Comments on: Galileo wasn't the first to the Moon http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/ Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:12:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: JupiterIsBig http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139241 JupiterIsBig Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:06:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139241 Not publishing definitely limits your historical significance. Take New Zealand's Richard Pearse versus the Wright Brothers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse "11 May 1903 - Pearse took off along the side of the Opihi River, turned left to fly over the 30' tall river-bank, then turned right to fly parallel to the middle of the river. After flying nearly 1,000 yards, his engine began to overheat and lost power, thus forcing a landing in the almost dry riverbed. " There may have been others .... Not publishing definitely limits your historical significance.
Take New Zealand’s Richard Pearse versus the Wright Brothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse

“11 May 1903 – Pearse took off along the side of the Opihi River, turned left to fly over the 30′ tall river-bank, then turned right to fly parallel to the middle of the river. After flying nearly 1,000 yards, his engine began to overheat and lost power, thus forcing a landing in the almost dry riverbed. ”
There may have been others ….

]]> By: Jim Craig http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139240 Jim Craig Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:43:46 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139240 Harriot's biggest error was one we often hear in academia today: publish or perish. His maps were largely unknown until recently. The better of the two above was found pressed between the pages of a book by another author. Harriot did a lot of amazing work in mathematics and optics but failed to let anyone outside his immediate circle of friends know about it. Consequently, today we celebrate Galileo's discovery of the four largest moons of Jupiter while James Harriot is largely forgotten by history (here in North Carolina we remember him because he was the ship scientist who traveled with Sir Walter Raleigh and one of the first to try to translate Native American languages). So while I'd never disparage Harriot's work, it didn't do him or the rest of the world very much good. At least Galileo, with his gift for self promotion, allowed the rest of us in on the secret. Harriot’s biggest error was one we often hear in academia today: publish or perish. His maps were largely unknown until recently. The better of the two above was found pressed between the pages of a book by another author.

Harriot did a lot of amazing work in mathematics and optics but failed to let anyone outside his immediate circle of friends know about it. Consequently, today we celebrate Galileo’s discovery of the four largest moons of Jupiter while James Harriot is largely forgotten by history (here in North Carolina we remember him because he was the ship scientist who traveled with Sir Walter Raleigh and one of the first to try to translate Native American languages).

So while I’d never disparage Harriot’s work, it didn’t do him or the rest of the world very much good. At least Galileo, with his gift for self promotion, allowed the rest of us in on the secret.

]]> By: The Galilean Revolution, 400 years later « ::transit:: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139239 The Galilean Revolution, 400 years later « ::transit:: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:21:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139239 [...] over the man. He didn’t invent the telescope, he wasn’t the first to point it at the sky, and he wasn’t even the first to publish his drawings. But he was a merciless self-promoter, and because of that we do remember him now (again, any [...] [...] over the man. He didn’t invent the telescope, he wasn’t the first to point it at the sky, and he wasn’t even the first to publish his drawings. But he was a merciless self-promoter, and because of that we do remember him now (again, any [...]

]]> By: He Charted the Moon Before Galileo, But You’ve Probably Never Heard of Him | Telescopes | DISCOVER Magazine « Jeremy’s Weblog http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139238 He Charted the Moon Before Galileo, But You’ve Probably Never Heard of Him | Telescopes | DISCOVER Magazine « Jeremy’s Weblog Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:06:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139238 [...] glass” toward the crescent moon. The crude lunar map he sketched from his observations dates him as the earliest person known to have used a telescope to study a celestial object, beating Galileo Galilei by [...] [...] glass” toward the crescent moon. The crude lunar map he sketched from his observations dates him as the earliest person known to have used a telescope to study a celestial object, beating Galileo Galilei by [...]

]]> By: Mike Noren http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139237 Mike Noren Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:52:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139237 It is beyond me why people are defending the church on this, and by slandering Galileo at that. It irks me because it seems the motivation for slandering Galileo simply is to defend the church's reputation. The "insults" Galileo flung at the pope were statements like these: "I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use." "I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations." "It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment." Those WERE highly controversial and insulting to the church of the day. Fightin' words. That doesn't make Galileo wrong or obnoxious for saying them. He was opinionated, principled, AND RIGHT. His "unpleasantness" was that he persisted in saying these things, even when told to shut up. He recanted only when the torturer showed him the various pliers, irons and hooks which would be used to torture him into submission. As for Harriots map: it was never published and has no historical importance. Not only that, but it's hardly even a doodle. At best it is a curiosity. Meanwhile, Galileo published an actual map, better than EITHER of Harriots, and changed western society forever. It annoys me to no end when people for ideological reasons belittle Galileos achievements and enormous importance. It is beyond me why people are defending the church on this, and by slandering Galileo at that. It irks me because it seems the motivation for slandering Galileo simply is to defend the church’s reputation.

