ebook img

THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION - Catholic Textbook Project PDF

20 Pages·2011·1.08 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION - Catholic Textbook Project

Introduction The Scientific Revolution By the beginning of the 16th century, a new Europe was rising from the epitome: a summary or ashes of the Middle Ages. embodiment For all its problems and sins, the old medieval society had been cen- tered on the Christian Faith as revealed through the teachings of the Catholic Church. All of life found its meaning and purpose in attaining the life that is to come—union with God, through Jesus Christ. Medieval men, of course, The Word of God as the great did not neglect the good things of this life. They sought to create societies based on architect of the Universe. Illumination from a 13th century law and justice; they developed the practical arts of agriculture and manufacturing; French Bible. they cultivated the fine arts of architecture, painting, sculp- ture, poetry, and music; and they sought to understand the world around them through the study of philosophy. But for the people of the Middle Ages, all these earthly goods were seen to have one great purpose; they were to help lead men and women to God. For medieval man, the Church and the Faith were at the center of human life. The Renaissance changed all this. Beginning in Italy in the mid-14th century, scholars, poets, and artists discovered a new interest in the classical civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome. The ancient world became for them the model of a perfect society; classical art, they thought, was the epitome of true beauty. This new fascination with classical civilization caused people to despise the Middle Ages as bar- baric; they thought of it as just a “middle period” between the glories of the ancient world and the rebirth (which renaissance means) of classical culture in the 14th century. First the Italian city of Florence, and then Rome herself, became the center of the Renaissance and of humanism— the belief that mankind’s goal in life is to attain the good things of this earth. Renaissance humanism was not necessarily contrary to Christian culture, any more than reason is contrary to faith. Many of the original humanists had been devout Catholics who saw humanism as a way of enriching their religion, not replacing it. Yet, humanism became increasingly atheistic— not because humanists did not believe in God, but because they more and more began to ignore him. 1 2 LIGHT TO THE NATIONS II: The Making of the Modern World Interest in religion, however, did not die out in the Renaissance. Humanists were among the chief critics of the corruption in the Church; they hoped for a renewal of the true Christian faith in all its purity. It is not surprising, then, that many humanists joined Martin Luther in his revolt against the Church, which began in 1517. Soon large sections of Germany, England and Scotland, Scandinavia, and even many areas of France became Protestant. This Protestant Reformation or Revolution destroyed the unity of Christendom and led to bitter wars of religion that shook France and destroyed large sections of Germany. The Protestant Reformation, too, ended the Renaissance. A revolution, however, followed the Renaissance—the “scientific revolution.” Though inspired by the ideas of certain ancient Greek thinkers, the scientific revolu- tion did not seek to return to an earlier, more perfect age. It wanted to cast away the philosophy and science of the Middle Ages—though it had received its basic way of coming to know the world from medieval philosophers and men of science. The scientific revolution was revolutionary because it created ways of thinking about the natural world that were contrary to the ways people had been thinking about it. This revolution was to change the world even more than the Renaissance did. It was the first of many revolutions that ultimately gave birth to our modern world and changed the face, not only of Christendom, but of every culture and civilization on Earth. Philosophy and Science Though today we think of science and philosophy as very different studies, people in the 16th and 17th centuries did not. Then, the terms science and philosophy were used interchangeably. Philosophers saw themselves as seekers after scientia (the Latin word for knowledge), and the men we would today call scientists said their interest was in “natural philosophy.” Furthermore, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the men we would today call scientists also busied themselves in what we today would call philosophy, and many a philosopher carried on studies in what we call science. Black chalk sketch, by Yet though they saw little or no difference between science and philosophy, the Michelangelo, ca. 1560 people of the 16th and 17th centuries distinguished between different