The Trial of Galileo• 73 years after his death in a 1616

The Trial of Galileo
• 73 years after his death in a 1616 decree the Catholic
Church condemns Copernicanism.
• False in philosophy and also heretical in religion to hold
heliocentric views
• Heretical = violation of central church doctrine, the
doctrine being denied or violated must be taught in the
Bible and agreed on by church experts
• Evidence for being taught in the Bible in various books
such as Ecclesiastes 1.5
“The Sun also riseth and the Sun goeth down and hasteth
to his place where he rose”
1616 Decree
• The 1616 ruling meant that if a Catholic publicly
taught that Copernicanism was true they were
guilty of heresy.
• Copernicanism could be taught as an hypothesis
to aid astronomy but no more.
• Sincere private belief in Copernicanism may
have been possible because the ban had not
been delivered Ex Cathedra ie: highest level of

sanction from the Pope
• At Galileo’s trial he claimed he had only taught
Copernicanism as an hypothesis. This position
was not believable.
Heresy in a 1616 Theological Context
• Need to put the ‘1616 decree’ into context ie: Why it wasn’t
simply
an attack on (Science) Natural Philosophy
• Galileo and his opponents agreed that both the Bible and
Natural
Philosophy (Science) contain truths.
• But this raised questions:
(a) What to do if they appear to be in conflict ?
(b) What kind of truths eg. moral allegories vs historical
scientific
truths ?
(c) When should Biblical descriptions about nature be treated
literally
or figuratively eg: note Ecclesiastes quote from earlier slide
also
mentions the Sun as ‘He’?
(d) What if there is disagreement between Natural
Philosophers
(Scientists) about the certainty of some of their ‘scientific’
truths

(e) Who gets the final say over these interpretations ?
Reading the Bible: Literal and Textual
Interpretation
• This last point is particularly sensitive at this time because of
the
Reformation (and so called ‘Counter Reformation’).
• Traditionally the Catholic viewpoint was that the Church
would
provide expert opinion and official interpretation about the
‘appropriate’ reading of Biblical truths.
• This could lead to questions about the legitimacy of the
Church;s
administration and the authority of the Pope.
• Alternatively, Protestantism (more in theory than in practice
ie:
Church leaders still crucial in interpreting scriptural meaning)
suggested that the facts are simply in the Bible and there to be
read.
• This opened up more room for multiple readings, but also
conflict,
because the Bible doesn’t allow multiple truths.
• Galileo’s desire to provide his own framing on how to read the
Bible
re: Natural Philosophy looked dangerously Protestant.

Audience to the 1616 Decree
• Galileo’s work is drawing popular attention to
Copernicanism but has a variety of audiences who react
to his claims and his personality in different ways.
• (a) Liberal Catholics: aristocrats, merchants, noblemen,
lawyers, younger scholars esp. in cities such as Venice.
…. Mainly supportive.
• (b) Jesuits, order set up by the Church to counter
Protestantism (Key players in the Counter Reformation)
church intellectuals/spin doctors. Galileo interesting to
them but some were critical favouringTycho, were
concerned that Galileo pushed his case beyond the
evidence…. Mixed reception some support some
opposition.
The Church a Powerful Political Elite
• (c) Church Elite (The Church more like Govt’s of today
than modern church). Cardinals and other officials and
administrators play political and spiritual roles: Galileo
had befriended some of these power brokers eg:
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, double edged sword for
Galileo.
• Such groups need to maintain authority/prestige Galileo
assumes too much familiarity and presumes too much
status…. Need to remind Galileo of his place.
• (d) The Pope: Paul V not interested in intellectual
disputes or public debate between Galileo and
Aristotelians. Back up the ‘status quo’ and silence

Galileo…. Needs to keep the peace.
Traditionalists
• (e) Aristotelian Professors and Dominicans ie traditional
order in Church.
• Copernicanism threatened these traditionalists and
University scholars.
• Opposing Galileo and Copernicanism on theological
grounds provided a vehicle for attempting to bolster their
threatened intellectual/cultural status.
• Galileo challenged these establishment figures for his
whole career… Revenge !!
Galileo’s ‘overconfidence’?
• During 1612-1616 Galileo worked hard on promoting
himself and Copernicanism. When it was ‘leaked’ to him
that during a dinner party conversations of one of his
patrons, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, that arguments
were made that Copernicanism was unfounded heresy
he jumped to his defence by writing a long letter the
Grand Duchess Christina.
• This letter was intended for wider distribution and in it
Galileo outlined his theological position re:
Copernicanism.
• Wasn’t officially published until after his trial as ‘Letter to

