Galileo: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #044

by Stillman Drake

In a startling reinterpretation of Galileo's trial, Stillman Drake advances the hypothesis that Galileo's prosecution and condemnation by the Inquisition was caused not by his defiance of the Church but by the hostility of contemporary philosophers. Galileo's own beautifully lucid arguments are used in this volume to show how his scientific method was utterly divorced from the Aristotelian approach to physics; it was based on a search not for causes but for laws. Galileo's methods had an overwhelming significance for the development of modern physics, and they led to a final parting of the ways between science and philosophy. Now, in this extraordinary and concise introduction, Drake provides a stimulating view of Galileo's life and works, providing a fresh perspective on Galileo's methodology and his final incrimination.

About the Series: Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.

Genres: Science, History, Biography, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History Of Science, Physics

127 pages, Paperback

First published February 22, 2001

About the author

Stillman Drake was a Canadian historian of science best known for his work on Galileo Galilei.

Reviews

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is not a single effect in Nature, not even the least that exists, such that the most ingenious theorists can ever arrive at a complete understanding of it.

One of the most impressive aspects of the Very Short Introduction series is the range of creative freedom allowed to its writers. (Either that, or its flexibility in repurposing older writings; presumably a version of this book was published before the VSI series even got off the ground, since its author died in 1993.) This is a good example: For in lieu of an introduction, Stillman Drake, one of the leading scholars of the Italian scientist, has given us a novel analysis of Galileo’s trial by the Inquisition.

Admittedly, in order to contextualize the trial, Drake must cover all of Galileo’s life and thought. But Drake’s focus on the trial means that many things one would expect from an introduction—for example, an explanation of Galileo’s lasting contributions to science—are only touched upon, in order to make space for what Drake believed was the crux of the conflict: Galileo’s philosophy of science.

Galileo Galilei was tried in 1633 for failing to obey the church’s edict that forbade the adoption, defense, or teaching of the Copernican view. And it seems that he has been on trial ever since. The Catholic scientist’s battle with the Catholic Church has been transformed into the archetypical battle between religion and science, with Galileo bravely championing the independence of human reason from ancient dogma. This naturally elevated Galileo to the status of intellectual heroe; but more recently Galileo has been criticized for falling short of this ideal. Historian of science, Alexandre Kojève, famously claimed that Galileo hadn’t actually performed the experiments he cited as arguments, but that his new science was mainly based on thought experiments. And Arthur Koestler, in his popular history of astronomy, criticized Galileo for failing to incorporate Kepler’s new insights. Perhaps Galileo was not, after all, any better than the scholastics he criticized?

Drake has played a significant role in pushing back against these arguments. First, he used the newly discovered working papers of Galileo to demonstrate that, indeed, he had performed careful experiments in developing his new scheme of mechanics. Drake also points out that Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was intended for popular audiences, and so it would be unreasonable to expect Galileo to incorporate Kepler’s elliptical orbits. Finally, Drake draws a hard line between Galileo’s science and the medieval theories of motion that have been said to presage Galileo’s theories. Those theories, he observes, were concerned with the metaphysical cause of motion; whereas Galileo abandoned the search for causes, and inaugurated the use of careful measurements and numerical predictions in science.

Thus, Drake argues that Galileo never saw himself as an enemy of the Church; to the contrary, he saw himself as fighting for its preservation. What Galileo opposed was the alignment of Church dogma with one very particular interpretation of scripture, which Galileo believed would put the church in danger of being discredited in the future. Galileo attributed this mistaken policy to a group of malicious professors of philosophy, who, in the attempt to buttress their outdated methods, used Biblical passages to make their views seem orthodox. This was historically new. Saint Augustine, for example, considered the opinions of natural philosophers entirely irrelevant to the truth of the Catholic faith, and left the matter to experts. It was only in Galileo’s day (during the Counter-Reformation) that scientific theories became a matter of official church policy.

Drake’s conclusion is that Galileo’s trial was not so much a conflict between science and religion (for the two had co-existed for many centuries), but between science and philosophy: the former concerned with measurement and prediction, the latter concerned with causes. And Drake notes that many contemporary criticisms of Galileo—for leaving many loose-ends in his system, for example—mirror the contemporary criticisms of his work. The trial goes on.

