Ah Galileo is such a prick/badass! This was excellent, if only for the well articulated, and amazingly long affront he dishes Sarsi and Sarsi's compatriots.
But to the questions
Galileo remove's all doubt as to whether or not he values experimentation and personal experience. He does. While rephrased and restated multiple times throughout the excerpt, Galileo's testament of, "...It is news to me that any man would actually put the testimony of writers ahead of what experience shows him." (54)
This makes a lot of sense. Furthermore, in venerating the value of personal experience, it dismisses the idea that any kind of human majority in opinion holds more water than that which can be experienced first-hand. Galileo points out that "Authority," in theory and in regards to specific individuals, is irrelevant to truth. Despite the strongest wishes and intentions of human authority, Galileo confirms, "Nature remains deaf and inexorable to our wishes." (54)
Essentially, authority's role is to declare and be abided by regardless of truth. Experience's role is to derive truth through the five sense we've been bestowed with.
Does anyone think its profoundly odd, given what we've been reading the last few days, to hear how spiteful Galileo is towards Aristotle when the ideals of individual experience and Aristotle's own (partial) dismissal of then prevailing authority Plato seem to make the two men very similar?
Ok so to address the question about expirience: Galileo values experience to gain understanding; “I cannot but be astonished that Sarsi should persist in trying to prove by means of witnesses something that I may see for myself at any time by means of experiment.” (p.54) At the beginning of the text, he also explains how experience has taught him that more knowledge means more caution. This is another indication on his value of experience for understanding. Rachel I also found it really ironic that he was disdainful toward Aristotle, because the whole time I was reading I kept going back to what Aristotle theorized about experience before knowledge. Almost all of the things Galileo said about experience aligned exactly with that.
One quote stood out to me the most in the reading; “I say that the testimony of many has little more value that that of few, since the number of people who reason well in complicated matters is much smaller than that of those who reason badly” (p.54). He is saying that the intellect of the majority was weaker than of few, so each should be valued equally. This got me thinking about democracy. If we apply his thinking to the political system, people should not all have an equal voice. When I think about the quote alone, it makes sense to me, but then on a large scale it seems unethical. If he is right that the majority reasons poorly, than is democracy a flawed system? Is there even really an alternative that would follow this thinking?
It seems like Galileo has a much more modern idea about what science is. Aristotle valued the big picture more than observable facts. He created an enormous system where almost everything was accounted for, but there were some problems when looking at real world examples.
Aristotle made the assumption that the world had an ideal, and approached his investigations with the goal of determining the larger structure of the universe. His investigations were mostly consistent, but not enough for Galileo.
He made the assumption that he could determine the way the world works from simple observations and tests. This seems like a more modern approach to science than Aristotle used.
Does Galileo's point of view change our definition of Science? Which scientist was the more scientific?
I'm going to echo the previous posts on Galileo's emphasis on experience. But unlike Aristotle (more like Plato?) he emphasizes that our sensory experience are "insufficient to remedy our lack of understanding."
We are able to know what we know when we acknowledge that there is always more to experience-- the message of the beginning of the piece was that no matter how sure one is that there is nothing more to be known about a subject they are "once more plunged deeper into ignorance and bafflement than ever."
Travis and Rachel have already pointed out how snarky Galileo is towards Aristotle (and Sarsi)-- denying him as a be-all, end-all authority and judging those who devalue their own experience in favor of the authority of writers. If anything I think that's a valuable view for being a learner. You're never going to be anything more than a container for facts rattling around uselessly unless you take the truths that are presented to you (whether academic or authority-by-majority) with a grain of salt.
Galileo writes “Hence I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on are no more than mere names…But since we have imposed upon them special names, distinct from those of the other and real qualities previously mentioned, we wish to believe that they really exist as actually different from those.” Although a master of language and wit, Galileo understands how communication through language changes meaning. So…
Do you think language is a type of authority? How do you think language brings us closer or farther away from the truth?
I also think it’s important to keep in mind what “authority” Galileo is struggling with himself: the Church. To expand on Travis’s question, I wonder if part of the modernity of Galileo’s definition (or approach) to science has to do with monotheistic religious influence on society, and how science seems to butt heads on the small matter of truth. Maybe that’s a bit of a stretch.
