Finocchiaro's Introduction

This post will be concerned with the anti-Catholic and anti-Galilean extremes section.

To be honest, I really don't get Finocchiaro. I understand what he is trying to say, but at the same time I don't. First off, he says "a balanced approach to the study of the Galileo affair must avoid the two opposite extremes." Well thank you Maurice, because otherwise I would have never known that when you study things you shouldn't look at the extremes. This is what you always have been taught and what you always do. It just seems to me that that is an obvious thing to do. Also, he seems to be blowing a lot of smoke about the whole extremes, but he doesn't really back it up. He talks about them, but nothing major.

Also, to me he contradicts himself in the beginning. First he acknowledges that "Galileo's visit on that particular occasion thus had the status of improsenment, a priveleged imprisonment to be sure, but a forced residence nonetheless." He then goes on to mention a column in the road that reads "it was here that Galileo was kept prisoner by the holy Office, being guilty of having seen that the earth moves around the sun." Finocchiaro says that this expresses the myth of the Galileo affair, but what myth is that? That he was held prisoner? That's not a myth. He just said that it was true a few sentences beforehand. If he is contesting the validity of the prisoner part, then he is infact one of the "extremes" which he despises because he holds that statement as truth beforehand.

If Finocchiaro doesn't like the part about being guilty because he saw that earth moves around the sun, tough luck. That's obviously why he was found guilty. If he didn't see the earth move, would he have gotten in trouble. No. Of course not. So it all goes back to Galileo seeing the earth move.

He also says that Galileo turned out to be right about how the Bible doesn't talk about natural science. Finocchiaro's reasoning is that the Church officially declared that to be true. The Church has declared a lot of things over the years, and that doesn't make them true. The Church declared the earth the center of the universe for goodness sake. Theres just something iffy to me about Finocchiaro.

I do like the point he makes about the difference between factual correctness and rational correctness. There is a major difference as noted by Finocchiaro. Just because a statement is true doesn't mean the rationale behind it is also true. For example the conclusion that we are in Hamilton,NY is a true statement, so it has factual correctness. If the reasoning however is that wherever you are in the world is Hamilton, New York is not true, so no rational correctness. Just because the conclusion is true, doesn't make the premises true. And the same goes vice versa.

Kepler

Koestler doesn't seem to love Kepler, but he doesn't dislike him as much as Copernicus. Its a much different tone than before. Also, I found it weird how Koestler was almost poking fun at the fact that Kepler was always sick and stuff. I mean, it's kind of unnecessary and doesn't really shed any new light on Kepler. Also, it was funny to read about how Kepler was all into astrology and the positions of stars. He made predictions depending on where the stars were when conception was made, and I just didn't expect that from him. When you think of scientist like him, you don;t usually associate it with astrology and arts of that form.

To end, here's a song inspired by Kepler and his writings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NszUiuooRs

Copernicus

I can't decide whether Koestler respects Copernicus or if he totally dislikes him. At some points, he talks about him being uncreative and not doing a lot of work. At the same time though, he points out that if it was so easy, why hadn't others done it. Also, he points out that many have not fully read his works, so many comments are unfounded possibly.

Koestler calls Copernicus unoriginal and basically he studied the ancients more than he did the stars, and his work was based on the past. Kepler summed it up in his quote that "Copernicus was interpreting Ptolemy rather than nature. It would seem that Copernicus should being doing a lot of nature studying, but rather the bulk of the work was already done. Koestler seems to back Copernicus up in the face of that form of scrutiny. "If it was really as simple as that, then the equally simple question arises why nobody before him had worked out a heliocentric system?" Its a very good question because people seem to hark on him for not doing a lot of work and such, but if it was so easy, how come so many people before him failed to do what he did. People criticize him, but yet not many could have done what he did.

I found it amazing that so many historians are incorrect on parts of Copernicus's beliefs. If people are to pass judgment, it would seem logical that they must have read Copernicus and understand it. Yet, many of them have clearly not, and that baffles me. It is just unfair to hold such negative thoughts and not even have read them. It humored me when Koestler said Copernicus's system "uses altogether forty-eight epicycles - if I counted them correctly."

Also, the fact that there is no summary really seemed to hurt Copernicus. I guess he wrote so ambiguously that people had a hard time determining what he meant. It is suggested that summary would have cleared so many things up, but it was left out. Koestler mentions that Copernicus said there would be a summary, but that it never came through.

