Our next session on Wednesday the 21st will based on the study "The Mind Has No Sex?: Women in the Origins of Modern Science" by L. Schiebinger (1989).
Please remember that the second essay due date is coming up on Wednesday April 28th. Send me a note if I may assist with your topic.
Galileo
For me the heart of the story of Galileo Galilei is about the social challenge presented by his publications. His Sidereal Message of 1610 and his Dialogue of 1632 had the effect of popularizing "his views in understandable language." Also, the fact that the small telescopes that he produced showed four moons rotating around the planet jupiter overturned the idea of the earth as the center of the cosmos.
Galileo was condemned by the Roman Inquisition in 1633 for his comparison of the geocentric (earth-centered) approach of Ptolemy with the heliocentric (sun-centered) system of Copernicus of 1543. So it is important to note that Galileo was not so much a discoverer as a popularizer of ideas. Galileo wrote that "human vision had gained its first increase in power since the creation of the world." He challenged the idea that the earth was unique and that there was a split between heaven and earth.
I like how the author writes about the understanding of "the novel idea" and thus picturing Galileo as a "novelist." The instruments that he made could magnify eight or nine times. The telescope had important military applications in the sense that ships could be viewed two hours before the unaided eye could see them. He may have made up to one hundred of the instruments during his life time of which ten could see jupiter's moons.
Our author here in the reading moves towards a presentation of the condemnation of Galileo's writings and of Copernicanism. Galileo's friend Castelli is asked by the Church not to teach the motions of the earth in his position as chair of mathematics at Pisa. The Dominican priest Caccini who is called to the inquisition in Rome calls mathematics a diabolical art. The author writes regarding "the use of theology and the authority of the church to oust Copernicanism."
I have noted that as much of the issue of Galileo was the implications of his approach as the knowledge itself. For example the author also describes "the freedom of sensory observation" (page 107).
The image above is a view of the University of Padua where Galileo taught. Note the cathedral in the central area of the image and the wall and moat surrounding the city.
Within the context of our course, we might consider the force of media (in this case publications) and how media instigates or initiates ideas outside of, or beyond, those who possess the media or, here, who can even read or write. Can you think of similar instances, relevant to science as our theme, where technical or scientific knowledge has been censored? What is the relationship between media that "broadcasts" knowledge, images or information, and the message itself? What do think about the idea of freedom of experience versus the regulation of the "sensory?" Please too consider the realm of social access that is suggested by the image of Padua. Who is inside the wall and who is not?
Comments and Discussion
Please create three posts on this topic. Comment on (a) my discussion above, (b) on someone else's post or (c) on material from this text or other reading. I know that some of you have an interest in this topic so feel free to write. I will comment on comments as appropriate.
Here is a sample post.
ReplyDeleteI find great interest in how the Church received the advancement of science, or even evolutionary thought or inquisitions as a threat. Perhaps it was the thought of any Bible teachings being disproved and thus their credibility being damaged that fueled their fear. However, it seems more likely to be that the institution simply wanted to limit the intelligence of their followers.
ReplyDeleteAs we learned from Menoccio and "The Cheese and the Worms", independent thought or a motivation for a higher understanding of Life and Religion was not exactly approved. Maybe this fear stemmed from a belief that a higher intelligence meant people would be harder to control.
I think this concept could greatly relate to the way the media operates today. Much news media today, aside from being biased, often conceals information from its audience, especially in cases where the audience might develop a more independent opinion towards an event or cause if they were to know all the information. This way they are always the most informed, and trusted to make decisions for the masses.
Galileo was a man who decided to go beyond what he was being told to think. During his time it was not a popular decision to go against the Church and the Scripture. However, Galileo saw this as stating the truth. He had proof and with that comes the truth. In the end, his life was to be destined to be lived out in the confines of his own home due to the fact that he disagreed with the Church.
ReplyDeleteThe Church used its power to full advantage for itself. It acted like the government during this time. They knew that allowing Galileo to be set free, they were allowing a free mind to wonder about. This was a chance that would affect their reputation and jeopardize other people's belief in them. This was a way of controlling people as well as keeping their place of power stable.
Religion and science have always been at odds with each other. Both rely on very different things. Religion is about the spirituality of things while science is about seeing the truth in front of you're eyes, its based on more solid things. With time these two have only grown further apart. Science has become even more relevant to our society now while religion is slowly being questioned more and more. Of course religion is still extremely relevant but it is now not so much a governing force but rather an idea people can choose to believe in or not. People are now allowed to think freely.