Castelli’.
‘Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina’
• This letter was ultimately used against Galileo by
his critics.
• Very famous in the History of Science and
regularly subject to Whig ‘out of context’
readings.
• Easy to forget that the letter is written from An
early 17th Century context by a devout Catholic
Natural Philosopher not a 21st Century Scientist.
Themes
• Bible is not a ‘Scientific textbook’ and was
written for the common person
• Church can only rule on heresy re: morals and
faith and not matters of science
• Two truths cannot contradict one another and
there is truth in Science and the Bible
• If Science can prove something to be true “by
observation and demonstration” the Scriptures
should be re-interpreted to fit with scientific truth

No simple Dichotomies between Science
and Religion
Galileo is not setting up a simple dichotomy between
Science and Religion nor promoting Science at the
expense of Religion rather he is hoping that the Catholic
Church will endorse his reading of Copernicanism as its
official view. In doing this, he is telling the Church where
they should set the lines between figurative and literal
readings of the Bible ( which means he is encroaching
on their turf), and he is treating his views as scientifically
proven, something that was challenged by his
Dominican and Aristotelian Opponents and viewed with
caution by even more open minded Jesuits.
Galileo as a Crypto-Protestant ?
• In reinforcing his theological claims he also cited
St Augustine who was regularly cited by
Protestants.
• To use Schuster’s term in ‘Introduction to the
Scientific Revolution’(see tutorial readings).
Galileo could be packaged as a ‘crypto –
Protestant’ and amateur theologian by his
opponents.
Dirty Deeds(Documents) Done Dirt Cheap !
• At the time of the 1616 decree Galileo met with Cardinal
Bellarmine
who provided him with a certificate indicating that, whilst

Copernicanism was heretical if treated as the literal truth, the
decree
was not directed at Galileo personally.
• Galileo took this to mean there was some ambiguity/ room to
move
in terms of how far he go in arguing for/ teaching
Copernicanism
without being prosecuted.
• In his later trial prosecutors would claim, to the contrary, that
Galileo
was actually specifically personally warned about possible
heresy
and they produced a document from their files containing this
warning. They used this to suggest that Galileo had deliberately
defied the Church.
• There is strong evidence that this later document was a
forgery
added to the Vatican’s files to discredit Galileo.
Galileo Takes up the Challenge
• Which ever interpretation, re: the status of Galileo’s
warning and the wisdom of his interpretatio n, for the next
7 years (from 1616) Galileo became less overt in public
lobbying for Copernicanism. This would change in 1623
when a new Pope was elected who Galileo had known
previously as a Cardinal (Maffeo Barberini).
• Galileo believed this would provide an opportunity to
return to active public lobbying for Copernicanism and he
directed his attention to writing the ‘Dialogue Concerning

the Two Systems’. Its publication in 1632 would be the
final trigger for Galileo’s trial.
• See next slide front page of ‘The Dialogue’
The Trial
• As noted in earlier lectures the ‘Dialogue’ was an overt
defence of Copernicanism including arguments made by
the Pope and Galileo’s opponents put in the words of a
figure ‘Simplicio’ who lost every debate.
• Galileo used his Church connections to get past original
censors and got the text into print.
• In 1632 Galileo summoned to Rome to face charges of
heresy.
• As noted in earlier slides whilst the Church could have
tried him and won without it, the case was made stronger
by the insertion of documents suggesting that Galileo
was defiant towards the Church’s authority and he had
expressly defied instructions not to promote the truth of
Copernicanism.
Galileo’s recantation
• In 1633 Galileo who was sick and going blind was found
guilty of

heresy and was forced to recant. He was not tortured but
subjected
to house arrest. This was in good conditions.
• He was able to have some visitors (but with restrictions) and
with the
assistance of his students managed to complete his final major
work
on Natural Philosophy exploring the mathematics of motion.
• He had originally been subject to the conditions that he spend
considerable time each day reading and reciting religious texts
but
one of his daughters a nun managed to get a dispensation so she
could read them on his behalf.
• At his trial Galileo was forced to recite the following famous
recantation (June 22, 1633) Concluding portion of Galileo's
Recantation
(or Abjuration) (see next 2 slides) Source: Giorgio de
Santillana, The Crime
of Galileo (University of Chicago Press 1955), pp. 312-313
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged
seventy years,
arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before
you, Most
Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General
against heretical
depravity throughout the entire Christian commonwealth,
having before my
eyes and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear that
I have

