Your observation that I am not solid in my knowledge of certain areas is accepted without feeling insulted in the least. Why should I feel insulted by a fact? The fact is that you feel I’m rather thin in knowledge. It is also a fact that the traditional Galileo story is rather contaminated with myths. No insult there. One only needs to look at fresh (post 1990) historical investigations into the Galileo affair to understand that historians have modified the story.
I do tend to get right to the point and unfortunately in this case it is coming off as condescending and insulting. However, you should recognize that earlier I said I originally accepted the same story about Galileo and the Church’s conflict with science and over time was confused by the evident contradiction. Eventually historians revealed a different and more consistent, but still sufficiently messy, story. Much of what you cite I had already once accepted because that is what was taught pre-1990. No reason for me to go looking it up. Then scholarship began examining the traditional view and weeding out the myths – apparently a huge project.
Having to provide citations for each thought or “fact” cited is essentially asking for a dissertation. This Galileo subject is not my area of focus. So for me it would be a super big effort and I doubt I have enough years left in my bones to complete the project and even then it would lack credibility.
I hunted around my library to see if there was a book covering substantially the Galileo subject in both content and context. I stopped looking upon finding the first suitable one, so there may be others and worthy rebuttals may exist that I’m not aware of.
The Sun In The Church
Cathedrals as Solar Observatories
J. L. Heilbron
Harvard University Press 1999 (NYT notable book of the year)
Heilbron is (at the time of publication) a professor of history at Berkeley and senior research fellow at Oxford
From back cover:
Between 1650 and 1750, four catholic churches were the best solar observatories in the world . . . the book illuminates the historical niches in which science and mathematics thrived – protected and financed by the church.
From New Yorker review (cited on back cover)
In this elegant work . . . Heilbron, upending common views of the Church’s relationship to science after it condemned Galileo, shows that Rome handsomely supported astronomical studies . . .
From NYT book review (cited on back cover)
. . . Heilbron shows that the Catholic Church served as perhaps the largest patron of sophisticated astronomical research throughout the controversies . . . (and) turns the table on tired stories of the war between science and religion.
Note: I didn’t study the book. I read it over a decade ago and strictly for pleasure. This means that I did not outline it or read it a second or third time and most likely habitually skimmed portions of it to fit my time availability. I like to read about architecture as a diversion. Galileo was merely a side note for me.
Looking further I avoided reviewing my journal articles since these are indexed for other purposes and for most people costly to acquire their own copy. So, I did a quick internet search to see what would pop up. Note: I’m not affirming that this stuff is unbiased or reliable – it does come off the net. But, it seems to match more reliable journal articles.
From a Catholic source (and therefore to be read with some circumspection)
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/the-galileo-affair.html
From the header of the article:
The Galileo affair is the one stock argument used to show that science and Catholic dogma are antagonistic. While Galileo's eventual condemnation was certainly unjust a close look at the facts puts to rout almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend.
Science Continued Alive and Well:
To support my comment that science was historically alive and healthy in Catholicism I found the following in a blog where someone posted the list. I noted the comment on Bacon since it supports a statement I made that systematic theology lead to the development of the scientific method and therefore science as we know it today. The date is well in advance of Galileo being on the scene. I think I have a journal article touching on the subject of systematic theology forming the basis for the scientific method but unless you really need it I’d rather not spend the time digging for it. To me, what happened hundreds of years ago is not pertinent to my subject matter.
From the blog mentioned above:
Catholic scientists in the past:
Nicolaus Copernicus
Gregor Mendel
Pierre Gassendi
Blaise Pascal
Marin Mersenne
Louis Pasteur
André-Marie Ampère
Antoine Lavoisier
Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1294) – Franciscan friar and early advocate of the scientific method
Alexis Carrel (1873–1944) – Awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for pioneering vascular suturing techniques
Albert Claude (1899–1983) – Awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his contributions to cytology
Christopher Clavius (1538–1612) – Jesuit who was the main architect of the Gregorian calendar
Carl Ferdinand Cori (1896–1984) – Shared the 1947 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with his wife for their discovery of the Cori cycle
Gerty Cori (1896–1957) – Biochemist who was the first American woman win a Nobel Prize in science (1947)[15]
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) – First person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology
Johann Baptist Cysat (c.1587–1657) – Jesuit priest known for his study of comets
Alberto Dou (1915-2009), Spanish Jesuit priest who was president of the Royal Society of Mathematics, member of the Royal Academy of Natural, Physical, and Exact Sciences, and one of the foremost mathematicians of his country.
Jean-Baptiste Dumas (1800–1884) – Chemist who established new values for the atomic mass of thirty elements
John Eccles (1903–1997) – Awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on the synapse[16]
Gerhard Ertl (1936– ) – German physicist who won the 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his studies of chemical processes on solid surfaces[17]
Stephan Endlicher (1804–1849) – Botanist who formulated a major system of plant classification
Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665) – Number theorist who contributed to the early development of calculus
Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) – Awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for his work in induced radioactivity
Léon Foucault (1819–186
– Invented the Foucault pendulum to measure the effect of the earth's rotation
Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655) – French astronomer and mathematician who studied the transit of Mercury and named the aurora borealis
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) – French naturalist, biologist and academic whose theories on evolution preceded those of Darwin
Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794) – Father of modern chemistry[27]
Craig Mello (1960– ) – American biologist who was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize, with Andrew Fire, for the discovery of RNA interference.[31]
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) – Father of genetics
Marin Mersenne (1588–164 – Father of acoustics and mathematician for whom Mersenne primes are named.
John von Neumann (1903–1957) – Hungarian-born American mathematician and polymath[37] who converted to Catholicism[38]
William of Ockham (c.1288–c.134 – Franciscan Friar known for Ockham's Razor
Vladimir Prelog (1906–199 – Croatian-Swiss organic chemist, winner of the 1975 Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854–1912) – French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer and philosopher of science
John Polanyi (1929– ) – Canadian chemist who won the 1986 Nobel Prize for his research in chemical kinetics.[45]
Michael Polanyi (1891–1976) – Hungarian polymath who made contributions to physical chemistry, economics, and philosophy.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), Jesuit priest, theologian and renowned paleontologist.
Evangelista Torricelli (1608–1647) – Inventor of the barometer
| 
