What do you think?
Rate this book
Stargazers: Galileo, Copernicus, the Telescope and the Church
A comprehensive history of how the heavens were discovered and mapped, by the leading astronomers from 1500 onwards
Building on the work of the Greek and Arabian astrologers before him, the idea of a sun-centered universe was proposed by a church lawyer called Nicholas Copernicus. It was later popularized by Galileo—a fantastic debater whose abrasive style won him many enemies—who presented new evidence, which suggested that the earth moved. This thorough examination of Galileo explores both his achievements and influences. It then goes on to trace the impact of his ideas on those who followed him, including Sir Francis Bacon, Dr. John Wilkins, Dr. Robert Hooke, Sir Isaac Newton, and Rev. Dr. James Bradley. Chapman investigates the church’s role and its intriguing relationship with the astronomers of the day. The support and involvement of the church meant that research could be undertaken, but at times the relationship was fractious, leading Galileo to famously declare, “the Bible is to teach us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” In 1728, the theory of the moving earth was finally proven by the young Rev. Dr. James Bradley.
Building on the work of the Greek and Arabian astrologers before him, the idea of a sun-centered universe was proposed by a church lawyer called Nicholas Copernicus. It was later popularized by Galileo—a fantastic debater whose abrasive style won him many enemies—who presented new evidence, which suggested that the earth moved. This thorough examination of Galileo explores both his achievements and influences. It then goes on to trace the impact of his ideas on those who followed him, including Sir Francis Bacon, Dr. John Wilkins, Dr. Robert Hooke, Sir Isaac Newton, and Rev. Dr. James Bradley. Chapman investigates the church’s role and its intriguing relationship with the astronomers of the day. The support and involvement of the church meant that research could be undertaken, but at times the relationship was fractious, leading Galileo to famously declare, “the Bible is to teach us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” In 1728, the theory of the moving earth was finally proven by the young Rev. Dr. James Bradley.
464 pages, Paperback
First published October 17, 2014
13 people are currently reading
136 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 11, 2019
UPDATE 9/11/19 ... Prior to going to the Galileo museum in Florence, I read some sections of this book again ... it's well organized and well-written.
***
This is an excellent overview of the science and personalities of the cosmology revolution from 1500 to 1700. I'm looking forward to my cosmology course this summer at Oxford, taught by this same professor.
What impressed me most was not what was learned but rather the questions which were asked and the focus on evidence-based conclusions.
This is so relevant in an America where the Trump administration has decreed the CDC may not use the words "evidence-based" in its reports, and ignorant religious fanatics do everything possible to keep science out of our schools and away from public discourse. By comparison, the Catholic Church described by Professor Chapman was a bastion of liberal thinking.
***
This is an excellent overview of the science and personalities of the cosmology revolution from 1500 to 1700. I'm looking forward to my cosmology course this summer at Oxford, taught by this same professor.
What impressed me most was not what was learned but rather the questions which were asked and the focus on evidence-based conclusions.
This is so relevant in an America where the Trump administration has decreed the CDC may not use the words "evidence-based" in its reports, and ignorant religious fanatics do everything possible to keep science out of our schools and away from public discourse. By comparison, the Catholic Church described by Professor Chapman was a bastion of liberal thinking.
October 30, 2014
The subtitle of Stargazers is Galileo, Copernicus, the Telescope and the Church, but that is a bit deceptive, since the book is really a history of astronomy itself. The author spends the most time, however, discussing the "Astronomical Renaissance" from the year 1500 to 1700. I requested a review-copy because of the large section of the book us devoted to Galileo Galilei, the famous Italian astronomer.
The section on Galileo begins about 29% into the book and goes to about 43% of the book. The whole book covers:
• Aristotle's universe
• Copernicus's revolution
• Tycho Brahe's earth-sun-centric universe
• Kepler's laws of motion
• Galileo Galilei's telescope and visual proof
• The Jesuits missionaries' telescope based astronomy around the world
• Protestants and science
• Francis Bacon and natural philosophy
• The Royal Society and the International Fellowship of Science
• The heavenly clockwork and the power of the scientific method
There are Notes, Further Reading suggestions, a full Index and illustrations throughout the text.