I adored the story of the man discovering the many ways of creating music. The man’s pursuit of music parallels the pursuit of scientific discovery: beautiful, invisible, almost uncomprehendable. I associated the man’s difficulties in understanding the cicada with modern physicists’ struggle with string theory. Plus, the image of music makes science seem so beautiful and affecting. The story really hit me more than anything else we’ve read so far. Well done, Galileo.
In response to your question emily, I feel even looking at modern politics relates to the words of Galileo. With mass media and the dissemination of lies within politics shows the uselessness of a political system resting on the opinion of the majority. When the majority accepts information as truth from witnesses, it assumes an authority blind to experience or the pursuit of empirical knowledge. Thus it is all too easy for the "Sarsian" public to reject proof through someone's else experience as there will always remain a condition left unmet, an encompassing cop out if you will of such things as "we will never know" or "the government always lies why should we accept what you have attempted to prove." The egg may remain uncooked, the arrow yet to be lit aflame, but the blind authority of some writer, or in modern politics, the pundit still holds water in the unexperienced majority because of the "whatever else". I've hit a wall and am curious as to what others have to maybe expand on this thought... also an interesting (and sassy) quote on the subject of the unmet condition:
"This 'whatever else' is what beats me, and gives you a blessed harbor, a sanctuary completely secure." (p. 55)
Jenny's identification of a monotheistic influence and, more specifically, the actual presence of the Church and Karl's dissection of this idea of "whatever else/the unmet condition" seems to me to be two ways of dancing around the same bush.
In the same way "faith" trumps science in the respect that it needn't be validated by any proof, the "higher authority," or not just God but His so-called messengers and vessels (i.e. priests, the Pope, etc) are not bound by Galileo's foundation of logic and experimentation.
Furthermore, no matter where one falls (then and now) on the prevailing monotheistic spectrum (from fundamentalist to atheist) the culturally penetrating "authority" of logic-defying and faith driven religion is inescapable and therefore cannot help but hinder or else diminish the value of science--almost making the discipline superfluous. Much to Karl's point...why investigate when we could be all the more content relinquishing our OWN authority to--if not writers--a non-human entity?
I know this post doesn't express any especially new ideas, yet I still feel the need to point them out. Galileo's supreme frustration and derision is extremely well founded.
People have already pointed out that knowledge derived experience holds more value than knowledge by authority. This is because authority is boundless in its ability to justify any ridiculous, unfounded truth that it wants. For instance, " This "whatever else" is what beats me, and gives you a blessed harbor, a sanctuary completely secure. (273) As others have, again, said, we can only prove something to be definitively true (we can only know something) if we can use our senses to confirm it. As Galileo discussed with his reflections-of-the-sun-on-the-ocean example, however, human perception is limited by the subjectivity of different points of view. In this case, we cannot ever truly know where the sun is in relation to the ocean, because our sense of sight assigns it different locations depending on our distance/angle relative to the water.
I agree with those who have said that Aristotle's thinking was similar to that of Galileo in some respects, but I think that Galileo's biggest problem with Aristotle was that he created a system to explain things on a mass scale. Aristotle may have treated objects individually, but he used these individual analyses to validate his own systems of epistemology, cosmology, motion, etc. In this way, Aristotle molded the traits of all individuals to promote his own scientific authority.
While Aristotle's systems are logical, he only applied the rules of the five senses to investigations of individual objects, and so his contextual frameworks are subject to debate. The systems could be true, but Aristotle has experienced nothing to prove that they are true. Galileo, then, is simply rejecting Aristotle's authority.
It is interesting to note that Galileo does not really attempt to assess individuals in terms of archetypes or patterns. Maybe this is his scientific strength: by refusing to apply patterns for the sake of having conceived that they fit all of the data, Galileo avoids diluting the solidity of individual objects. Phenomena need not be organized according to a pattern or an underlying structure, but it is the temptation of scientists and historians alike to make causation seem cut and dry by applying them wherever they can be imagined to exist.
Lastly, to go off of what Jen was saying about the music story, I thought the part where the man accidentally kills the cicada was very thought-provoking.