Personally I found this book fascinating and extremely lucid. However, I am not sure it exactly fulfills its promise as an introduction to Galileo. I think that someone entirely new to Galileo’s work, or to the history and philosophy of science, may not get as much out of this work. Luckily, most of Galileo’s own writings (translated by Drake) are already very accessible and enjoyable.

[Adolf Boldú · Rating 4 out of 5]

L'autor del llibre segurament no desitjava realitzar una biografia de Galileo Galilei convencional, on els fets de la vida del matemàtic s'anessin exposat de forma crònica i personal. De fet, el que ha fet ha estat explicar-nos el seu progrés intel·lectual des dels seus inicis com a matemàtic per acabar amb els seus avenços dins del món de la física i l'astronomia, amb un capítol dedicat enterament al procés que va patir per part de la Inquisició del segle XVII. Com a conclusió principal es pot apuntar que es destaca el fet que Galileo va ser capaç de desenterrar el concepte de ciència -que ell ajudà en escreix a modernitzar- del món de la filodofia del seu temps, la qual bevia en excés de la teologia miop de l'Esgésia Catòlica.

[Lisa-Michele · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The problem or question of the centre of the universe, and whether the earth is situated there, is among the least worthy of consideration in the whole of astronomy,” Galileo wrote in 1640. He was less concerned with theological debates than I realized and much more absorbed in experimental science. Of course this was before there was such a thing as experimental science, so he not only had to invent the tools and language and methods, but explain them to others. That’s where he got into trouble.

I loved this intense little book about Galileo’s clash with the Catholic Church over science. I picked it up at the Galileo Museum in Florence while I was looking at the very instruments he designed, so it has special meaning. The author writes, “The silencing and punishment of Galileo toward the end of a life devoted to scientific inquiry was an event of profound significance for our cultural history.” You bet. It still reverberates today. I saw an item on the internet last week about a newly-discovered Galileo letter that indicates he may have tried some damage control with the Church authorities.

This book traces Galileo’s writings and correspondence to make the case that he is neither hero nor villain and that he never intended to be the standard-bearer for Copernican ideals. He just called it like he saw it. Still, he was hauled into the Inquisition as an elderly man, condemned for “vehement suspicion of heresy” and sentenced to house arrest. You get the sense his heart was broken. He appears to be a devout man who saw no conflict between his religious doctrines and his science. It took the Catholic Church a few hundred years to come to the same conclusion. I feel no smugness though, given the science-haters and climate-deniers of today. The more things change, the more things stay the same. Galileo is an inspiration for believing scientists everywhere with his expansive views and fierce inquiry. “What has philosophy got to do with measuring anything?” he asked in 1605. Go forth and measure.

[Patricia Roberts-Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an unusual VSI. Most of the ones I've read summarize the consensus, but this one makes an original argument. It's persuasive, and I think anyone who wants to claim that they're Galileo, or that the Galileo dispute was about religion v. science, or power v. truth should read this book.

[Jonathan Weston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Galileo: A Very Short Introduction corrects the common misconception that Galileo's research was driven by antagonism towards the Catholic Church. In reality, Galileo thought that philosophers (like Aristotle) could not provide true understandings of nature; he thought that only science of measurement and observation could reveal the laws of nature. The book shares details of Galileo’s life and research, excerpts from his correspondences, and explanations of the differences of science and philosophy. Through these details, we can see that the motivation for Galileo’s research embraced many values and characteristics of the Enlightenment period, especially the use of systems and models, toleration of religion, and our connection to nature.

The Enlightenment period produced several thinkers that understood the value of creating systems and models to improve our knowledge. In the early 1600’s, many books were published that criticized the use of Aristotelian natural philosophy. These books were authorized by Galileo, Descartes, and Francis Bacon. However, Bacon and Descartes are remembered more for their philosophies, unlike Galileo who was recognized for his scientific contribution. Galileo followed Bacon’s “New Scientific Method” and relied solely on observation and mathematics for his discoveries in astronomy.