always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the
future believe, all
that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and
Apostolic
Church. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially
intimated to
me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether
abandon the false
opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable,
and that the
earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must
not hold,
defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing,
the said false
doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said
doctrine was
contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in
which I discuss
this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of
great
cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these,
and for this
reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be
vehemently
suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed
that the Sun
is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is
not the center
and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your
Eminences, and of all
faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived
against me, with

sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the
aforesaid
errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and
sect
whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that
in the future I
will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything
that might furnish
occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I
know any
heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to
this Holy Office,
or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be.
Further, I swear
and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances
that have been,
or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in
the event of my
contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises and
oaths, I submit
myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated
in the sacred
canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against
such
delinquents. So help me God, and these His Holy Gospels,
which I touch with
my hands.
I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised,
and bound myself
as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own
hand
subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it
word for word
at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of
June, 1633.

Impact of Galileo’s trial
• Astronomical research and cosmological speculation was
hindered
in Italy although many other areas of research continued quite
strongly in areas such as dynamics and mathematics conducted
by
Galileo’s students.
• In Protestant countries Galileo gained some sympathy as his
treatment at the hands of the Church could be linked to anti -
Catholic sentiments
• Galileo himself was apparently disheartened as he had always
hoped to reconcile his work with the Church.
• Galileo retained support of a number of students who
continued
many areas of his work and were committed to preserving his
reputation.
• Galileo died in 1642 same year as Newton is born. His
students/supporters hoped for big funeral event and monument
but
this was thwarted by the Pope. Galileo was buried in a closet
size
room in the Franciscan Church in Santa Croce. In 1737 his
remains
were moved to an elaborate tomb in the Cathedral(see next
slide)

Broader Historiography
• The Galileo affair has been regularly re-interpreted in
various historical contexts especially as a symbol of the
conflict between Science and Religion or the
suppression of freedom of thought.
• In these contexts the more specific details of the case
are normally selectively reinterpreted or overlooked to
help support more immediate political interests or drive
‘morality tales’.
• Some famous examples include the so called Draper
White ‘conflict thesis’ championed in the 19th century by
William Draper and A.D. White and the famous play by
Bertold Brecht ‘The Life of Galileo’ written mid 20th
Century.
Warfare of Science vs. Religion ?
• A.D. White ‘A History of the Warfare of Science and
Theology on
Christendom’ (1896) and J.W. Draper ‘ History of the Conflict
between
Science and Religion’ (1897).
• That the entire history of science was one of a battle of
science as a source
of progress and enlightenment over dogmatic religion which
was holding
back human civilization and progress. Less general cri tique of
theology but

of dogmatic organised religion.
• Draper was had been a supporter of Darwin and influential in
early attempts
to professionalize American Science he was deeply concerned
with notions
such as Papal Infallibility and directed much of his historical
critique against
the Catholic Church.
• White was one of the founders of Cornell University in New
York (which was
the first private non-sectarian University in the USA) so was
interest in
setting up University outside of influences of organized religion
something
new at the time.
Bertold Brecht: The Life of Galileo
• Brecht (1898-1956)famous German
writer influenced by Marxist thought
wrote a play using Galileo’s life and trial
to explore issues surrounding Science
and progress, ethics of Science, and
the relationship between Science and
Religion and questions of freedom of
thought etc. Galileo recants so as to
save himself but in the process this
allows him to write his final works etc.
• Play reflects many mid 20th century
and ‘cold war’ themes/ anxieties about
the role of science in society.

• Made into a film in the 1970’s
• Brecht even modified some of the
content to be less optimistic about the
progress of Science after WWII uses of
Nuclear Weapons.
Galileo ‘still’ in the News
BBC News on line: Last Updated: Tuesday, 15 January 2008,
18:42 GMT
Papal visit scuppered by scholars
Anti-Pope slogans have appeared at La Sapienza
Pope Benedict XVI has cancelled a visit to a prestigious
university in
Rome where lecturers and students have protested against his
views on
Galileo. The Pope had been set to make a speech at La Sapienza
University
on Thursday. Sixty-seven academics had said the Pope
condoned the 1633
trial and conviction of the astronomer Galileo for heresy.
The Vatican insists the Pope is not "anti-science" - but in light
of the protests
they have decided it would be better for him not to attend.