ways or meth- ods of coming to know the world around them. As they saw it, there were two basic paths of knowledge one could follow. One was the old path, blazed by the Greek phi- losophers Plato and Aristotle and continued by the Scholastics of the Middle Ages. The other path was also, in a sense, old—it came from the ancient Greek world, from philosophers who had lived before Plato and Aristotle. But, as the 16th- and 17th- century thinkers saw it, the path from that ancient Greek world to their own had become overgrown and nearly lost over the centuries. These 16th- and 17th-century thinkers saw it as their task to clear a new path through the “weeds” and “confusion” of the Middle Ages, a path that would lead them more certainly to true knowledge about the world. The “Old Way” One of the hallmarks of the Middle Ages had been western Europe’s rediscovery of the works of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Many greeted the rediscovery of Aristotle as a kind of renaissance in learning. Indeed, in the 13th century, Aristotle was seen as a radical philosopher—so radical that some devout Catholics rejected his works outright, for they saw his teachings as dangerous to the Catholic Faith. It was the two great medieval thinkers, St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas, who demonstrated that, though some of Aristotle’s conclusions are con- trary to the Catholic Faith, his way of doing philosophy is not. In fact, Aristotle’s Introduction The Scientific Revolution 3 philosophy was seen to be the best way to understand the world around us. Many thinkers thought Aristotle gave theologians the best intellectual tools possible to explain the mysteries of religion. Both Albert and Aquinas turned Aristotle’s philosophy from being an enemy of the Faith to become the handmaiden of theology. But, over the centuries after the days of Albert and Thomas, Aristotelian philosophy had become ossified. Scholars did not question Aristotle—nor, for that matter, did they question other ancient thinkers, such as the Roman physician Galen and the Alexandrian astronomer, Ptolemy. By the 16th century, many scholars thought that, to know truth, all one had to do was read the works of these thinkers —they thought, for instance, that what Aristotle said was true because Aristotle said it. One did not need to find out for himself whether what Aristotle and other ancient think- ers said was true. One only had to accept it. Such an attitude was contrary to what Aristotle him- self had said was the true way to come to knowledge. For Bust of Aristotle Aristotle (as well as for Albert and Thomas Aquinas), all knowledge begins with what we experience. The mind of every person begins as a “clean slate”—we are not born with knowledge but come to knowledge as we grow older by understanding the things we experience in the world. Through our senses of sight, hearing, and touch, we come into contact with the world around us; and by thinking about the things we sense, we are able to understand them, to have knowledge about them. We do not learn primarily from books but by coming into contact with all the wonders that surround us. An example of how the “old way” of knowledge worked is the way people come ossified: opposed to change, to know about who and what we are. Human beings know themselves only by what as if turned to bone (from they experience about themselves and about other things. As a person grows, he the Latin word os, meaning experiences other beings besides himself—not only his mother and father, family “bone”) members, and other human beings, but beasts, plants, and such inanimate objects inanimate: without a soul as rocks, water, and soil. Perhaps he first understands that the nonhuman creatures or life (from the Latin word he sees, hears, tastes, and touches are in some ways very much like himself; but anima, meaning “soul” or soon he begins to perceive that he is very different from them, as well. He sees, for “life”) instance, that he is made of “stuff,” like they are, though often of a very different kind of stuff. Then, he notices that he is more like plants and animals than rocks and water, because, like plants and animals, he grows and develops. He then sees that he is more like beasts than plants, because, like the beasts, he can move about from place to place and has senses like they do. After a time, however, he learns that he is quite unique from anything else in the world. Unlike all other creatures, he can form ideas and think about those ideas. All these experiences are the beginnings or “principles” of understanding and knowledge. They are the beginnings of science. And these experiences encourage the philosopher to give answers to the question, “What am I?” Understanding that he has a body, five senses, and even emotions and passions, just like the beasts have, the philosopher realizes that he himself is an animal. Then, seeing that, unlike the beasts, he can think and reason, and even use his reason to make tools for cultivating the soil or building the most marvelous machines, he understands that he is more than just an animal. He comes to understand that he is a rational animal, a being with a body, senses, and a mind that understands and makes con- nections between things. 