You have to be something of an astronomy fanatic, or a beginning student of astronomy, to read this book. It is rich with detail, but since it covers such a long period of time some sections are rather cursory. The curious reader will want to check out the Further Reading suggestions to flesh out the story of astronomy. But this is an excellent introductory text!
Please read my full and illustrated review at Italophile Book Reviews.
http://italophilebookreviews.blogspot...
The section on Galileo begins about 29% into the book and goes to about 43% of the book. The whole book covers:
• Aristotle's universe
• Copernicus's revolution
• Tycho Brahe's earth-sun-centric universe
• Kepler's laws of motion
• Galileo Galilei's telescope and visual proof
• The Jesuits missionaries' telescope based astronomy around the world
• Protestants and science
• Francis Bacon and natural philosophy
• The Royal Society and the International Fellowship of Science
• The heavenly clockwork and the power of the scientific method
There are Notes, Further Reading suggestions, a full Index and illustrations throughout the text.
You have to be something of an astronomy fanatic, or a beginning student of astronomy, to read this book. It is rich with detail, but since it covers such a long period of time some sections are rather cursory. The curious reader will want to check out the Further Reading suggestions to flesh out the story of astronomy. But this is an excellent introductory text!
Please read my full and illustrated review at Italophile Book Reviews.
http://italophilebookreviews.blogspot...
January 5, 2018
This book provides a new take on the usual view that religious-based persecution of 'scientists' was commonplace during the sixteenth century due in large part to the way Giordano Bruno was treated and also because Copernicus delayed publishing his major work on a heliocentric universe until he was on his deathbed. The sixteenth century was a wonderfully vibrant period that ushered in the full-flowering of the scientific revolution during the seventeenth century, and Chapman's book covers in some detail the contributions of Copernicus and others who questioned the then-current geocentric universe worldview and proposed a heliocentric (sun-centred) alternative that is now our accepted norm. Chapman is a very readable writer, and his in-depth coverage of the personalities and developments that were integral to the scientific revolution of the 15th and 16th centuries is the best I've come across for a general reader. My one quibble is that there are some frustrating omissions in the index, which meant that when I first considered reading this book I put it aside because the person I was most interested in reading about wasn't listed - though it turns out he was mentioned in some detail in the text itself. That aside, I recommend this book for anyone with an interest in how science has developed to become the rigorous tool we now tend to take for granted, and also for those interested in how science might be revisited in future to meet the many issues and concerns of our present day.
March 28, 2019
Exhaustive and thorough look at the development (specifically of astronomy, but included relevant other areas) through the ages, tracing also how instruments and precision led to breakthroughs in thought and phliosphy as well as cosmology.
December 30, 2014
While I expected this to be some needed intellectual exercise for my brain, it proved to also be great fun. I found the history of astronomy and the church throughout history to be incredibly gripping and entertaining. This was another one I was quoting left and right because I learned so much from it.
March 13, 2015
If you aren't that familiar with the origins of astronomy then this book will be a bit much to take in all at once. However, it is told in a fairly easy to understand manner so that even us non-astronomers can make sense of it all.
March 2, 2018
Chapman’s goal in this book is to correct some popular and time-worn misconceptions about the 17th century astronomical renaissance and show how the astronomical discoveries and scientific techniques of the time really emerged.
I think the principal misconceptions he is attacking concern: (1) persecution of scientists and suppression of Copernicanism by the Catholic church, and, (2) a more general sharp discontinuity between a supposed age of superstition and an age of enlightenment.
The first misconception, allowing for some caricature, is that Galileo and others (perhaps including Giordano Bruno) were heroes, even martyrs, to the scientific cause, as against the dogmatic resistance of the Catholic church.
Certainly Tycho, Galileo, Kepler, Hooke, and many others moved the science of astronomy forward in enormous leaps during the 17th century. But the Catholic church was itself, in Chapman’s account, active in science, not even just tolerant. Galileo's condemnation appears as an anomaly (Bruno’s as a true case of heresy).
