This retelling of the story of Galileo repeats numerous well known debunked false claims. In particular the story of Simplicius (actually named for a famous 6th century pagan philosopher), supposedly retelling a story from Urban. This claim came up in 1635, and the Pope himself cleared Galileo of any such accusation. See: Retrying Galileo 1633-1992 by Maurice Finocchiaro. The pope was almost certain *NOT* the invisible hand behind the trial. Urban was Galileo's ally before, during, and after the trial, as evidenced by all actions Urban took regarding Galileo. The "invisible hand" was almost certainly the Jesuits.
Spoken like an ideology possessed tyrant. Why not present both views and let people decide for themselves? Who fears a debate? The liar or the orher guy?
A bit disappointed. Much more to the trial than that and given the time certainly could've been covered. Perhaps he didn't project the "tragic hero" narrative onto Galileo it would've gone better. Not bad but this isn't Cal state or ASU. I expect more from U of C
Its science that makes that claim. Look into "background radiation"
6 лет назад
This lecturer based his talk on one Catholic book. This is filled with errors, from the strength of Galileo's telescope (he claims the first one had a magnification of 3 when in fact it was 8 and Galileo built it himself after teaching himself the entire craft of lens making, a huge accomplishment). All of the claims that Galileo was arrogant come from the Catholic church, blaming the victim for their arrest and abuse of him.
Brilliant! Excellent explication of one of the worst examples of religion trying (and eventually failing) to fight off the advancement of critical thinking and the scientific method. And today, religion is still at it. From the Discovery Institute (Creationism) to Islamic State. Loved the "Dept. of Rome Land security" for the inquisition.