4 LIGHT TO THE NATIONS II: The Making of the Modern World After answering the question, “What am I?” the philosopher makes other query: a question or inquiry queries. His next question, perhaps, is “Why do I exist? What is the purpose for my life?” Because he is different from other creatures, he comes to understand that his purpose for existing must be different from that of all other creatures. He comes to understand that because he can reason and know, and use his reason and knowl- edge to make new things, his purpose in life is to understand the world around him and be a maker and creator. “Why do I exist?” however, is not the final question the philosopher asks. He does not simply want to know what he is, or why he exists. He seeks to discover where he comes from. In asking the question, “Where do I come from? Who made me?” the medieval philosophers after much thought, gave the answer, God. It is God, they said, who is the source from which they and all things come to be. deduction: a method of rea- This method of reasoning is called deduction. It begins with principles that soning where one begins with one discovers by thinking about his experience (and what others have said about principles and, by asking ques- their own experiences); one then draws conclusions from those principles by ask- tions, draws conclusions from ing questions. those principles To understand deduction, we have used the example of a philosopher coming to principle: the first ideas in know what a human being is. But medieval philosophers used deduction to under- thinking, from which one stand many other things as well, including mathematics, morality, politics, and draws conclusions who God is. By using deduction, of course, different philosophers came to different conclusions on any number of questions; but, for centuries, nearly all philosophers thought deduction was the chief and best way to understand the world, themselves, and God. The “New Way” Though the best of medieval philosophers valued deduction as the means of com- ing to the truth about the world, they insisted that all reasoning has to start with German scholastic philosopher, experience. St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, said that an argument based on St. Albertus Magnus authority (for instance, “this is true because Aristotle says it’s true”) is the weak- (ca. 1193–1280) est kind of argument in philosophy. Thomas, like other medieval thinkers—like his teacher St. Albertus Magnus—insisted that all proofs in philosophy had to be rooted in experimentum—the Latin word meaning “experience.” It was Albertus Magnus, however, who suggested another kind of experimentum—the kind indicated by our English word, experiment. What is an experiment? Firstly, it is a kind of experience, but a care- fully controlled experience. It is a testing of a thing to see what it does or how it behaves under very controlled circumstances. Experiment can take the form of careful observation; for instance, a philosopher or scientist may watch spiders to understand how they kill their prey. He might choose several species of spiders to watch, and in observing them, note down every detail he can discern of their movements. He will then compare his observations, carried out over a period of time, and come to some conclusions—for instance, that spiders inject a poi- son into their prey to paralyze them before eating them. A scientist may do more than merely observe natural things. While observing them, he may actively test them. For example, in watching ants move in single file along a path leading to and from their anthill, the scientist wonders: What makes them infallibly follow this path? Is it their sense of sight or smell, or something else? To discover this, he may brush away the soil over which the ant path crosses. He notices that the ants suddenly appear confused and wander about as if they Introduction The Scientific Revolution 5 had lost their direction. From this trial, the scientist may conclude that it is the ants’ sense of smell, rather than their sight, that keeps them on their path. The scientist or philosopher, however, does not simply accept his conclusion as true. He continues to test his idea by more and more experiments. Other scientists, too, may carry out similar experiments to test one scientist’s conclusions. If future experiments do not give the same results, then scientists come up with new ideas to describe what they have experienced. Only after many experiments give the same results do scientists decide that their