Chapman argues that it was Galileo’s personality that is much to blame for his run-ins with the church. He is said to have made enemies easily, and perhaps to have trespassed on the theologians’ turf by suggesting how the text of the bible should be interpreted and where the line should be drawn between accounts of “the way to go to heaven” and “the way the heavens go.”
Copernicanism in fact was not condemned for long after Copernicus’s own time, and was investigated in genuinely scientific fashion by figures within the church and by figures supported or encouraged by the church. Given the role of the church as part of the life of educated persons at the time, it’s difficult to imagine otherwise.
The second misconception is that, again allowing for some caricature, leading scientists of the period battled not only the church but strong forces of superstition more broadly, such as practitioners and followers of alchemy and astrology. The fact that many of those same scientists practiced alchemy and/or astrology is then explained as a matter of practicality — earning a living, for example, while the pursuit of science itself may not have been sufficient.
All these figures — Tycho, Kepler, Galileo, Newton — were active alchemists and/or astrologers. Chapman argues that, far from compromises made for practical purposes, their interests were genuine. This was just part of the science of their time.
Resistance to Copernicanism itself rested on scientific grounds rather than dogma. The evidence (crucially, 6-month parallax detection) and the body of accepted theory (Aristotelian physics) arguably fell on the side of Tycho’s geocentric model rather than Copernicanism. Tycho’s model both fit the available data and retained the basic elements of accepted Aristotelian physics.
We may feel tempted to reject Aristotelian physics as itself “non-scientific” but in fact, it was the state of the art at the time and had to be surpassed by actual evidence and competing explanations, not just brushed aside as so much superstition. Manipulations of the properties of matter backed by an understanding of the elements of fire, earth, air, and water were in fact successful, at least to a point. Yes, Aristotelian physics did carry the weight of authority (and so had to be actively overcome, not just ignored), but that is the way science often works.
Reconstructions of the rise of modern science popularly treat the period as a victory of reason and science over superstition. It may be superstitious or irrational to support astrology or alchemy at the present time, but that certainly doesn’t imply that it was superstitious or irrational in the context of 17th century science. In fact, astrology and alchemy take their place in the evolution of science, just as early Greek atomism, Pythagoreanism, and even Copernicanism take their place.
After all, Copernicanism, as an actual model of planetary motion, has also been surpassed, notably by Kepler’s model of elliptical motion. Copernicanism survives as refined and evolved, as the Ptolemaic system does not. Likewise, astrology and alchemy had to be surpassed by more modern understandings of atomic elements, astronomy, tides, seasons, etc., but that’s how science works. These were part of the evolution of science rather than its dogmatic opposition.
A parallel story that Chapman tells is the story of technological advancement, especially observing and measuring devices, beginning in Tycho’s time — optical measuring devices with new accuracy, telescopes, microscopes, barometers, accurate clocks, and the printing press. All of these greatly contributed to the ability of scientists to test theories and models as never before, and to share problems, data, and theories. It was an age of instrumentation as truly as an age of theory.
I think Chapman’s book is an important contribution to understanding what actually happened in the scientific enlightenment, especially at the semi-popular level.
He doesn’t dig as deeply into specific observations, or into the problems of Copernicanism as others (e.g., Christopher Graney’s book, Against All Authority, about Riccioli’s New Almagest), and he doesn’t address broader theories of scientific revolution (as does Kuhn in The Copernican Revolution). And his account of Galileo probably provokes more questions than it answers — Chapman asserts that Galileo had a knack for making enemies but offers little account or analysis of that knack (other than citing the polemical style of Galileo’s Dialogues, for example). We’d like to see more before accepting the thesis that his difficult personality was his undoing with the church rather than his views themselves.
But all in all, this certainly advanced my own understanding of how the astronomical renaissance happened and how it related to the religion and science in which it had true roots. It only makes me want to read more to get deeper.
I think the principal misconceptions he is attacking concern: (1) persecution of scientists and suppression of Copernicanism by the Catholic church, and, (2) a more general sharp discontinuity between a supposed age of superstition and an age of enlightenment.
The first misconception, allowing for some caricature, is that Galileo and others (perhaps including Giordano Bruno) were heroes, even martyrs, to the scientific cause, as against the dogmatic resistance of the Catholic church.