Many people think that Galileo’s motivation was to find evidence to support the Copernican heliocentric model, and prove the Catholic Church wrong and undermine its authority. However, that is completely false. Galileo was a devout Catholic, and his purpose was not to prove one side of a scientific question, but to “separate purely scientific questions from matters of faith in order that rational discussion might remain free”. By separating the studies of the physical from faith, Galileo believed that religion in general would save face when scientific discoveries proved the philosophers wrong, and Galileo believed the philosophers to be wrong on many topics.

Contrary to the philosophers, Galileo believed mathematics was the language of understanding nature. Galileo said that “there is not a single effect in nature, not even the least that exists, such that the most ingenious theorists can ever arrive at a complete understanding of it”, but through scientific observation, we can study the properties of nature that teach us about fundamental laws.

On the whole, Galileo: A Very Short Introduction is a great “quick dive” into the independence of science from philosophy that began around the Enlightenment period. I thoroughly enjoyed this quick read, and I am currently on the look-out for another book from this Oxford series.

[Leanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This short book packs a serious punch! It is no mere introduction to Galileo (as one would think) but instead is a sustained argument about the Galileo trial--a "reinterpretation of the evidence" thattries to show that rather than defiance against the church, Galileo was in trouble over hostilities with contemporary philosophers over the nature of knowledge. Drake is an esteemed Galileo scholar, who also translated the Dialogue. I really love one of his essays on the "scientific personality of Galileo" and so I was already of a fan.

While I don't necessarily buy his argument in its entirety, I still find him to always be extremely interesting. That the trial was not a simple science versus the church affair is pretty much agreed upon by most Galileo scholars, but I still am not sure that Galileo was aiming to align the church with a more intellectually flexible set of philosophers who would not tie natural philosophy down the way the Aristotelian philosophers of the past had in the way the author asserts. Because I do think Galileo believed that the Copernican system was true and that this is what motivated him to write so passionately and dramatically. The persistent mythology surrounding Galileo is annoying to say the least --so I appreciated that Drake took all that on in such a short volume. It is no replacement to Heilbron's biography of Galileo, but it is certainly a great supplement to it. The introduction alone is gold!

[P. A. H. Zada · Rating 1 out of 5]

Review in progress

I read VSI books to see if I can recommend them in the future to several preteens in my life when they will be in need of extracurricular material, provided they're lucid and well-written. Most VSIs are suchlike (my favorite examples of the best offerings include 'Ancient Near East' and 'History of Chemistry' titles), but some miss the mark despite the best efforts of the authors (cf. 'Statistics'). Here though there isn't even such effort. That is to say, this one is not an attempt at 'a very short introduction' to 'Galileo' but a polemical treatise against the author's misguided and anachronistic caricature of 'philosophy' as a whole. For this crusade, it turns out later, the author has apologetic reasons, i.e. he wants to absolve the church from its infamy for censoring Galileo by finding a scapegoat (do not get me wrong though as I concur that such a goal is achievable but through honest scholarship).

You may think I am joking about the goals of such an innocent-looking little VSI title; but to give you a taste to gain your trust I present you with a quote: "Galileo distinguished sensations from properties of external physical bodies...Some say that by removing, say, the colour red from objects we describe as red, Galileo divorced humanity from science, though it would be equally accurate to say that he directed special attention to sensation and consciousness. His aim was to dispel the idea that words have the kind of power with which they are endowed by philosophers'. Comical; power of words in describing sensations in natural languages is bestowed on them by philosophers? Words describing sensations and emotions as real, even when detached from the objects, have existed in most natural languages throughout humanity's reign on this earth and the overwhelming majority of those languages have lacked a writing system let alone the tyranny of philosophical systems. Now this bit has something to do with Galileo at least. Very many rants do not even have that modicum of relevance as we will see.