conclusions are really true. Experiment is merely another kind of experience that we can use to understand the world. But though it gives us much useful information, experiment alone can- not tell us everything we need or want to know. Though experiment can show us, for instance, how the human body is constructed or how it works, it cannot by itself tell us about the human soul or the purpose for which human beings exist. We can- not perceive these realities by the senses or measure them with our instruments. To understand these realities, we need the “old way” of traditional philosophy. The “new way, however, was really not as new as 16th century thinkers might have thought it was. For one thing, it was rooted in the medieval Christian view of optics: the study of light, the the world. Medieval Christian thinkers held that human reason could understand changes it undergoes and pro- God’s creation because God had created patterns by which the universe and every- duces, and what is related to it thing in it worked. Human reason could discover and understand these patterns. physics: the experimental sci- ence that studies and measures This conviction inspired Thomas Aquinas, but it also moved others to carry out the the motion of bodies experiments Albertus Magnus suggested. Like Albertus, the English bishop, Robert heliocentric: Sun centered Grosseteste (1168–1263), and others over the next two hundred years made careful (from the Greek word helios, observations of the world around them—observations that led to important discov- meaning “sun”) eries in astronomy, medicine, optics, and physics. Yet, because philosophers had for so long neglected experiment as a means of understanding the world around them, the thinkers who rediscovered experiment in Detail of Nicolaus Copernicus the 16th century thought they had happened upon something new. For these philoso- (1473–1543), monument by pher-scientists, the way of experiment became the new way of “natural Fryderyk Tieck philosophy.” And because what they came to discover through experi- ments was so astounding and, sometimes, contrary to what everyone had thought before, 16th-century thinkers began to reject the old way of philosophy in favor of the “new way” of experimental science. They began to think that experimental science was the only way to come to a definite knowledge about the world. The Copernican Revolution Amid all the turmoil of religious revolt and war of 16th-century Europe, one man lit a flame that would ignite all of Europe. This man, a native of Poland, was Nicolaus (Nicholas) Copernicus. Born in 1473, Copernicus later studied at the University of Krakow in Poland and the University of Bologna in Italy. At Bologna he became a member of the clergy, though not a priest, and studied canon law and Greek. Though he would later add medicine and law to his areas of study, Copernicus’s chief interest was astronomy. In 1500, he gave lectures on astronomy in Rome, and wherever he lived he pursued careful observations of the stars and the planets. Copernicus was the father of the heliocentric theory of the universe. For centuries, all learned men had accepted the theory of the second- century Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy that the Earth sits at the 6 LIGHT TO THE NATIONS II: The Making of the Modern World center of the universe and is the unmoving point around which the Sun, the plan- ets, and the stars revolve in perfect circles. Ptolemy’s great work of astronomy, the Almagest, explains the motions of the heavenly bodies by using complicated math- ematics and giving ingenious explanations for why some heavenly bodies appear to move more slowly during some parts of the year and more quickly during others. geocentric: Earth centered Ptolemy’s geocentric theory, however, had problems. For one thing, his expla- (from the Greek word Ge or nations for certain motions of the heavenly bodies were very complex. Following Gaia, signifying the earth the lead of Aristarchus, an ancient Greek philosopher who held to the heliocentric goddess) theory, Copernicus discovered that if he assumed that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the universe, he could come up with simpler explanations for why the heavenly bodies move as they do. For 25 years, Copernicus worked on his theory; but when he had finally finished his great work, On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, he refused to have it published. His friends urged him to publish the work, but Copernicus would not. He feared that those who did not understand it would treat it with contempt. Why was Copernicus so hesitant to publish his discoveries? It is perhaps hard for us to understand—we, who think we know that the Earth moves around the Sun. But in the 16th century and, indeed, for many centuries before, the idea that the Sun, planets, and stars move around the Earth seemed obvious. After all, does