Galileo had argued that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
The Vatican says the Pope will now send his speech to La
Sapienza, instead of
delivering it in person.
Landmark controversy.Pope Benedict was in charge of Roman
Catholic doctrine in1990
when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he commented on the 17th-Century
Galileo trial.
In the speech, he quoted Austrian-born philosopher Paul
Feyerabend as saying
the Church's verdict against Galileo had been "rational and
just".
An old controversy has come back to haunt the Pope. Galileo's
inquisitors
maintained the scriptures indicated the Earth was stationary.
Galileo, a devout Catholic, was forced to renounce his findings
publicly.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret at the way Galileo
had been treated.
"The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained
the centrality of

the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical
world's structure
was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred
Scripture," he said.
The academics at La Sapienza signed a letter saying Pope
Benedict's views on
Galileo "offend and humiliate us". They said it would be
inappropriate for the
Pope to open their academic year on Thursday. It's a good thing
that
someone in Italy has the courage to say no to the Pope. Stefano,
Cuneo,
Italy.
"In the name of the secular nature of science we hope this
incongruous event
can be cancelled," said the letter addressed to the university's
rector, Renato
Guarini.
In a separate initiative, students at La Sapienza organised four
days of protest
this week. The first revolved around an anti-clerical meal of
bread, pork and
wine, the BBC's Christian Fraser reports from Rome. The
banner at their lunch

read: "Knowledge needs neither fathers nor priests".
Vatican Radio said the protest at La Sapienza had "a censorious
tone".
Galileo’s middle finger: Is there a message?
The Trial of Galileo1616 DecreeHeresy in a 1616 Theological
ContextReading the Bible: Literal and Textual
InterpretationAudience to the 1616 DecreeThe Church a
Powerful Political EliteTraditionalistsGalileo’s
‘overconfidence’?‘Letter to the Grand Duchess
Christina’ThemesNo simple Dichotomies between Science and
ReligionGalileo as a Crypto-Protestant ?Dirty
Deeds(Documents) Done Dirt Cheap !Galileo Takes up the
ChallengeSlide 15The TrialSlide 17Galileo’s recantationSlide
19Slide 20Impact of Galileo’s trialSlide 22Broader
HistoriographyWarfare of Science vs. Religion ?Bertold Brecht:
The Life of GalileoGalileo ‘still’ in the NewsSlide 27Galileo’s
middle finger: Is there a message?
STS 112 Newton
David Mercer 2013
Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton
Newton (1642-1727)

• Newton’s work in many texts interpreted as the
triumph/ pinnacle of the Scientific Revolution
• Most importantly his work the ‘Principia’
short for ‘Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica’ (The Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy) published in 1687 often
taken as the single most important book
published in the history of scientific thought.
Newton’s contributions
• Contributed to theories of optics, helped develop various
forms of calculus, helped
develop new ways of doing experiments
• Provided a coherent set of mathematical explanations to
synthesise the work of
Galileo and Kepler and others
• Solved most of outstanding problems of physics of the time,
unifying celestial and
terrestrial physics this included a decisive solution to the
problems of planetary motion.
• Famous in his own time.
• Newtons variation on the mechanical philosophy ( with its
Neo-Platonist throwbacks,
of action at a distance, immaterial forces etc) influenced new
theories of electricity,

early chemistry and other ‘emerging’ sciences of 18th Century
• Many of the generation of scholars that followed Newton
suggested that his
contributions to Natural Philosophy could be applied to
understanding all phenomena
including society (even if they didn’t really understand the
maths)
• This image of the power of Newton’s methods would be an
influence on the so called
Enlightenment Philosophers who became important in the
generation after Newton’s
death.
Universal Gravitation
• At the centre of many of these contributions was Newton’s
theory of
universal gravitation and 3 laws of motion.
Universal Gravitation
• Imagine a simple universe, in an infinite empty space there are
2
mathematical points that have mass. The masses will attract
each
other with equal and opposite forces, this force can be measured
by multiplying the masses of the two bodies together and then
dividing the result by the square of the distance between the two
bodies.
• This force does not need to be explained by atoms or
corpuscles or

some kind of mechanism it is an intrinsic quality of matter that
has
been there since the matter came into existence.
• Matter exerts an attraction instantaneously and at a distance.
3 Laws of Motion
• 1. Law of inertia: a body in motion in straight line at a
constant speed will remain in that motion, in that line at a
constant speed unless acted on by an outside force.
• 2. Force equals mass, times acceleration , ie: if you
apply force to a body it accelerates.
• 3. Every action corresponds with an equal and opposite
reaction.
(see J.Schuster, The Scientific Revolution chapter 21)
Universal Gravitation and 3 Laws: using
approximations and mathematical calculation explain:
• Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, earth and other planets
orbits
can be explained largely in terms of their gravitational
attraction to
the Sun. We can even speculate on the earth’s mass.
• Galileo’s terrestrial law of free falling objects accelerating at