Certainly Tycho, Galileo, Kepler, Hooke, and many others moved the science of astronomy forward in enormous leaps during the 17th century. But the Catholic church was itself, in Chapman’s account, active in science, not even just tolerant. Galileo's condemnation appears as an anomaly (Bruno’s as a true case of heresy).
Chapman argues that it was Galileo’s personality that is much to blame for his run-ins with the church. He is said to have made enemies easily, and perhaps to have trespassed on the theologians’ turf by suggesting how the text of the bible should be interpreted and where the line should be drawn between accounts of “the way to go to heaven” and “the way the heavens go.”
Copernicanism in fact was not condemned for long after Copernicus’s own time, and was investigated in genuinely scientific fashion by figures within the church and by figures supported or encouraged by the church. Given the role of the church as part of the life of educated persons at the time, it’s difficult to imagine otherwise.
The second misconception is that, again allowing for some caricature, leading scientists of the period battled not only the church but strong forces of superstition more broadly, such as practitioners and followers of alchemy and astrology. The fact that many of those same scientists practiced alchemy and/or astrology is then explained as a matter of practicality — earning a living, for example, while the pursuit of science itself may not have been sufficient.
All these figures — Tycho, Kepler, Galileo, Newton — were active alchemists and/or astrologers. Chapman argues that, far from compromises made for practical purposes, their interests were genuine. This was just part of the science of their time.
Resistance to Copernicanism itself rested on scientific grounds rather than dogma. The evidence (crucially, 6-month parallax detection) and the body of accepted theory (Aristotelian physics) arguably fell on the side of Tycho’s geocentric model rather than Copernicanism. Tycho’s model both fit the available data and retained the basic elements of accepted Aristotelian physics.
We may feel tempted to reject Aristotelian physics as itself “non-scientific” but in fact, it was the state of the art at the time and had to be surpassed by actual evidence and competing explanations, not just brushed aside as so much superstition. Manipulations of the properties of matter backed by an understanding of the elements of fire, earth, air, and water were in fact successful, at least to a point. Yes, Aristotelian physics did carry the weight of authority (and so had to be actively overcome, not just ignored), but that is the way science often works.
Reconstructions of the rise of modern science popularly treat the period as a victory of reason and science over superstition. It may be superstitious or irrational to support astrology or alchemy at the present time, but that certainly doesn’t imply that it was superstitious or irrational in the context of 17th century science. In fact, astrology and alchemy take their place in the evolution of science, just as early Greek atomism, Pythagoreanism, and even Copernicanism take their place.
After all, Copernicanism, as an actual model of planetary motion, has also been surpassed, notably by Kepler’s model of elliptical motion. Copernicanism survives as refined and evolved, as the Ptolemaic system does not. Likewise, astrology and alchemy had to be surpassed by more modern understandings of atomic elements, astronomy, tides, seasons, etc., but that’s how science works. These were part of the evolution of science rather than its dogmatic opposition.
A parallel story that Chapman tells is the story of technological advancement, especially observing and measuring devices, beginning in Tycho’s time — optical measuring devices with new accuracy, telescopes, microscopes, barometers, accurate clocks, and the printing press. All of these greatly contributed to the ability of scientists to test theories and models as never before, and to share problems, data, and theories. It was an age of instrumentation as truly as an age of theory.
I think Chapman’s book is an important contribution to understanding what actually happened in the scientific enlightenment, especially at the semi-popular level.
He doesn’t dig as deeply into specific observations, or into the problems of Copernicanism as others (e.g., Christopher Graney’s book, Against All Authority, about Riccioli’s New Almagest), and he doesn’t address broader theories of scientific revolution (as does Kuhn in The Copernican Revolution). And his account of Galileo probably provokes more questions than it answers — Chapman asserts that Galileo had a knack for making enemies but offers little account or analysis of that knack (other than citing the polemical style of Galileo’s Dialogues, for example). We’d like to see more before accepting the thesis that his difficult personality was his undoing with the church rather than his views themselves.
But all in all, this certainly advanced my own understanding of how the astronomical renaissance happened and how it related to the religion and science in which it had true roots. It only makes me want to read more to get deeper.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews