresy. How then can you say that he is a believer in matters of faith?

A: I know that he said that and that he calls his predictions from the nativities certain, but I am not aware that this has been declared heresy.[2]

That article is the best I've yet found in summing up Galileo's astrological practice. Serendipodous 10:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No

– Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 01:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Brutannica 07:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nunh-huh 02:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) - made notable contributions to astronomy; made no notable contributions to astrology

not surprising, since the idea of a "notable contribution to astrology" is an oxymoron. How can one contribute to nonsense?

Adraeus 03:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe

Shimmin 14:42, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Absolutely So--author of the above paragraphs in is favor. 09-19-04
- Please sign-in and sign your posts for your vote to count. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 12:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting. I hadn't read this yet. Brutannica 07:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My "maybe" vote above will become a yes if someone can provide, from Galileo's published works, examples of his contributions to the art of astrology. (For example, Kepler, in his "Conversations with the Starry Messenger", an open letter to Galileo in response to Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius included speculations on the astrological significance of the newly-discovered satellites of Jupiter. This is the sort of thing that is well-documented in Kepler's works, but to my knowledge, not so well-documented in Galileo's.) Shimmin 14:42, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

The lone supporter continues to make reversions, against consensus. I'll revert. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 04:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

The man cast horoscopes for royalty to make extra money. His astronomical discoveries were used mostly at the time to create more accurate ephemerides for use in astrology. Along with his friend and colleague Johannes Kepler, Galileo was the last of the long line of distinguished astronomer-astrologers to flourish in the courts of Europe before the two disciplines parted company in the western world in the mid seventeenth-century. So why not give the man due credit for what he deserves! The fact that he studied astrology is not even mentioned in the entire article--you don't have to put it in the heading, but at least somewhere in the article. He may have been a reluctant astrologer, but an astrologer nonetheless. Stop distorting the facts in favor of an elementary textbook, politically correct view. When Galileo taught at the University of Padua his duties were mainly to teach Euclid's geometry and standard (geocentric) astronomy to medical students, who would need to know some astronomy in order to make use of astrology in their medical practice.

If you vote "Yes," place your name up there. Otherwise, shhhh! (unless you vote nay/maybe) Adraeus 19:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I found this on the web -- "Galileo Galilei, as courtier was also expected to meet the astrological needs of the prince." http://www.nd.edu/~dharley/HistIdeas/astron-astrol.html UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME Also, at the very top the page it shows a horoscope that HE MADE for his daughter, Virginia. I would say that this info from a website at Notre Dame is authoritative, correct? And do not forget the fact that Galileo was trained in MEDICINE, and astrology was used ALL OF THE TIME in standard medical practice duing this time period and throughout the Middle Ages, by the Romans, and indeed for all of written history.

If you vote "Yes," place your name up there. Otherwise, shhhh! (unless you vote nay/maybe) Adraeus 19:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be listed in the introductory paragraph, just somewhere in the article to be TRUTHFUL--you people are a bunch of liars if you don't include the fact that he was an astrologer somewhere in the article; who cares if it is in the first paragraph or somewhere in the middle of the article.

Working toward Astrology consensus

Acheiving consensus is turning out to be harder than I'd thought. I'd like to propose the following:

Proposal: Galileo's activities in astrology will be mentioned in the article, but not in the opening paragraph. He won't be refered to as an "astrologer" per se, but his contributions to astrology and his astrological work will be refered to in detail.

And so here's the new poll:

Although this may not be my first choice, I'm willing to accept the above proposal to achieve consensus.

Willing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:36, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Willing. Sundar 03:59, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Willing. Fpahl 09:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Willing. Adraeus 20:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Willing. Shimmin 21:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, the journal abstracts that someone else linked to above are worth reading. Apparently, in 1604 a young Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for the most part because of a somewhat profligate lifestyle, but during the course of his trial the issue of his horoscopes came up; the court questioned whether including a person's projected date of death in a horoscope implied a sort of "astral determinism" which was incompatible with the Church's doctrines regarding the interplay between divine omniscience and human free will. Shimmin 13:13, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Willing. The Singing Badger 00:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC). Seems to me there is enough material on this talk page for an entire section about Galileo's astrological work, and the debate over its importance.

The above proposal is unacceptable to me.

If he cast charts and interpreted them for WHOEVER, he was an astrologer/astrologist--whatever you want to call it. Did anyone even bother to check out this link? --------http://www.nd.edu/~dharley/HistIdeas/astron-astrol.html

At the top of the page it clearly shows an astrological chart that GALILEO CAST for his daughter--come on people. What more proof do you need? Stop these lies and white-washing of history.