a
mathematically describable rate.
• Problems like the tides can be addressed by thinking in terms
of the
gravitational attraction between the earth, moon and sun.
• Problems of the earth’s very slow (1 x every 25,000 year
wobble on
its axis) precession of the equinoxes. The Earth was like a
spinning
top slowly falling over.
• Why the earth is a little fatter at the equators than the poles
( actually a prediction ) was confirmed.
Example: these ideas applied to Planetary Motion
• Planetary motion is a mixture of inertial straight line motion
and centripetal
force or attraction to the centre.
• Imagine a ball tied to string with if its straight line inertial
motion is
balanced by it being drawn back by the string (gravity) the
observed effect is
a rotational motion
• Newton asked readers to imagine a cannon ball being shot off
a tall
mountain if it had enough straight line motion imparted on it
to compensate
for its attraction back to earth it would become a satellite
orbiting the earth.

Newton suggested we could think of the motion of the moon in
similar
terms.
Apples
• As an older man Newton recounted the story that some of
these ideas came
to him in his youth when he was hit on the head by an apple and
reasoned
that the same force that drove the apple towards the earth must
also be the
same force that drove the moon to in a sense fall towards the
earth.
• Unlikely as a youth, even as a genius, he had actually got the
maths and
theory worked out for universal gravitation and his 3 Laws.
• A feature of Newton’s academic life was to take significant
periods of time out
from doing ‘physics’ and astronomy to do alchemy
numerology, theology
and other intellectual pursuits and withdraw from social
interactions
• Most historians argue that the actual detailed formulations of
Newton’s ideas
occurred much later released in dribs and drabs and finally in
the Principia
partially in response to Newton disdain for and rivalry with
another Natural

Philosopher Robert Hooke.
• Hooke had been exploring and publicising some similar ideas
to Newton but
didn’t have the same level of mathematical skill or theoretical
imagination
Newton in Context
• Universal gravitation was in its own time and even today a
rather
strange and challenging concept
• We need to remember mechanical philosophy is taking over
and
popular figures such as Descartes are arguing very strongly for
causes
and effects to be able to explained in terms of
(atoms)corpuscles.
• Many mechanists preferred to explain planetary motion in
terms of the
interactions of swirling vortices of matter
• They expressly opposed theories like universal gravitation
which relied
on ‘action at distance’ and was an intrinsic quality of matter.
They
thought much of Newton’s work was a throw back to Magic and
Neo-
Platonism (just Kepler mark 2!)

• What actually was universal gravitation was it just an occult
magical
quality?
Newton’s Post Mechanical Philosophy
• Newton sometimes like a mechanical philosopher ie:
famous experiments with light exposing light made up of
many colours challenged the idea of light as a pure
divine force… but….
• At the same time in a rather Kepleresque fashion
suggested things like light, magnetism, gravity, chemical
force, behaved according to beautiful harmonious
mathematical principles, were immaterial causal agents
and were created by God as things operating at a
superior level to Corpuscles.
Explanations for Newton arriving at his Post Mechanical
Philosophy of Nature
• Newton sufficiently unusual and famous has inspired a variety
of
interpretations
• Psycho-History ! Historian Frank Manual ‘Portait of Isaac
Newton’
Psychoanalysis of Newton. His biographical details important.
• Newton born on Christmas day 1642( same year as Galileo’s
death)

Newton’s father died a number of months before he was born.
Mother remarried when he was three years of age and left him
to
brought up by his maternal grandmother has little contact with
his
mother. His mother was there but ‘acted at a distance’
• In later life never married spent periods as a recluse
possibility he
never had sexual relations very few proper friendships.
Psycho- Newton ?
• Newton believed it was significant he had been born on
Christmas
Day , he considered he was superior to his colleagues even
gifted
with divine insight. Never knowing his father but being a gifted
son
of God.
• Despite being immensely respected by them academically
Newton
was brutal and dismissive of his peers
• Newton himself was powerful but considered himself to be
acting at
a distance from his peers.
More substantial context
• First generation of scholars growing up academically where

Copernicanism and different versions of mechanical philosophy
were widely accepted. There were therefore opportunities to
reflect
on possible strengths/ weaknesses in mechanical philosophy
without having to provide continuous reference back to
Aristotelian
concepts.
• The emergence in the 1650’s -1660’s of new (non-Aristotelian
)
formal academic institutions such as the Royal Society
(influenced
by Bacon’s rhetoric of developing new knowledge for human
betterment ) where learned gentleman could critique, promote,
debate and develop their new experimental, mechanical
influenced
versions of natural philosophy.
Cambridge Neo-Platonism
• Whilst studying at Cambridge University
Newton came under some of the influence
Cudworth and Moore who held Neo-
Platonist views and were critics of various
aspects of Mechanical Philosophy
• Uncomfortable with Descartes strict
dualism between Humans and other forms
of life for example.
Religious conflicts