The “insults” Galileo flung at the pope were statements like these:
“I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.”
“I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.”
“It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.”

Those WERE highly controversial and insulting to the church of the day. Fightin’ words. That doesn’t make Galileo wrong or obnoxious for saying them. He was opinionated, principled, AND RIGHT.

His “unpleasantness” was that he persisted in saying these things, even when told to shut up. He recanted only when the torturer showed him the various pliers, irons and hooks which would be used to torture him into submission.

As for Harriots map: it was never published and has no historical importance. Not only that, but it’s hardly even a doodle. At best it is a curiosity.

Meanwhile, Galileo published an actual map, better than EITHER of Harriots, and changed western society forever.

It annoys me to no end when people for ideological reasons belittle Galileos achievements and enormous importance.

]]> By: Thomas Harriot: First to Map the Moon? | Maps & Atlas http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139236 Thomas Harriot: First to Map the Moon? | Maps & Atlas Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:01:09 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139236 [...] observations were in December. See coverage from BBC News and the Guardian; see also Bad Astronomy and Space.com. Copies of Harriot’s maps are available through most of these links; go and [...] [...] observations were in December. See coverage from BBC News and the Guardian; see also Bad Astronomy and Space.com. Copies of Harriot’s maps are available through most of these links; go and [...]

]]> By: Paul S. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139235 Paul S. Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:18:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139235 Some philosophers were opposed to Galileo, others supported him. Remember that the physical sciences were actually considered a variety of philosophy up until the 19th century - that's why what we call scientists were called "natural philosophers" until the mid 19th century. Some philosophers were opposed to Galileo, others supported him. Remember that the physical sciences were actually considered a variety of philosophy up until the 19th century – that’s why what we call scientists were called “natural philosophers” until the mid 19th century.

]]> By: Pieter Kok http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139234 Pieter Kok Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:19:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139234 "It’s also a good illustration of the fact that philosophers were opponents of science from the very start and modern science was never a development or extension of philosophy." That is a generalization and an oversimplification. “It’s also a good illustration of the fact that philosophers were opponents of science from the very start and modern science was never a development or extension of philosophy.”

That is a generalization and an oversimplification.

]]> By: poke http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139233 poke Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:49:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139233 Galileo is primarily remembered for his contributions to physics and the scientific method, I think, while his contributions to astronomy are usually seen as extension and promotion. If you read Galileo's writings I think he sounds a lot like "one of us." For example, after he published his observations of the moon he spent a lot of time defending himself against philosophers who claimed he must be wrong because the moon is a perfect sphere (according to the Aristotelism of the time), and his arguments are almost word for word the same sort of arguments rationalists still use. (Note that we're also accused of being jerks.) The philosophers first claimed that Galileo's observations were simply wrong and spent their time trying to discredit his life and work. Later, after more people came to support Galileo's conclusions, they turned to arguing that the moon may have observable features but could still be surrounded in an imperceptible but perfectly spherical crystalline structure. Galileo argued that if it's imperceptible then it, too, could be covered in mountains and craters and then the philosophers would have to propose another sphere around that, and so on, ad infinitum. This is pretty much exactly how we argue with supernaturalists now (to no end). It's also a good illustration of the fact that philosophers were opponents of science from the very start and modern science was never a development or extension of philosophy. Galileo and other scientists came primarily from a practical background. Galileo's early work involved solving engineering problems and this led to his interest in mechanics, optics, etc. Galileo is primarily remembered for his contributions to physics and the scientific method, I think, while his contributions to astronomy are usually seen as extension and promotion. If you read Galileo’s writings I think he sounds a lot like “one of us.” For example, after he published his observations of the moon he spent a lot of time defending himself against philosophers who claimed he must be wrong because the moon is a perfect sphere (according to the Aristotelism of the time), and his arguments are almost word for word the same sort of arguments rationalists still use. (Note that we’re also accused of being jerks.) The philosophers first claimed that Galileo’s observations were simply wrong and spent their time trying to discredit his life and work. Later, after more people came to support Galileo’s conclusions, they turned to arguing that the moon may have observable features but could still be surrounded in an imperceptible but perfectly spherical crystalline structure. Galileo argued that if it’s imperceptible then it, too, could be covered in mountains and craters and then the philosophers would have to propose another sphere around that, and so on, ad infinitum. This is pretty much exactly how we argue with supernaturalists now (to no end). It’s also a good illustration of the fact that philosophers were opponents of science from the very start and modern science was never a development or extension of philosophy. Galileo and other scientists came primarily from a practical background. Galileo’s early work involved solving engineering problems and this led to his interest in mechanics, optics, etc.

]]> By: quasidog http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139232 quasidog Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:51:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/14/galileo-wasnt-the-first-to-the-moon/#comment-139232 You learn something new everyday. Top bit Phil. You learn something new everyday. Top bit Phil.

]]>