it not appear to us that the Sun moves around us, rather than that we move around the Sun? To people of the 16th century, moreover, the theory that the Earth is the center of the universe seemed to agree with Sacred Scripture, which in places speaks of the Earth as stationary and the Sun as moving around it. Also, many 16th-century people thought that, if man is God’s chief and greatest creature, is it not most fitting that man’s home, the Earth, be the physical center of all creation? For many people, Copernicus’s heliocentric theory was revolutionary. Ironically it was the religious revolutionaries (men like Martin Luther and his associate, Philip A “planisphere” showing the Melancthon) who were Copernicus’s biggest opponents. The Protestant reformers Copernican world system thought the heliocentric theory clearly contradicted Scripture. Copernicus, however, received encouragement from bishops and learned Catholics to publish his work on the heliocentric theory. Though Copernicus understood the controversy his heliocentric theory would lead to in his own day, he could not foresee the revolution it would help create in the years to come. Many would come to see Copernicus’s ideas as a challenge to religion and would use it as an example of how science contradicts religion, and reli- gion, science. So, though Copernicus himself was a faithful Catholic, other, less faithful thinkers would use his heliocentric theory to justify rebellion against the Catholic Church and all of Europe’s past. It is for this reason that Copernicus’s discovery of the heliocen- tric theory has been called a revolution —the “Copernican Revolution.” Introduction The Scientific Revolution 7 Science and Christendom Despite the interest shown in Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, astronomy and natural science were not the major focuses of interest in the second half of the 16th century. Religious controversies between Protestants and Catholics, reform of the Church, how to protect Europe from Turkish invasion—these questions were of greater importance to Europeans than whether the Earth moves around the Sun, or the Sun around the Earth. Interest in astronomy or in experimental science, however, did not die out in the 50 or so years after Copernicus’s death in 1543. Astronomy helped bring about an important development—the reform of the calendar. Improved observations of the stars and better knowledge of astronomy made it possible to draw up a new calen- dar that better followed the course of the year. In 1582, a new calendar, called the “Gregorian calendar,” instituted by Pope Gregory XIII, replaced the Julian calendar that had been in use since the days of Julius Caesar. The astronomy that brought about the Gregorian calendar, however, was not based on Copernicus’s heliocentric theory. Most astronomers continued to explain the universe using Ptolemy’s astronomy, and for one simple reason—Copernicus’s theory had not been proven to be true. It was a hypothesis, just like Ptolemy’s theory. A hypothesis is something like an educated guess, an idea presented as a way of explaining what one experiences. A hypothesis becomes more certain only by being more tested. Copernicus offered the heliocentric hypothesis as a way of explaining mechanics: a branch of physi- the motions of stars and planets as people see them from the Earth. He thought his cal science that deals with hypothesis was better than Ptolemy’s in explaining these motions, but not everyone physical forces and their effect agreed with him. One of those who did not agree was a Jesuit, Christoph Clavius on bodies (1538–1612), highly esteemed as both a mathematician and astronomer by the great- est scholars of his time. The Wonder of Florence The city of Florence in Italy had long been an important center of European culture. The home of Dante Alighieri (who wrote the Divine Comedy) and of Leonardo da Vinci, Florence had become famous for art and poetry. But another of Florence’s sons, Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), would make it renowned for its contributions to natural science. Even as a young boy, Galileo had shown a remarkable aptitude for mathematics and even mechanics—traits he may have learned from his father, Vincenzo Galilei, who had gained some fame as a musician and mathematician. Yet, though a nobleman, Vincenzo was not wealthy, and he wanted his son to learn a profession that would bring him some wealth. But Galileo resisted his father’s pressure to study medicine. Galileo’s interests were mathematics, mechan- ics, and astronomy—and these interests he was determined to pursue. In 1589, at the age of 25, Galileo became professor of mathemat- ics at the University of Pisa. It was there that he challenged Aristotle himself and proved that in one area, at least, the great philosopher was wrong. In his treatise, De Coelo (“On Heaven”), Aristotle seemed to say