• Still period of intense religious and political debate eg:
Newton
working in decades after 20 years of civil war and
political/religious
turmoil, eg Cromwell and the ultimate restoration of the Stuart
Monarchy in England.
• Newton himself held unusual religious viewpoints
• He was pre-occupied with the religious significance of the
mechanical philosophy
• Whilst in many places Newton said that he hoped mechanistic
principles could ultimately explain all of nature… in others he
suggested that mere mechanical causes were inadequate to
understand the beauty of the universe which indicated the
existence
of God.
The need for an Intelligent and Powerful Being
• “ This most beautiful system of sun, planets and comets could
only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and
powerful Being”
Newton in Preface to the Principia, quoted in Kearney ‘Science
and Change 1500-1700’ p188
Things like the actual distribution of the stars ie: they’d been
placed
far enough from each other so gravity wouldn’t make them
collapse
into each other, and the distribution of the planets in the solar

system, including things like the earth having just the right
distance
from the sun to allow us to live comfortably, and the continuous
operation of gravity as an immaterial force all suggested an
intelligent designer constantly present in the universe.
Also Neo-Platonic musings
• In other drafts of the Principia Newton sounds distinctly
Kepler like in suggesting that universal gravitation and
his laws build on Pythagorean traditions of revealing
divine mathematical harmonies:
“ To some such laws the ancient philosophers seem to
have alluded when they called God Harmony and
signified his actuating power harmonically by the God
Pan’s playing upon a Pipe and attributing musick to the
spheres, made the distances and the motions of the
heavenly bodies to be harmonical and represented the
Planets by the seven strings of Apollo’s Harp.”
Newton quoted in Kearney Science and Change 1500-1700,
p191.
Technical Limits on Mechanical
Philosophy
• Certain Phenomena such as light seemed to not quite follow
mechanical philosophy as put forward by Descartes.
• Newton observed that light bouncing off a mirror obeys

mathematical / geometric laws eg the angle of incidence equals
the
angle of reflection for example.
• Newton suggests that if we assume that light and the mirror
were
made up from corpuscles light should in fact be scattered
• Newtons answer was that the light particles don’t actually hit
the
mirror but must give off a short-range repulsive force acting at
a
distance which creates a thin ‘force field’ which allows the light
particles to be repelled as a coherent beam from the imperfect
surface of the mirror .
Overview
• Newton adopts many of the attitudes of the mechanical
philosophy eg: he
talks in terms of corpuscles, he is a Copernican, he believes the
universe
can largely be explained by mechanical and mathematical
principles, he is
interested in doing experiments and further developing
experimental
methods, he is interested in unpacking nature, believes in the
value of
natural philosophy to better the world. But….
• He talks in terms of the need for God as not only the creator
of the universe
but working in the universe through immaterial forces such as
gravity

• Gravity doesn’t need a mechanical explanation it is one of a
small number
of important immaterial forces which need to be added to the
Mechanistic
world picture
• In some of his work he talks in mystical Neo-platonic terms
reminiscent of
Kepler including that he is divinely inspired.
• Spends considerable periods of life engaging in Alchemy,
Numerology and
Theological speculation.
STS 112 NewtonPortrait of Sir Isaac NewtonNewton (1642-
1727)PowerPoint PresentationNewton’s contributionsUniversal
Gravitation3 Laws of MotionUniversal Gravitation and 3 Laws:
using approximations and mathematical calculation
explain:Example: these ideas applied to Planetary MotionSlide
10ApplesSlide 12Newton in ContextNewton’s Post Mechanical
PhilosophyExplanations for Newton arriving at his Post
Mechanical Philosophy of NaturePsycho- Newton ?More
substantial contextCambridge Neo-PlatonismReligious
conflictsThe need for an Intelligent and Powerful BeingAlso
Neo-Platonic musingsTechnical Limits on Mechanical
PhilosophyOverview
T.S. Kuhn (1922-96)
• Author of one of the most cited academic books of the 20th
Century,
‘ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ 1st edition 1962.
Second
edition with a postscript 1970.

• Legacy of popularizing the term ‘paradigm’ in the way now
most
commonly used: a revolutionary change in attitude or world
view.
• Supposedly Al Gore’s favourite book.
• Whilst written for a philosophy and history of science
audience cited
in broad number of academic fields (often out of context?)
• Trained in Physics at Harvard University graduating with PhD
in
1949.
• Taught on history of science until 1956, during this time wrote
‘ The
Copernican Revolution’ (1956) which became one of the
standard texts
for looking at the Scientific Revolution.
• Kuhn in this period became interested in Aristotelian Physics
and
became troubled by whig historians treating it as irrational. He
noted
that rather than being irrational it seemed to offer an alternative
way of
observing and generating theories of nature.
• In 1956 Kuhn moved to University of California Berkeley, and
took up

a position as Historian of Science.
• Added to his concerns with problems of whig history of
science,
interests in role of social interactions of scientific communities
(Fleck,
Polanyi); Metaphysics(Koyre); Language (Wittgenstien), and
theory
loading of observation (Hanson, Feyerabend), in shaping
scientific
knowledge.
‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’
• Most philosophy of science significantly concerned with
demarcation
problem, ie: how can philosophers of science tell us whether or
not
something is scientific and what constitutes the scientific
method and
how can we explain the progress of science.
• In the ‘Structure’ Kuhn re-focuses these traditional questions.
• Taking whig history and theory loading as starting points
Kuhn asks
from a much wider perspective:
• Are there recognizable patterns of change and continuity in
the
history of science ? And how can they be explained?

More Descriptive approach
• Kuhn’s approach to this general question tends to be more
historical
and descriptive than accounts such as Popper. Ie: not setting out
to tell
scientists how to do better science.
• Rather than focus on Science as a whole it is historically more
acceptable to think in terms of major scientific traditions.
Physics,
Chemistry etc
• Kuhn observes that in these major traditions of science long
periods
of stability(given theory loading something of an achievement)
and
much briefer but turbulent periods of change.
• One feature of the major scientific traditions is these periods
of strong
consensus, other areas of human activity and knowledge often
more
difficult to have such stability (rather limited demarcation
criterion)
Details of process
• The great scientific traditions eg: Physics have seemed to
develop in the following way.
• Pre- Science
• Normal Science(Paradigm)

• Crisis/Revolution
• New Normal Science(Paradigm)
• Crisis /Revolution
• And the process continues…
1. Pre- Science
• 1. Period of pre-science, lack of theoretical agreement on
basics, possible to observe different things, think of the
world as being constituted from different things
(Metaphysics), disagreement on ways of gaining
knowledge etc.
• Eg. Pre- Aristotelian Physics.
2. Normal Science/ Paradigm
• Agreement on ‘basics’ sufficient to ‘see the same things’,
agree about
what nature is made up of (ie: shared metaphysics).
• Basic agreement about what counts as valid knowledge
(epistemology).
• Agree on problems, use similar scientific methods, ideal
problem
solutions and exemplars.
• Research geared towards filling in gaps in knowledge or
puzzle
solving, educational structures re-inforce these ways of
knowing

(dogmatic)
• Complimentary to broader society.
• These elements of a Paradigm are lived and learnt rather than
simply
being written down like a set of rules.
Eg. First great Paradigm of Physics
Aristotelianism ?
• Metaphysics: eg: universe being made up of earth air fire and
water and
natural places and motions
• Epistemology and ‘scientific methods’: eg: classification,
logic,
observation in natural settings, teleological causation (
reluctance towards
using experiment and mathematics)
• Research geared towards filling in gaps in knowledge or
puzzle solving:
eg: question of (not an anomaly) planetary motion
• Ideal problem solutions and exemplars: uniform circular
motion,
Ptolemy’s epicycles.
• Dogmatic educational structures re-inforce these ways of
knowing eg:
scholasticism.
• Complimentary to broader society eg: hierarchical society

medieval
synthesis with theology
3: Crisis/ Revolution
• ‘Anomalies’: problems begin to build up within the paradigm
that are
perceived to question the building blocks of the paradigm. NB
there
are always problems in a paradigm eg: retrograde motion.
During a
settled period of normal science these are just a puzzles to be
solved,
during a crisis they take on significance.
• When problems become anomalies it is for more than just
academic/
rational reasons and open to historical explanation.
• New alternative ‘building blocks’ alternatives appear and
become the
new consensus like a political revolution this process can occur
relatively quickly and be bitter.
• Like a ‘Gestalt shift’ or religious conversion
Crisis in Aristotelian ‘Paradigm’
Retrograde motion of planets becomes an anomaly for
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo and requires challenges
to the building blocks of Aristotelian normal science. Eg:
Geocentricism, not just problem to be solved. These