Obviously in trying to read and evaluate this book as a good introduction into one of the main chapters of the 'Scientific Revolution', I was looking for a clear explanation of the novel approaches of Galileo to questions of mechanics, motion on inclined planes, pendulums, projectile motion and their parabolic trajectories, his conceptions of motion, his novel use of water clocks for time measurement, his thought experiments and details of his actual experiments, his influence on Torricelli and beyond, his differences from thinkers before him and preferably contextualization and parallels of all of these topics in the thoughts of predecessors and contemporaries (since contrary to Carlylean great man theory of historiography, everybody is a product of their context. Incidentally, in the context of objections to first instances of Galileo's telescopic observations about Jupiter's moons, the author puts forth in an excerpt one of the worst offenses of great men theorizing in his speculation on counterfactual history by claiming: 'Even if they had had some complete theory of optics (which they lacked) and could demonstrate the illusory character of all observations, as was done later by Bishop Berkeley, that would not have resulted in our having a better science than Galileo’s. It might have resulted in our having no science, but only a philosophy, which might be a blessing, since then we would be free from all doubts. Such was the goal of Galileo’s original adversaries, who possessed only a philosophy and wanted things to remain that way.' Here science starts and ends with Galileo; hundreds engaging in experimental and empirical natural philosophy in the 17th century would have just vanished into thin air if it wasn't for the Great Man.)

Instead of these fair expectations, this book will just give you back to back rants about how 'philosophy' is the worst thing in the world since burnt sliced bread and it was actually philosophy and philosophers who condemned Galileo to house arrest and banned his books, not the Church and its Inquisition. In this sense it fails miserably in being 'a very short introduction' to 'Galileo' wasting precious pages railing on against a deluded version of 'philosophy', which the author has created for himself; a version which doesn't correspond to the reality of what that word meant for the savants of the republic of letters in 16th and early 17th century Europe. This is therefore 'a very short rant' against a caricaturized version of such a complex phenomenon such as philosophy.

Therefore instead of dedicating the short 100 pages in his possession to Galileo and details of his scientific career, the author chooses to present you with long tracts of opinionated argument without much in the way of evidence from primary sources, and no hint of awareness of arguments from counter-examples. In an episode on Galileo's theories about tides, the author mentions that Galileo's tidal theory is wrong, then rebukes unnamed commentators for misrepresenting this wrong theory as being absurd, and on the contrary claiming that it was scientific without presenting any argument; but one cannot fault him for not presenting such an argument since it wouldn't have been possible anyway because instead of presenting Galileo's views, he instead fights with invisible (at least to me the lay reader) windmills. Hence, no detail of Galileo's theory is presented. Instead the ensuing pages are filled with excessive details of Galileo's travels to Rome, details of his meetings with cardinals and bishops, or where exactly his daughter's house was. A full page of details of adventures surrounding publication of his last book comes later at the expense of Galileo's theories, experiments and innovations in kinematics.

To be continued.

[Gus · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. It gave a really nice perspective on the origins of modern science and cleared up the common misconception that the Galileo affair was a church vs. science conflict.

[Aiman Adlawan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a short book. But its content was focused on Galileo's important life events. Galileo strongly believed and even taught the Copernican System. The Catholic Church believed on the Ptolemaic System and this seemed to be a huge fight for Galileo. It was a wonderful short story of one of my favorite scientists of all times. It seems too disgusting to know about how bad the church was before. When the church knew how solid Galileo's argument about the Copernican System, they used to search for clever priests or bishops to create false yet seemingly real arguments to refute Galileo.
In the end, they charge him for a heresy and sentenced him to a lifetime house arrest. Galileo could have done more in his life as scientist, astronomer and inventor. His book.

[Erin Schott · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't think I could give this 5 stars, simply because of its brevity and because I would love more detail; however this really piqued my interest in Galileo! He did some incredible research on celestial bodies, tide theory, optics of the telescope, and incline plane movement. The end of his life under the supervision of the inquisition is a rather sad way for such a brilliant mind to go. His father and daughter also have fascinating backstories. I would be interested in reading a much longer biography of Galileo because I seem to have not given him enough credit in his disruption of Aristotelian natural philosophy.

