The Galileo controversy: the Church proposed a solution, but do astronomers have a solution?

[PseuTonym]

When Ptolemy’s system was not merely part of the history of astronomy, but was taught as astronomy itself in most schools that taught astronomy … and when Copernicus’ system was a relatively new proposal championed by Galileo … there was controversy.

How did astronomers and schools of astronomy deal with the problem?

Presumably, schools that continued to teach Ptolemy’s system solved the problem by saying, in effect, “These books are still important. Study Ptolemy’s system. We’re merely teaching Ptolemy’s system. Don’t ask us about astronomical phenomena, because nobody knows the answers. As for the actual planets out there and how they move, that’s not our business.”

 

[Crusaderbear]

As long as the science side said Copernicus’ system was just a simplified model, everything was fine. In fact, Copernicus understood this and presented his Heliocentic system as a simplified model.

It’s kind of funny, now with the idea of a infinite universe, you can say the earth is back in the center anyway!

Over time the need for adjustments to the Ptolemaic model made it completely untenable.

A big argument was everything needed to orbit the earth or t would get lost was proven faulty when Galileo observed the moons of Jupiter through his telescope, they went around jupiter just fine!

Remember, today the ptolemaic model is just a quaint footnote…

 

[Shredderbeam]

When Ptolemy’s system was not merely part of the history of astronomy, but was taught as astronomy itself in most schools that taught astronomy … and when Copernicus’ system was a relatively new proposal championed by Galileo … there was controversy.

How did astronomers and schools of astronomy deal with the problem?

Presumably, schools that continued to teach Ptolemy’s system solved the problem by saying, in effect, “These books are still important. Study Ptolemy’s system. We’re merely teaching Ptolemy’s system. Don’t ask us about astronomical phenomena, because nobody knows the answers. As for the actual planets out there and how they move, that’s not our business.”

csmonitor.com/Technology/2013/0219/Copernicus-and-the-Church-What-the-history-books-don-t-say

I have no idea how accurate this source is, but if it’s true, resistance to Copernicus was religiously-based, first by Protestants and later by Catholics. As for the astronomers who rejected Copernicus, it’s possible that they simply didn’t agree with his model.

I’m not sure that I understand what you’re saying about the astronomy schools.

 

[PseuTonym]

I’m not sure that I understand what you’re saying about the astronomy schools.

I presume that you will recognize the following. Please read it again, paying attention to the three items that I am now emphasizing:

When Ptolemy’s system was not merely part of the history of astronomy, but was taught as astronomy itself in most schools that taught astronomy … and when Copernicus’ system was a relatively new proposal championed by Galileo … there was controversy.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I presume that you will recognize the following. Please read it again, paying attention to the three items that I am now emphasizing:

When Ptolemy’s system was not merely part of the history of astronomy, but was taught as astronomy itself in most schools that taught astronomy … and when Copernicus’ system was a relatively new proposal championed by Galileo … there was controversy.

My mistake, that part I understand, I meant that I’m not sure why you think the astronomers of the day would still continue to teach Ptolemy, saying that his books were still important (implying that they’re important in spite of Copernicus changing things), or why the astronomers of the day would say that the movement of the planets wasn’t their business.

 

[PseuTonym]

I’m not sure that I understand what you’re saying about the astronomy schools.

When Ptolemy’s system was not merely part of the history of astronomy, but was taught as astronomy itself in most schools that taught astronomy … and when Copernicus’ system was a relatively new proposal championed by Galileo … there was controversy.

I have in mind a particular kind of most: something like 51%, rather than 99.9%.

People who weren’t ready to accept the new ideas could observe that the old ideas were being abandoned. They might have had doubts about the particulars of the new ideas, so they weren’t prepared to teach those new ideas. However, if they continued to teach astronomy, and continued to teach Ptolemy’s system as astronomy (and not merely teach it as part of the history of astronomy), then they were in effect refusing to accept astronomy as being about the universe beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. They were taking the truth about astronomy to be what the books say.

 

[Shredderbeam]

When Ptolemy’s system was not merely part of the history of astronomy, but was taught as astronomy itself in most schools that taught astronomy … and when Copernicus’ system was a relatively new proposal championed by Galileo … there was controversy.

I have in mind a particular kind of most: something like 51%, rather than 99.9%.

People who weren’t ready to accept the new ideas could observe that the old ideas were being abandoned. They might have had doubts about the particulars of the new ideas, so they weren’t prepared to teach those new ideas. However, if they continued to teach astronomy, and continued to teach Ptolemy’s system as astronomy (and not merely teach it as part of the history of astronomy), then they were in effect refusing to accept astronomy as being about the universe beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. They were taking the truth about astronomy to be what the books say.

Ah okay, I see what you’re saying. I suppose there is always resistance to new science, even in the scientific community. Brings to mind the old saying “science advances one funeral at a time”…

 

[PseuTonym]

I suppose there is always resistance to new science, even in the scientific community. Brings to mind the old saying “science advances one funeral at a time”…

That’s somewhat related to this thread, but it’s a combination of cynicism about individuals and confidence in the march of progress, and is a distraction from the idea that I was hoping to express.

Progress isn’t guaranteed. The basic technique for avoiding controversy is a retreat from reality. The attempt to understand reality is abandoned, and replaced with a goal of acquiring proficiency in dealing with an imaginary reality that is portrayed in books.