I would also just like to say that I really like how Koestler words things and relates different things. "He spent the rest of his life trying to fit into a medieval framework based on Aristotelian physics and Ptolemaic wheels. It was like trying to fit a turbo-prop engine on a ramshackle old stage-coach"

Koestler and Copernicus

There were so many things about Copernicus that I would have never known. The first that intrigued me was seeing that he worked with geography, when I always associate him with astronomy. Back then though, I feel people were much more multidisciplined than today.

Another interesting part was that it is not known whether he actually believed his system was truth. It seems odd that he could be able to write a book, and not whole-heartedly believe in what he wrote. Its also interesting to think that he didn't necessarily believe it was true, but rather it made more sense. That baffles me that you can support something that you don't think is true, but rather that it makes more sense.

Also, Copernicus didn't like observing. What!?!?!?! When you hear his name, you think astronomy, so obviously the logical conclusion would be he has to observe. It almost diminishes his reliability and your confidence in him.

It seems that Copernicus was very sly and secretive. He must have been in order to leave no trace during his ten year stay in Italy. That must have been hard to do, but he was able to do it. Supposedly he gave lectures, but once again no trace of that, so who knows what actually happened. Also, he didn't want to publish his book, but was eventually persuaded to , but after many many years.

"Rheticus wrote the narratio prima under th66e watchful eyes of Copernicus." I can imagine Copernicus sitting in a corner in the dark watching him write. Him being all secretive hiding from view but still watching. It just seems like something he would do.

The scandal. Olala. Copernicus may have thought the same as the preface, but to put it in there is stunning. He obviously didn't want that to be in there, and Koestler thinks that could have been a reason for his death. Reading that shcoked him so much, and it eventually killed him. I mean, pretty much his whole work was just told that it was nothing to be taken seriously.

Aristotle

It seems to be almost a total effort to dismantle Aristotle. His ideas were pretty much all that was round, and he had influence. But then, that all changed when his ideas were pretty much revolted against. There were 3 specific areas that were attacked; religion, politics, and medicine. It seemed almost like a methodical destruction of everything Aristotle. Machiavelli was able to take down his politics and put in place new ideas, his own ideas. In religion, Luther was very much on the opposite side of Aristotle, and came up with his own views. And finally in medicine Vaselius did his own research and found out that medicine was nothing like Aristotle's belief. Its almost like there was just a sudden turning on a man who had been dead for a while, but whose ideas were still around.

This is important because it shows a shift in thinking. People were moving away from Aristotle and were coming up with new ideas on subjects that were probably considered explained. For the church, this could affect them or it could not. For medicine, "theology and religious practice depended very little on Galenic medicine" which is what Vaselius recanted. "Vesalius was not a threat" so the Church didn't have to worry about his findings. However, the Church did have to worry about Luther because his ideas opposed that of the Church. The Church really only cares about itself, and it will allow new ideas, as long as they don't oppose its own beliefs. They only pass judgement on things which relate to themselves or they have direct opinions on. This is a lot of things though because the Church is expanding. Also, most of religion is up to interpretation so the Church's ideas are very widespread.

St. Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas refers to Aristotle as "the Philosopher" in his writings. Aquinas is predominately Aristotelian, but that was not his only influence. Aquinas drew from many different authors, not limiting himself to Aristotle, which is a very good thing. A multitude of influences gives you a wider perspective and not just a replica of Aristotle.

Augustine and Aquinas have a few similarities but they also have differences. First off, they both start with an A; freaky. Secondly, they both believe in God and his power as the supreme being. one of the main differences between these two men is that fact that Augustine relies very much on faith, whereas Aquinas dwells on human reasoning (a central theme to him).

Aquinas is also concerned with beginnings and ends. He reasons that something is predated by something else which causes it to be. But this can't go on backwards forever, so there must be a start, "therefore, there must be a first mover existing above all -- and this we call God." This goes along with human reason because when you think about it how can something go on infinitely back in time. Aquinas, focusing on human reason, must have obviously thought of that in his development of his personal theology.

Aquinas describes rationality as "the distinctive form that intelligence takes in human beings as animals." What separates people from other animals is that the actions of humans are rational. That is what I took it to mean, but then it is said that "reason does not distinguish us from animals; it distinguishes us as animals." At first I thought that my thought was totally wrong then, but then I read into it, and am thinking that it only means that we are still animals. Just because we are rational doesn't separate us from animals, but just other animals besides the animals that we are. Also, rationality is used to reach the end goal of God.

Another idea I found really interesting was imperfection. Whenever we hear about that word today, we automatically give it a bad connotation. But really, it doesn't have to mean that at all. "It can mean 'not as great' by comparison, as in the claim that human beings are imperfect with regard to the angels." It doesn't have to mean faulty or anything bad like that, but it is just saying it is not perfect, which is reserved for the divine.