Dear anonymous user – I sympathise very much with your effort to get Galileo's astrological activities mentioned in the article. I voted Yes for the original proposal and find it valuable. However, I also understand that some are worried that referring to Galileo as an "astrologer", especially in the introductory paragraph, would put too much weight on this aspect of his activities. He is not referred to as a "mathematician" anywhere in the article, despite having been a professor of mathematics at one point. Yet mathematics was probably more central to his notable contributions than astrology. While I agree with you that there is a real danger of the history of science being "white-washed" to make Galileo appear more like today's scientists than he was, you're going too far in accusing people with a different opinion of "lies". If you try to understand what's important to them, I'm sure we can come up with a solution that's acceptable to everyone. If you can't accept the above proposal, please indicate this clearly by a numbered vote (by adding "#~~~~" underneath the corresponding heading), and make an alternative proposal. For instance, perhaps we might agree that there should be a section titled "Astrology" – this would make it clear that this was a non-negligible aspect of Galileo's life, without labelling him an "astrologer". Many here seem to feel that this occupational description should be reserved to more central pursuits of his life. Fpahl 10:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I cook grilled cheese sandwiches, does that mean I'm a professional cook? No.
If I drive occassionally, does that mean I'm a professional driver? No.
If I put ice in a cup of water, does that mean I'm a chemist? No.
If I sing in the shower, does that mean I'm a singer? No.
If I construct a wooden doll house for my daughter, does that mean I'm a carpenter? No.
To the anonymous ones, if you think your "vote" means anything, register an account and sign your username. Adraeus 20:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus

Alright, let's edit the article to include some of this info. Who'll step up to the plate first? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:29, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, since no-one from the anti-astrology camp seems keen on doing it, and our anonymous pro-astrology friend keeps anonymously editing contrary to the consensus decision, I guess I'll have to do it. I might not get around to it over the next couple of days, though, so bear with me. When I do, I'll probably create a separate section on astrology -- if someone isn't happy with that, please say so. Fpahl 19:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At this point there is no information whatsoever on astrology in the article. This article has had huge numbers of changes and I'm not sure how it was removed, if it was ever added. Ken Arromdee 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Consensus comments

Galileo reluctantly involved himself in astrology. The fact that Galileo made greater contributions to astronomy indicates that he did not share astrological beliefs of the time; thus, he was not an astrologer.
- If there is evidence that Galileo's practice of astrology was reluctant, then this could and should be mentioned in the article. Your argument from his contributions to astronomy is wrong. The impression that there is a contradiction between a belief in astronomy and a belief in astrology is a modern one. Whether this impression is correct or not (I don't think it is), it is far from obvious that Galileo must have had it. Fpahl 21:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Astronomical science and astrological belief differ greatly. I suggest you read a few academically credible books focusing on Galileo Galilei's life and scientific contributions. Adraeus 00:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - They certainly differ greatly. That doesn't mean they contradict each other. I'm quite familiar with Galileo's scientific contributions from my degree in physics, but thanks for the suggestion. I've also read a book by him and one about him, but I suspect you might not consider the latter "academically credible" ;-). Fpahl 02:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - It seems you missed the point initially since I never said anything about contradiction. I did infer evolution however. When someone goes against the status quo, like Galilei and Darwin did, to provide for a foundation of what they perceive as right and correct, it is obvious that {that someone} does not accept tradition. Galilei went against the status quo by supporting astronomy over astrology even while placating his employers and investors with traditional astrology. Transition--evolution--is not contradiction. Adraeus 08:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        Going against the status quo is not all-or-nothing. No-one can question all assumptions of their time all at once, and it's not clear to me what gives you such confidence that Galileo questioned this particular one. If it's not evidence in his writings, I feel it can only be an impression that there is, if not a contradiction, at least significant friction between astrology and astronomy (which, to me, also seems to be implied in your formulation "supporting astronomy over astrology"). Consider the following analogy: Today, someone might find the current distribution of wealth unfair and become a famous political activist against it. She might, however, believe in property rights, and might run a small business of her own to finance her activities. Imagine now that some centuries into the future, people decide that property rights were actually a bad idea and responsible for a lot of strife and hardship, and invent a much better social system without them. They might see our political activist as an important initiator of the change that eventually led to this development. But they would be wrong in saying that, since she questioned the status quo, she couldn't possibly have believed in property rights, and she only very reluctantly ran a business, and it would be inappropriate to call her a businesswoman. Property rights are so deeply regarded as self-evident in our times that many people who question all sorts of things about the status quo don't question them. Similarly, it seems quite plausible to me that Galileo might not have questioned the practice of astrology, and might not have foreseen that his own work would lead to a development that would eventually dislodge it. (Perhaps we should move this discussion outside of the vote – feel free to do so if you add to it.) Fpahl 09:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        I'll get back to you later. I just woke up. Understand this though: 1->2 does not equal 1. A person who climbs from step 1 to step 2 is not still standing on step 1. Adraeus 18:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        Will you not listen to what is being said and learn to question your own prejudices? Astronomy and astrology today are (for many people) seen as incompatible. In Galileo's day, astronomy was the study of how stars and planets moved, and its main use was to develop astrological charts. There is nothing inconsistent about this; there is not even any suggestion of progress from one to the other. The belief that the planets and stars influence lives on earth is quite independent of ideas on how the stars and planets move. We, of course, believe that the stars and planets do not influence life on earth (at least not in the astrological sense), but that was not the belief of Galileo's day. His astronomy was undoubtably good; he undoubtably used his discoveries for astrological purposes. Nor is Galileo the only example of this: Keppler made great scientific contributions, practiced astrology, and was a commited Christian. Many people today regard all three as mutually incompatible, but he saw no problem with holding all three views together. As has already been observed, Newton studied kinematics, optics, economic and monetary theory, theology and alchemy (someone said ocultics even!) These are not necessarily incompatible (although theology and ocultics seems to bend this!) but we think so today.