[Maryeni Auliyati · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pendekatan Galileo selalu bersifat ilmiah ketimbang filosofis. Seorang filsuf selalu berusaha mencari ketepatan pengetahuan sementara ia berfokus pada pengukuran yang selalu merupakan perkiraan (approximate) dibandingkan ketepatan. Ia memandang matematika adalah hal esensial bagi fisika.

Penjelasan awal tentang manusia dan alam semesta lahir dari agama, disusul oleh filsafat, dan kemudian sains. Hal ini mempengaruhi siapa dipandu oleh apa. Signifikansi Galileo dalam hal ini adalah selain dari penemuannya dibidang fisika dan astronomi adalah penolakannya atas otoritas filsafat dalam memandu perkembangan sains. Dampak dari otoritas ini adalah filsuf mapan memanfaatkan dukungan kitab suci yang menimbulkan kekangan penyelidikan ilmiah. Dampaknya para teolog memangkas sains Galileo dan berujung hukuman yang ditimpakan oleh Inkuisisi Roma tahun 1633.
“Mereka berusaha menyebarkan opini bahwa proposisi (Copernican) semacam itu secara umum bertentangan dengan Injil dan dengan demikian harus dihujat dan sesat.”
Surat kepada Christina 1615

[Robert Kleinberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stillman Drake, a preeminent expert on Galileo, combines a very concise biography of the life, and brief descriptions of his scientific writings, with a largely convincing argument that Galileo's work initially offended Aristotelean philosophers - the academic establishment of his day - rather than the Church. The former felt threatened by his evidence-based approach to science, and stirred up elements of the Church against him. Galileo himself never wavered in his loyalty to the Church, which he recognized to be making a tragic mistake in attacking the new learning of science.

[M. Ashraf · Rating 3 out of 5]

Galileo Galilei The Father of Modern Science.
It is a very good book; the life of Galilio; his life's work and pursuit from falling objects, telescopes, the moon and the moons of Jupiter to the whole solar system and tides. a very good layout of his work and the reason for his trial by the inquisition.
The author view on Galileo relation with the Catholic Church was very interesting!
It is a good book; very short though!
But a good read and a very good overview.

[Chatgemini · Rating 4 out of 5]

Supposedly a new interpretation, Mr Drake's book on Galileo is very concise, cogent and revealing.
It succeeds almost completely in presenting Galileo as the first pioneer of the Scientific Revolution who stuck to his views in spite of adverse circumstances. How Galileo balanced his faith and his scientific temper is something to be admired and is something men and women of present times can learn from who are increasingly having very set views on various matters.

[Simon · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the onset formidable. Stillman Drake is unquestionably a commander of the subject. Brilliantly and passionately written. In this short book he managed to get Galileo’s life and relevance very well through.

[Venkatakrishnan · Rating 5 out of 5]

New approach to Galileo 's philosophy

A very human approach to the work of Galileo giving a refreshingly new image of a pious and hardworking scientist who was very keen to protect the Church from its own follies.

[Saif Ibn Mohd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kajian-kajian galileo ditentang oleh pelbagai pihak dari ahli falsafah dan gereja. Disini disebutkan penentangan terhadap beliau.
Buku ini terlalu ilmiah dengan disebutkan banyak nama-nama dan tarikh peristiwa.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

3+

[Kai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Should be mandatory reading on undergraduate curricula somewhere.

[Joey Stevens · Rating 2 out of 5]

Somehow Drake manages to speak down on the reader whilst writing in the most uninteresting Wikipedia style imaginable. An amazing story told horribly.

[Fi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just skimmed it for class. Interesting though!

[Christian T · Rating 3 out of 5]

Põgusa sissejuhatuse seeria raamat, mida oli kindlasti mõnusam lugeda kui Darwini oma. Huvitav oli jälgida laveerimispoliitikat, mida pidid mängima 17. sajandi teadlased, kelle seisukohad erinesid kiriklikest /aristotellikkest vaadetest.