One thing in particular that strikes me as important after reading the Galileo piece was the controversy surrounding his work. I wrote my midterm about Galileo and his inventions and new discoveries and much of what I based my discussion on was this idea of the surrounding controversy. Such inventions such as the telescope are credited to Galileo. He has recieved all the fame and notoriety, but not because of his great discovery but because of his excellent timing and development. People were constructing lenses far before Galileo had sent his telescope to the Vatican City (which they eventually bought from Galileo and provided him with a lifetime salary). What Galileo did was once he heard of the competition from other people, he sent some of his men to go and slow down their process and he quickly sent his off so that it would be seen first. From the other articles I have read about Galileo, this was a common practice throughout his whole life and often arose great skepticism about his discoveries.
ReplyDeleteI think that the point that Eloise makes above in talking about the manipulated plan by the church to keep Galileo is interesting because it also seems that Galileo didn't need much manipulation. He wanted to present his findings to them because it is what gave him such things as a lifetime salary as well as a known name.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Katy and Eloise. While reading Galileo I couldn't help but repeatedly recall "The Cheese and the Worm." I feel like the Church enjoyed the strict restraints they imposed on their followers and saw anything as coming from an outside source as a threat to their power which they played off as a threat to their follower's souls. It was just all about maintaining control and repressing knowledge to make it easier to do so. The tactility of science has always been viewed as a threat to the spirituality of religion and I agree with Eloise that it is interesting that the two have sort of switched places in society. At least know people aren't being imprisoned or worse for choosing the view that wasn't the popular one at the time.
ReplyDelete-Sadie
I thought what Sam wrote was really interesting. I don't know much about Galileo except what I read in the article, but Sam's addition made Galileo sound like the evil villain in some steampunk film than a praised scientist in modern times. It doesn't sound like Galileo was necessarily more intelligent than other scientists at the time, he was just more cunning. He knew how to play the system and sometimes used questionable tactics to do so, yet for the most part he remains one of the most celebrated scientists. It's interesting how in this sense, time heals all wounds since the way Galileo gained his fame no longer is deemed as that important. But if we found out Steve Jobs was stealing some of his developments and products there would be a massive uproar and Apple would suffer a huge blow.
ReplyDelete-Sadie
Several of the comments above have touched on the position the Church takes whenever science tries to flourish. Meaning everytime that science brings new ideas, the church doesn't hesitate on attacking and criticizing it. I believe this is because the church feels challenged by new ideas, that most of the time contradict what the church has for a long time tried to convince its followers of. For instance, there were more religious people back in time, and I strongly believe this has to do with the little science that was provided then. On the other hand, we now live in a more secular society due to science and its process. Science has shaped us and somehow transform us into new characters that have become more secular as our world becomes more influence by the discoveries of science.
ReplyDeleteKaty’s comment on the way this concept relates to the news made me think of the many media monopolies that exist today, more specifically the bias right-winged monopoly owned by Rupert Murdoch. Fox and all of Murdoch’s publications claim to translate “fair and balanced” news to the world. Instead, they manipulate news through omitting certain facts, shedding negative light on the Democratic Party, and indirectly glorify their fellow right-winged conservatives. This censorship was more overt than ever before during the 2004 presidential campaign.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I find interesting is that I understand why the Church was so hard on science back in the day (it was seen as a major threat to their power), but why is society so harsh towards religious people today? People who maintain very religious views are often chided by society and the media (at least when it comes to liberal society/media). They aren't threatening the power of science, yet many people still treat them as inferior just because they believe in something that is different. I understand the mistreatment of science in a religious world but I don't understand why it has to be the same for religion in a secular world.
ReplyDeleteBoth the reading and this discussion supports the notion that above all Galileo was a “challenger” and in that sense a martyr. Despite the negative response he received both socio-politically and religiously he continued to act as a popularizer of his views, or facts as he perceived them. Censorship has been and continues to permeate societies. In terms of Media, I immediately think of film as the greatest example of censorship. Like Gailelo, many of the films banned throughout history have threatened higher authorities by evoking and promoting specific notion or ideology. Eisenstein for instance posed threat to multiple governments through his underlying political ideals in films such as Battleship Potemkin and Strike. Like Gailelo, Sergei Eisenstein continued to make films and present the world with notions he found to be true, despite the fact that they may pose threat to a greater force and portray society in a realistic, perhaps harshly realistic light.
ReplyDeleteI think the way in which the author portrays Galileo is quite unique. The fact that Sharratt examines him within the context of social and political struggle rather than depicting him as merely a scientist makes the reading intriguing. Moreover, prior to this reading, my knowledge of Galileo was one based solely on his scientific discoveries. Further, the reading solidifies the relationship between science and religion, one which continues to present it itself as a controversial issue in society and politics today. As gay marriage grows more and more accepted and the world is beginning to see science as the worlds upper hand and governing force, we see how “ religion is slowly being questioned more and more. Of course religion is still extremely relevant but it is now not so much a governing force but rather an idea people can choose to believe in or not. People are now allowed to think freely” as Eloise said.