challenges also correspond with broader changes in
Metaphysics and Epistemology within a broader historical
period of change. Eg: Neo-Platonism, Renaissance
Humanism the Reformation.
4.(New) Paradigm
• New Paradigm is revolutionary not because it has answered
anomalies in a simple sense, but has done so, by significantly
redefining the questions to make them largely redundant . New
paradigms will look at the world differently, rely on new
building
blocks, new Metaphysics?, new institutions, new methods etc
• Old paradigms will die off, not just academically, but socially
ie:
institutions, individuals etc
New Paradigm of Physics/ Galileo and
Newton
• Building blocks and basic theories of physics redefined, by
Galileo,
Kepler, Descartes and Newton.
• Many Aristotelian ‘questions’ are no longer relevant.
• New methods for doing Natural Philosophy and new
epistemologies.
Eg. mathematics, experiment, primary vs secondary qualities.
• New metaphysics: mathematics, mechanical metaphors etc.

• New educational/ social structures: scientific societies,
diminishing
significance of scholasticism, wider educated audiences, crafts
etc.
• Newtonian Paradigm will develop and last for next 300 years,
uptil
Einstein…
Issues
• How do we compare knowledge between paradigms and if we
can’t,
what does this mean for scientific progress ? (the so called
incommensurability issue).
• How do we sort out the difference between rational and
irrational
factors in explaining the success of one paradigm over another ?
• In response to question 1: Kuhn suggested that later
paradigms whilst
still significantly different offered greater breadth and
explained more
things.
• To question 2: He suggested that there are some criteria for a
good
paradigm including simplicity and elegance.

• These responses not necessarily consistent with original
propositions
in first edition of ‘the structure’
• Whether or not these issues are seen as problems varied
between
philosophers, sociologists and historians, the former more
troubled.
• Some critics suggest ‘paradigm concept’ excessively broad
captures
too many things and possible meanings.
Some Implications of Kuhn’s work
• Because of emphasis on the importance of consensus between
scientists, scientific education and influence of scientific
institutions
on what counts as science Popperian ideals of ‘science’ as a
fundamentally socially critical enterprise are challenged.
• It opens up much more room for questions about how social,
psychological factors shape the choices scientists make
between
theories.
• Raises questions about the relevance of demarcating science
on the
basis of a single scientific method, ie: scientific methods will
be
different in different paradigms.
• Links philosophical questions about science to sociological
and

historical questions.
• Suggests scientific education and scientific institutions and
relationship between science and broader society are important
in
understanding processes of scientific change.
• Raises questions about the way we define scientific progress.
• Suggests that most important changes in science have involved
radical
shifts in perspective rather than just incremental changes in
knowledge.
Differing Interpretations
• In general, historians and sociologist received Kuhn’s work
more
positively whilst Philosopher’s have been divided and
sometimes
critical.
• Even amongst the positive views a general feeling that Kuhn
oversimplifies his model of normal science and revolutions and
doesn’t really need to suggest such a structured pattern, and that
his
most significant contribution has been to re-focus the way
academics (
and even broader audiences) look at science.
• Plenty of examples of incremental scientific change, and
theoretical

criticism within periods of stable science( normal science)
• Encouraging a lot of questioning about the value of idealized
models
of the history of science.
• Some have interpreted Kuhn’s work as encouraging political
radicals
(against Kuhn’s own wishes) who have used ‘the structure’ to
legitimate arguments that the only way to create new ideas in
academia, science or society is through revolutionary paradigm
shifts.
• Others have suggested that Kuhn’s work has had the opposite
effect .
They argue that by emphasising the mix of sociological,
psychological
and philosophical factors involved in science, Kuhn has
discouraged
people holding scientists accountable to philosophically rational
highly critical standards suggested by philosophers such as
Popper.
T.S. Kuhn (1922-96)Slide 2Slide 3‘The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions’More Descriptive approachDetails of process1. Pre -
Science2. Normal Science/ ParadigmEg. First great Paradigm of
Physics Aristotelianism ?3: Crisis/ RevolutionCrisis in
Aristotelian ‘Paradigm’4.(New) ParadigmNew Paradigm of
Physics/ Galileo and NewtonIssuesSlide 15Some Implications of
Kuhn’s workSlide 17Differing InterpretationsSlide 19

The Trial of Galileo• 73 years after his death in a 1616

The Trial of Galileo• 73 years after his death in a 1616

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Trial of Galileo• 73 years after his death in a 1616

Similar to The Trial of Galileo• 73 years after his death in a 1616 (11)

More from MoseStaton39

More from MoseStaton39 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Trial of Galileo• 73 years after his death in a 1616