Samas aga nagu ka põgusa sissejuhatuse Darwini teoseski on käsitletud erinevaid teaduslikke küsimusi, mille jaoks füüsikalist tausta omamata on võimatu täies mahus teost nautida (või kui viimastest füüsika tundidest on möödas pea kaks kümnendit). Teoses oli käsitluses sellised füüsikalised kontseptsioonid nagu: miks langevad erineva suuruse ja raskusega raheterad sama aegselt maha, kuigi aristotelliku loogika järgi peaksid raskemad raheterad enne maad puudutama; mõõnade tekke põhjused ja seos maailma liikumisega; plekid päikesel jne. Vahepeal tekkis mõte, et järgmiseks peaks võtma füüsika baaskursuse raamatu täiskasvanutele ja meenutama füüsikalisi põhitõdesid ja siis taaskord selle teose juurde tagasi tulema.

Kriitika tuleneb eelkõige sellest, et kuna tegu on p õ g u s a sissejuhatusega, siis eeldaks ka teose suuremat suunitulust laiemale publikule või teatud asjade detailsemat lahtiseletamist.

[David Ball · Rating 4 out of 5]

So I was supposed to read Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems for my book group, but in an attempt to find the book on Amazon I read the first couple of pages online and thought to myself: "I'm unlikely to understand the philosophy or the science behind either argument, and with the time pressure I'm under, this won't be much fun". So I bought Galileo: A Very Short Introduction, as a quick cheat, instead. And no, I don't have any regrets: I got context and science and philosophy in digestible paragraphs. I learned enough about Galileo to develop a newfound respect for the man and his efforts to advance knowledge (or should I say fight ignorance) through the modest medium of measurement. Perhaps more importantly I gained enough of an appreciation of the importance of his Dialogue to be able contribute to my book group's discussion. Can't ask for much more from 100 or so small pages.

[Daniel Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

The importance of Galileo in the history of science, philosophy and the Catholic Church are enormously overblown, partly because of his own arrogance in presenting other peoples' ideas as his own. In fact, given a realistic view of the significance of his contributions to all these things, the level of controversy surrounding him even among real historians, let alone conspiracy theorists is astonishing.

At any rate, Drake's introduction is a reasonable and more-or-less balanced overview of his life and work, that should help to dispel a number of myths that have accumulated around the man. I do take a rather more negative view of his achievements though (my personal bugbear is the theory known, unfortunately, as 'Galilean relativity', which was in fact observed by Nicolas Oresme several centuries earlier).

[Jackson Cyril · Rating 4 out of 5]

Drake's book offers a fresh new account of Galileo's relationship with the Church arguing that Galileo did not wish to attack the Church (on the contrary Drake argues that Galileo remained an ardent Catholic till the end. He, that is Galileo, cited the Church Fathers who advocated that matters which did not pertain to salvation should not be worried about by the Church), that many prominent Churchmen did not oppose Galileo ( of the 10 person Cardinal council that decided to punish Galileo, only 7 voted in favor for the scientist's imprisonment-- 3 voted against. One of these 3 would, upon hearing of Galileo's death, write a gushing eulogy praising the scientist's work) and that much of his opposition was in envious Aristotelian philosophers and with competing scientists eager to make a name for themselves.

[Jose · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought this book at the Uffizi store in Florence. It is a very short read like the title suggests but watch hout because it does pack a punch. This book has made me want to buy a full on biography about Galileo. It really made me appreciate about what Galileo actually DID, which was usher in modern science. I also enjoyed the interesting dynamics between Galileo, the Catholic Church and the philosphers. It's amazing how much is still applicable today.

[Fordon James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just shy of the right amount. Not a subject I think I could chew and swallow an inch thick book of, but definitely a must read for all humanity. Drake's account is just slightly shy of the perfect amount, but thorough and sufficient. Maybe I'll get into a more indepth biography of Galileo in my old age, but for now I can only handle small doses of the poison that is human ignorance.

[Hollis Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliant exposition of Galileo's life and scientific thought: Drake argues that Galileo was ultimately put under trial and house arrest not because of his conflicting views against the Church, but because of the hostility of contemporary philosophy profs.

[Lynne · Rating 2 out of 5]

Overall a well-presented argument on Galileo's movement from the tradition of philosophy as science into our more modern ideas of science based on experimentation and provable constants

[Risman Hutabarat · Rating 4 out of 5]

1