ReplyDeleteAgreed! The Church was hard on science because it was a set of new ideas that threatened the power of the Church. However, our society today has somehow reversed. Science has influenced us so much that we have detached from the religious world this once was. Although religion is nothing new, many (I am not suggesting all) of us treat it as if it was. We have detached from the religious part of our world and therefore consider it 'new or different.' It is because of the idea of religion being different that many of us accept science much more than religion.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal account I've always relied on science much more than on religion and I come from a very religious background. Nevertheless it is up to each one of us to consider whether religion or science has been more important in our society throughout history. I believe religion was much more important in the past before many scientific discoveries were exposed to our society.
Going on what Sadie and Dimita said about our non-acceptance of religion today, it certainly is true that science seems to have an upper hand. It seems like religion is looked down upon as antiquated and somewhat uniformed, stuck in outdated tradition. Maybe this is why so many are turned off by it today, especially as we race to move forward and progress our societies, science is what we trust to help us rather than religion which some people may see as stuck in the past. Whether or not this is actually true, I wonder if religion will ever make a comeback. Or if it will even try to change some of its views in order to gain more popularity...
ReplyDeleteAnother part that I thought was interesting about the Galileo piece is that some of the Church officials and Cardinals wanted and accepted telescopes from Galileo. It seems like this partly worked in the form of bribery because it was how Galileo got a few people from the Church on his 'side.' It also seemed, though, that these Church officials were interested in this new technology and owning the latest 'gadget' even though they might not admit it..
ReplyDeleteIn response to Katy's comment on Fox News, I think it's interesting that in some cases they've actually censored science to make it appear more positive than it really is. I'm thinking of the case with Monsanto (if anyone has seen The Corporation you know what I'm talking about) where several news reporters for Fox uncovered the harmful affects of Monsanto's Posilac (basically a bovine growth hormone) that is extremely harmful to the cows themselves and the people who consume the milk, as it is filled with antibiotics and bacteria. This is illegal everywhere except the U.S. and when the Fox reporters tried to run the story they faced threats from Monsanto and were eventually fired by Fox. It's just interesting to think that in this case science wasn't being censored to promote religion but to promote money-making.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Samuel - makes me think of someone like Frank Sinatra who I read somewhere had mafia help clear the field of competitors early in his career. I think History often ignores character defects in favor of the genius/exceptionalist narrative. And of course, you know Ben Franklin invented electricity right?
ReplyDeleteBut I also am fascinated with how important inventors used to be but now no longer are. Granted invention is rarely an individual endeavor anymore - most things like technology or medicine are now invented by teams it seems. But compare the famous inventors/inventions of the past with the last 50 years or so. The "names" and notoriety mostly disappear. And the cultural importance of invention is more about novelty now than real impact. The "better mousetrap" or the "as seen on TV" product instead of the transformative.
However one place where invention and fame is thriving is in software, think of the iPhone app for instance - although often the individual is replaced with the company name or brand -
Also in the scope of writing/ideas it is still going strong. Internet memes are often the product of the individual and sometimes cross into a general understanding (with attribution to its creator)
The Fox News comparison is interesting, although I think you could expand that to something like the the overall conservative reaction to climate change. I think The Church used to defend not only the beliefs it professed but its own relevance. In that sense it is like a living organism that defends itself as needed. It defends its place in society, and attacks competing ideas. For religion to totally embrace the concepts - even the ethos - of science endangers its future (or at least complicates it)
ReplyDeleteIn that sense, conservative anti-science about climate change seems to share some characteristics. There is no upside of acknowledging climate change or celebrating science for conservatives - to do so will only dilute their influence and credibility. They are indeed flat-earthers or perhaps earth-still-ers??
Fox News also protects its influence and market share. Galileo protected his market share of the intellectual influence/prominence.
finally, I thought about Darwin a lot during the reading. I think his character/methods are nowhere near as controversial as Galileo's (at least as far as I have read) - but he certainly knew of a competitor with similar ideas and attempted to beat him to press, so to speak. And the ideas themselves were certainly controversial. Aaand ambition was proved essential in both cases.
ReplyDeleteSorry I was late to the discussion!
Similarly to Chas, I also thought about Darwin while doing the reading. Few other scientists come to mind with controversy surrounding their work like Galileo and Darwin, despite having the differences in blowback. While Galileo was actively asked to seise and desist pushing Capernicism, the response from the Church of England was much less intense than Darwin's scientific competitors. Perhaps they were jealous!?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Dimita, Sadie and CDintama, I think it is important to identify who the "we" is when talking about religion's lack of popularity in the world. I think it is interesting that people think religion has lost the upper hand in today's society because from what I've read, seen and experienced, religion has only ebbed ever-so-slightly in terms of its popularity in polls. One example that comes to mind is the Vatican and its unabashed incredulity when it comes to taking action on pedophiliac Priests in Ireland. Or the fact that Islamic law is practiced in governance in the majority of middle eastern nations. The group who chide those with religious views are certainly a minority, but if there were to exist a vocal secular minority, New York City would be the place for them, and I feel that is why it may seem so prevalent when on the larger scale, it's quite the opposite around the globe.
ReplyDeleteThat said, religion is at its least popular in history with the Millenials (ages 18-29) stating they have no religious affiliation and will most likely continue to increase. In terms of where this exists, once again this is specifically in the United States, while I'm sure the rest of the world's perception of religion is much higher than in the United States. Your guess is as good as mine as to the reason for this. It is possibly due to overwhelming scientific evidence supporting such theories and concepts like Copernicanism, evolution/natural selection, global warming, and our society's relationship to the written word and physical evidence (See: "the glove doesn't fit"). Hence the reason why those climate scientists screwed themselves when discussing jokingly about uncertain topics related to global warming (See: Climate Gate).
ReplyDeleteFor me, what was most intriguing about this reading was the manner in which the author approaches Galileo's life and contributions in a revisionist fashion, posing major doubts to historicity. In his discussion of the Scientific Revolution, he warns that "a frank pursuit of what interests us now can easily lead to a selectivity which distorts the whole" (9). Sharratt's challenge of the systematization of categories within Scientific History extends beyond this arena. This is a worthwhile and necessary point of inquiry within the discipline of history as a whole. In the end, Sharratt presents a major crisis surrounding the organization of knowledge with the proliferation of academic disciplines and taxonomies throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
ReplyDeleteI think that what you mentioned, Chris, surrounding the social significance of the telescope is worth further discussion. While reading the excerpt, I began thinking of the impact of optical devices upon subjectivities and everyday experience. Certainly the ability to see a ship two hours before its arrival, not to mention the ability to see our surrounding planets proposed critical ontological shifts in the populace of 15th century Europe.
I think that the Cinema is the most historical appropriate, and thus approachable device with which to position this discussion in a modern context. I am curious how our perceptions and organizations of vision are being reorganized with the current proliferation of IMAX and 3D movies. Are they positioning us as more than witnesses of reality or are they further fragmenting our subjectivities, negating possibility for a true incorporation of human and environment?
Sorry for contributing so late! Just got to my email.
It is interesting to see how religion had so much authority over other politics. Religion is slowly loosing its opinion over other things such as science. I woulld see this more in our Western culture, other cultures still hold many traditional values. It is frustrating to see how the Church could not attempt to understand Galileo's theories. The heliocentric theory had much substantial evidence and Galileo even had new scientific tools to support them. The Church believed they would be denying their faith and absolute truth itself. Galileo was a genius of his time. From his own observations he began to de-ravel the secrets of the universe. He was the first to understand the earths gravitational pull and the rotation of the planets. He inspired many notable scientific minds like isaac newton and thomas hobbes, with undeveloped theories of motion.
ReplyDeleteGalileo status as a “saint” of the modern world hinges on his persecution by the Catholic Church for courageously challenging the Copernican theory that the earth revolved around the sun, in contradiction to scripture, church tradition and the ancient authority of Aristotle and Ptolemy.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it seems that the Galileo affair was part of a sea change in the Church’s understanding of the relationship between science and religion.
Cardinal Baronius once said in defence of Galilep “ the bible teaches the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go” — came quickly to be the Catholic Church’s essential position in the wake of the scientific revolution. But Galileo was not fully vindicated until 1992 when, upon the recommendation of a papal commission that reviewed his trial and condemnation, Pope John Paul II formally absolved Galileo and acknowledged the error of the church’s judgment”.
This hinders a message especially to the Catholics that the church is fallible, and it should recognize its historic failings over the years and decades. Like many has mentioned above, the church seized its power and attack many of those who has a different opinions, ones that almost oppose their believes and ideas, like Galileo, reason for that is the church feels threatened of another powerful force, by defending themselves, thus they criticize another to strengthen their own power.
Speaking of how media operates today. Take China as an example, media is heavily censored. Chinese government would censor and take away those commercials on TV that lacks family and ethnic-unity values. The topic of sex is never mentioned as well, which is totally different from the US. But not to say that the U.S doesn’t have censorship, as others mentioned above about presidential elections etc. Media act as an important role and source of knowledge for the general public. The media connects people in a shared consciousness. But its fascination is the ability to inform people about things that other people did not want them to know, it also navigates people mind subconsciously on the way general public feel or think about something. Media is definitely very powerful in a sense that is also damaging.