"At last he lifed up the armor of its chest and there he saw some thin hard ligaments beneath; thinking the sound might come from their vibration, he decided to break them in order to silence it. But nothing happened until his needle drove too deep, and transfixing the creature he took away its life with its voice, so that he was still unable to determine whether the song had originated in those ligaments." (258)
Thus has the man attempted to push the boundaries of science, because he will not accept that his senses cannot confirm any definitive piece of knowledge or truth. In trying to exceed the limitations of his own human senses, the man ends up right back where he started, and destroys the source of the very information that he was trying to discover. This is a danger, I believe, that all scientists must confront: the danger of assuming that they have the capacity, given enough experimentation, to understand any phenomenon. My apologies for this being mad long.[/b]
The role of experience is a means to true understanding.
Authority is a source of knowledge, someone else’s understanding or ideas that you can “know” but never understand because understanding is inherently someone thing you have to come to yourself, it’s not something anyone can tell you. Authority is there to inform us, not to inform our understanding.
Sarsi has knowledge because he cites authorities and what he has been told, Galileo has understanding because he has gone out and discovered it for himself using his senses, therefore Galileo is the real scientist.
Travis, You’re curious whether or not Galileo changes our definition of science. Not to be that guy, but I would say that it doesn’t because WE don’t have a collective definition. I think if we asked everyone for their individual definitions of science right now almost all of them would be different.
I would say for me, Galileo doesn’t change my definition because he was still in pursuit of truth and understanding, his methodology was just more geared towards modern methodology.
Couldn’t agree more with Hannah’s point about pushing the boundaries of science
I agree with what a number of you have said regarding Galileo's arrogant rejection of Aristotle and Sarsi. Furthermore, it seems as if he not only disagrees with their ideas, but rejects their validity as important ideas to consider.
Much of his disregard of authority is definitely shaped by the prominent authority of the time (the church,) so his emphasis on only trusting oneself is partially a reflection of the time period, but vital nonetheless. As Karl quoted already: "the government always lies why should we accept what you have attempted to prove," but at the same time, it's really important to evaluate the information and ideas set forth by others, particularly the mainstream. In a way, this is the essence of history and Galileo isolates himself a bit too far. Also in response to the "sassy" quote, I feel as if this is a response to organized religion (a testament to the period/society he lived in) rather than an open-minded way of viewing the merits of God and having faith in the unknown.
As much as I'm criticizing Galileo, this piece really moved me and I genuinely believe he was a genius (and a bit of a cynic.) Their were true moments of beauty within his logic: "I think that if ears, tongues, and noses were removed, shapes and numbers and motions would remain, but not odors or tastes or sounds" (276-277.)
Keaton, you brought up something I ran into a lot today during class when we were doing our “loop writing”: the difference between my personal definition of what modern science should be vs. what science has been defined as throughout history. It’s undeniable that Galileo has a much more modern approach to science than Aristotle but I wonder if that makes him more of a true scientist? (I think it does!)
I also really appreciated his spitefulness towards those who believed that personal experience and social majority was more valid than scientific experimentation. I don’t know if it was ever argued that Aristotle or Galileo were really the “fathers of science”, but I think this would be an interesting question. On some level, I see Aristotle as Herodotus and Galileo as Thucydides. Aristotle and Herodotus where much more focused on the big picture and less about actual facts while Galileo and Thucydides are more evidence based. Could the argument be switched?
Ziz's remark about science existing differently from an individual perspective vs. a historical one made me think of an interesting idea. If Ziz is right (I think so), then science can exist within the context of history. I feel like history can also exist within the context of science, because there is a narrative to the way in which scientists have approached solving problems. That is, the way science is done has evolved according to the times and the scientists doing experiments. Thus, changes to the discipline of science can be called the history of science.
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: Galileo
Galileo, this reading takes me back to the days of freshman year. Ah. Anyway on to the main point. I thought it was very interesting that Galileo took the opposing view to Aristotle (i.e. believing that one must go beyond what one perceives in the immediate world) especially since they share the same traits of indivdualism and a no compromise attitude in their beliefs. I also really latched onto Jen's Point about language and how it can really help and hurt us in our way of life, and it certainly did a lot to complicate Galileo's life. Hate to be a follower but I am also gonna latch onto the ironic and interesting fact that Galileo detesed aristotle. Considering both men had similar drive I find this interesting and it just proves that just because people are similar it does not mean that they agree on everything.
A question for you: Galileo in the modern day… would he be locked away? Would he be praised?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