that the larger a body of gold, lead, or any other material is, the faster it will fall to the ground. Galileo proved this idea wrong by various experiments. Several Portrait of Galileo, by Justus Sustermans times, says one account, he dropped similar bodies of unequal size from the top 8 LIGHT TO THE NATIONS II: The Making of the Modern World A Tale of Two Astronomers Another of the “greatest scholars” who disagreed with Copernicus was Tycho Brahe of Denmark. Tycho, who was born three years after Copernicus died, came from an aristocratic family. While studying at the university in Copenhagen, Denmark, he discovered Ptolemy’s Almagest. Forever after, astronomy became the chief interest of Tycho’s life. Having inherited a fortune from his uncle, Tycho was able to transfer to the University of Wittenberg in Germany to study mathematics and astronomy. To escape a plague, he left Wittenberg for Rostock, and there lost part of his nose in a duel. (No matter, Tycho had a silver and gold nose made for him, and he wore it for the rest of his life.) After traveling in Germany, Tycho returned to Denmark where, in 1572, he discovered a nova stella (a blast of light from the destruction of a A planisphere showing Tycho Brahe’s world system star) in the constellation Cassiopeia—a discovery that made him famous throughout Europe. Tycho’s fame helped him convince King Frederik II of old astronomer died of a burst bladder in 1601, Kepler Denmark and Norway to build him an observatory. The inherited his instruments and the books in which Tycho king gave him the island of Hveen (meaning “Venus”), off had recorded his observations of the heavens. But Kepler the coast of Denmark, and a good deal of money. Tycho did not agree with Tycho’s rejection of Copernicus. Using used the money to build a castle and gardens, complete Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, Kepler studied the with a library, observatories, and a workshop. There—and movement of Mars and came to the conclusion that the later in Prague, where he was employed by Emperor planet did not move around the Sun in a perfect circle as Rudolf II—Tycho carefully observed the stars, cataloguing Copernicus said it did, but in an oval called an ellipse. But them and marking them on a great globe of the heavens. if this were true of Mars, why would it not be true of other Tycho’s observations proved of great use to astrono- planets? Kepler eventually concluded that all the planets mers throughout Europe, but especially to the laboratory move in elliptical paths around the Sun. assistant who joined him in Prague in 1600. Johannes Unlike a planet following a circular path (where it will Kepler was born near Stuttgart, Germany, the son of an always be equally distant from the Sun), a planet following army officer who became a tavern keeper. Sent by the an elliptical path will sometimes be closer to the Sun than duke of Württemberg to study for the Lutheran ministry at other times. In 1609, Kepler published a work showing at the University of Tübingen in that a planet will move more quickly along its elliptical Germany, Kepler there learned path when it approaches nearer the Sun. Kepler said this of Copernicus’s theory and was because the Sun acted like a giant magnet, attracting became so enamored the planet. By 1621, Kepler had compiled his findings in a of astronomy that he work he called the Epitome of the Copernican Astronomy. decided to abandon Kepler’s observations of the heavens led him to think the ministry in order to that the heavenly bodies always move according to certain spend his time studying patterns. These patterns, called “laws,” he said, are what the stars. govern the universe. Unlike later thinkers, however, Kepler When Kepler arrived did not think these laws replaced the providence of God. in Prague, Tycho had Kepler thought the order of the universe shows the power not long to live. After the and wisdom of God. A pious Protestant, Kepler wrote, “My wish is that I may perceive the God whom I find every- Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) where in the external world in like manner within me.” Introduction The Scientific Revolution 9 of the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that the larger body did not fall more quickly than the smaller one. Instead, both bodies fell at the same rate. Both at Pisa and at the University of Padua, where he went to teach in 1592, Galileo made important discoveries in mechanics and physics—the science that studies and measures the motion of bodies. Among other important discoveries, Galileo demonstrated that a body thrown or shot through the air always travels in a parabolic curve. parabolic: having the shape Even though Galileo’s most important discoveries were in physics, he is more or form of a curve called a famous for his contributions to astronomy. In 1609, Galileo learned that an parabola optician in the