I loved this piece. Galileo is very eloquent, very intelligent, and very ANGRY. This guy feels wronged by Sarsi, someone for whom it is obvious he feels at least a little contempt. I enjoy the fact that, in face of disapproval from Sarsi, Galileo feels the need to write an essay about it. Hah! If only we all had that reaction...
This text was interesting because it built upon what we've previously learned and demonstrated the evolution of ideas. When Galileo referenced Aristotle and said that he and Guiducci did not agree with Aristotle's flaming-arrow theory (for lack of a better term), I was so happy. THIS is history! People come up with weird-ass ideas all the time. It's the proving or disproving of them, moving forward or moving on... THAT'S what keeps us from becoming a stagnant society.
I also especially enjoy Galileo's hauling and racing metaphor. "If reasoning were like hauling I should agree that several reasoners would be worth more than one, just as several horses can haul more sacks of grain than one can. But reasoning is like racing and not like hauling, and a single Arabian steed can outrun a hundred plowhorses." This, while TRUE, is so tactless of Galileo, so arrogant. But it just makes me more fond of him and the fact that he obviously has a very high opinion of his intellect.
As Galileo enters more into the realm of subjective reality, I lose him a bit. Yes, I can agree that colors and tastes and odors are not something essential to a subject, but descriptive tools applied to said subject by human beings. But... What this has to do with heat being caused by motion, or heat not existing at all, or assigning qualities to the subject or to an external object, I'm not sure.
Galileo makes a strong case for prefering direct experience (even experimentation), over authorities from the past. But in his argument with Sarsi, he picks an easy example -- the claim of authorities that lead balls melt and arrows ignite in flight. How would he determine the truth if he could not do experiments? How would he decide between competing authorities from the past, if it was difficult to test their claims? But Galileo's method is superior to Aristotle's in one respect: Aristotle was a keen observer, but Galileo knew that to observe well, a person must often have to experiment, and this Aristotle did not do.
Galileo's second argument, that many things we think we observe are simply caused by our own senses, and not by the objects we observe, may be true but is less convincing. How can he know that the shape of an object that he sees is a true property of the object, but the color that he sees is simply created by his own senses?
Galileo was very interesting to read tonight. I also loved his story about the man and music. Like many of you mentioned, he also felt very strongly about the experiential way to learning. His story was a very creative and made a very strong point. I don't think I really realized the importance of it until I read that story. In order to learn, one can't keep themself exiled from the world. People really have to keep their minds open and assume that there is more to learn than what they already know.
I really like and agree with Keaton's definition of authority.
Did anyone else enjoy the story that was at the first part of the reading? I sure did! It high-lighted the (sometimes destructive) results of curiosity and power combined, and also held human being's accountable for creating that outcome. It also outlined the dichotomy of man (as said in the reading) and nature as a result of having to coexist in the same environment.
I also liked seeing how Galileo phrased it in the reading. He stated "In that way you will be able to find out just how much force human authority has upon the facts of nature, which remains deaf and inexorable to our wishes" (Galileo The Assayer, 54). (That was a horrible set up to introduce that quote, BY THE WAY).
So, to better articulate an answer to the first question posed, I'd say that experience and "authority" both thoroughly inform ones life. The role they play would be one which enriches the experiential learning that has to take place in order for history to be created. But that experiential learning process, informed by both experience and authority, provide depth as well and give an individual a more solid basis of thought; one which will later be questioned and ultimately expand; I think that's what he was trying to get across in the first part of the reading. At least, that's what I got out of it.
Generally though, I LOVE<3 the way Galileo writes. It's so clear and [b]NOT convoluted. It's accessible.[/b]
Hey Sarah, I'm gonna disagree with the thing you said about
"THIS is history! People come up with weird-ass ideas all the time. It's the proving or disproving of them, moving forward or moving on""
I'm going to have to say that THIS is science. I think science is the act of analyzing, proving and disproving things so one can come to a conclusion. And use this conclusion to further things in the future.
This reading made me think so much of being in Galileo freshman year... I actually learned a lot from that play too. They (they being my mom) also made us watch a move on Galileo's discoveries whic was actually sort of interesting.
But the question asked: How do we know what we know?
We don't. The only things I've ever known for sure are things I studied myself, often things in science classes, labs and such, and things you observe on your own. Anything you read in a book could easily be all lies, we have no way of knowing if it's true or not. Much like the lead balls melting and arrows catching on fire thing, many people must have read what Aristotle said and took it to be truth because many of the other things he said were. But here Galileo says it's a ridiculous thought, so many of the people reading it would probably assume he is right. The only way for us to find out is to find archers and catapultists and simply observe what happens to the arrows and lead balls.
Grace. Thanks for that. I think you saying it's science and me saying it's history helped to drive home an idea that arose during the loop writing. I think I might have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between the two.
I mean, for both History and Science, you learn about the past, observe the present, and try and predict the future. They're both the study of how things work, although the things tend to range from society to physics. They both need to keep moving and changing and growing or else they wither and die.
I need to think about this more. Thanks for helping spark an idea!
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