Netherlands had invented an instrument that allowed one to see optician: a grinder of lenses for distant objects more closely. After a single night of thinking how this could be done, spectacles or glasses Galileo designed an instrument that could make distant objects appear three times larger than they appeared to the naked eye. Soon Galileo increased this power to 32 times and began using his invention, called the telescope, to look at the heavens. In looking through his telescope, Galileo saw what no human being had ever seen before. He discovered that the Pleiades constellation, which appears to the naked eye as seven stars (the “Seven Sisters”), contains, instead, 36 stars. The Milky Way, he found, is not just a swath of light across the night sky but is made up of innumerable stars. Turning his telescope on the Moon, Galileo noticed that it was covered with what appeared to be seas and mountains and valleys. But perhaps more significant were his discoveries that the planet Jupiter had moons revolving around it and that Venus and Mercury have phases like the Earth’s Moon does. These last discoveries provided more evidence that Copernicus’s heliocentric theory of the universe was true. In defending and promoting Copernicus’s ideas, Galileo won undying popular fame; however, his zeal for the heliocentric theory brought him into conflict with the Catholic Church. This conflict gave Galileo the reputation as a “martyr for sci- ence” and has made the Church appear to be an enemy of scientific research, learn- ing, and all progress. It is to this conflict we now turn our story. “But It Does Move!” At times Galileo seemed quite a humble man. For instance, he wrote, “I have never met a man so ignorant that I could not learn something from him.” Yet, despite such statements, Galileo was proud and could be quite harsh with those who disagreed with him. Firmly convinced that his discoveries had proven that the Copernican heliocentric hypothesis was true, Galileo showed little patience with those who A reconstruction of Galileo’s telescope, with the cathedral of Florence in the background 10 LIGHT TO THE NATIONS II: The Making of the Modern World thought otherwise. For instance, writing in the margin of a book written to defend the Ptolemaic system, Galileo called the book’s author (the Jesuit Antonio Rocco) an “ignoramus, elephant, fool, dunce.” But though he had little respect for Rocco, Galileo was on good terms with other Jesuits—at least for a time. Jesuits had been among the foremost scientists of Galileo’s day. The Jesuits in Rome were quite interested in Galileo’s discoveries. In 1611, they welcomed him to Rome and allowed him to stay in their house in the city. What’s more, Church prelates and Pope Paul V himself showed the astronomer every sign of favor. What then happened to sour Galileo’s friendship with the Church? As we have seen, it was churchmen who urged Copernicus to publish his work, and churchmen (particularly the Jesuits) who were eager students of natural science and had made important scientific discoveries themselves. (For instance, the Jesuit Christoph Scheiner of Ingolstadt had discovered sunspots in 1611, about the same time Galileo himself did.) Why, then, did churchmen, and the Jesuits in particular, become Galileo’s opponents? The reason is that Galileo and the churchmen differed in how they understood the importance of Copernicus’s ideas. Even the most scientific Jesuits thought Copernicus’s heliocentric idea was a hypothesis, and only a hypothesis. That is, they thought the heliocentric idea might be a useful instrument to help astronomers describe the universe and make predictions about when solar eclipses and other phenomena would occur. The Copernican hypothesis was a good tool, they thought, but it did not necessarily describe the universe as it truly is. Churchmen—and, indeed, many of the most learned men of Europe— continued to hold to the notion that the Earth does not move and is the center of the universe. They thought the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun is stationary contradicted common sense. More important, they thought it contradicted Sacred Scripture, which in some places seems to say very clearly that the Earth does not move. Finally, in Galileo’s day, Copernicus’s hypothesis had not been thoroughly proven. There were still good reasons to think it might be a false way of describing the universe. Galileo before the Holy Office, Galileo thought differently. He was convinced that his discoveries proved that 1633. Oil on canvas by Tony Robert-Fleury. Copernicus’s hypothesis was true, and he would not rest until he convinced every-

Description:
ture, poetry, and music; and they sought to understand the world around .. century Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy that the Earth sits at the optics: the study of
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.