Transcript: Preston Manning Bridging the Gap Between Science & Politics | Jun 25, 2005

David Lindberg stands behind a lectern in front of an audience. The words "Perimeter Institute for theoretical physicists" appear on the front side of the lectern.
David is in his early seventies, with short straight blond hair and a white beard. He wears glasses, a grayish brown suit, beige shirt and brown tie.

He says I'M HERE TO
TELL YOU A STORY -- A STORY
THAT RELATES CLOSELY TO THE
HISTORICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN
SCIENCE AND RELIGION, WHICH IS
ONE OF MY SEVERAL SPECIALTIES.
I'VE CHOSEN TO TELL YOU THE
STORY OF GALILEO'S STRUGGLE
WITH THE INQUISITION OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH, ONE OF THE
MOST NOTORIOUS EPISODES IN THE
LONG HISTORY OF THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE
AND CHRISTIANITY, OFTEN TOLD,
AND ALMOST ALWAYS
MISUNDERSTOOD.
IT HAS BEEN USED TO ILLUSTRATE
AND REINFORCE THE DOMINANT
INTERPRETATION OF THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE
AND CHRISTIANITY, NAMELY THAT
CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE HAVE
ENGAGED IN CONTINUOUS WARFARE,
CHRISTIAN RELIGION REPEATEDLY
ERECTING OBSTACLES AGAINST
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS AND FREE
SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY.

A caption reads "David Lindberg. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The caption changes to "The Florentine Heretic? Galileo, the Church, and the Cosmos. Waterloo Collegiate Institute. January 5, 2005."

David says I WILL ARGUE
THAT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, THE
GALILEO STORY TEACHES A FAR
MORE COMPLICATED AND A FAR MORE
INTERESTING LESSON.
NOW IN THE STORY THAT I'M GOING
TO TELL YOU, I WILL BE NEITHER
ATTACKING NOR DEFENDING THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH.
MY FAILURE
TO ATTACK IT HAS SOMETIMES
OPENED ME TO THE ACCUSATION OF
SETTING OUT TO DEFEND MY MOTHER
CHURCH, BUT TO MAKE CERTAIN
THAT THERE ARE NO
MISUNDERSTANDINGS TODAY, LET ME
ANNOUNCE -- POINT OUT, THAT I
WAS RAISED IN THE BOSOM OF
AMERICAN PROTESTANT
FUNDAMENTALISM.
IN MY CHILDHOOD HOME CATHOLICS
HAD ABOUT THE SAME APPROVAL
RATING AS DEMOCRATS AND
COMMUNISTS.
[Audience Laughter]
AND SINCE WE'VE GOTTEN INTO MY
PERSONAL BIOGRAPHY NOW, I
SHOULD PERHAPS ADD THAT I AM
NOW A DEMOCRAT, BUT NEITHER A
CATHOLIC NOR A COMMUNIST.
[Audience Laughter]
BUT I HAVE MANY--
MANY OF MY VERY BEST FRIENDS
ARE CATHOLICS--
[Audience Laughter]
NOT TOO MANY OF THEM ARE
COMMUNISTS, BUT--
I NEED TO BEGIN WITH A FEW
WORDS ABOUT ANCIENT AND
MEDIEVAL COSMOLOGY, JUST TO SET
THE SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT.
ANCIENT COSMOLOGIES, ALMOST
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, WERE
GEOCENTRIC.
THAT IS, THEY WERE BUILT ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE EARTH IS A
SPHERICAL BODY FIXED,
MOTIONLESS IN THE CENTRE OF THE
UNIVERSE.
THE EARTH'S IN THE CENTRE,
EVERYTHING ELSE GOES AROUND IT
IN CIRCLES.
THAT WAS THE VIEW OF ARISTOTLE,
THE VIEW OF THE ANCIENT
ASTRONOMER PTOLEMY AND OF EVERY
MEDIEVAL SCHOLAR WHO ADDRESSED
THE QUESTION.
NOW YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT I
SLIPPED A CLAIM INTO THE
SENTENCE BEFORE LAST ABOUT THE
SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH,
CLAIMING THAT ALL MEDIEVAL
PEOPLE BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS
SPHERICAL.
THAT MAY COME AS A SURPRISE TO
YOU, BUT THE FACT IS THAT WE DO
NOT KNOW OF A SINGLE PERSON IN
MEDIEVAL LATIN EUROPE -- I MEAN
EDUCATED PERSON, WHO DID NOT
BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH WAS
SPHERICAL.
BUT THAT'S NOT OUR SUBJECT
TONIGHT, OUR SUBJECT IS
SOMETHING ELSE.
OUR SUBJECT IS GEOCENTRISM
VERSUS HELIOCENTRISM.
IN 1543, A CHURCH ADMINISTRATOR
NAMED NICOLAS COPERNICUS, FROM
NORTHERN POLAND, PUBLISHED A
BOOK IN WHICH HE DEFENDED THE
HELIOCENTRIC ALTERNATIVE.
THAT IS, SUN IN THE CENTRE,
PLANETS IN ORBIT AROUND THAT
SUN.
IN HIS BOOK, HE WORKED OUT
DETAILED MATHEMATICAL MODELS
THAT ENABLED HIM TO PREDICT
PLANETARY POSITIONS TO A VERY
HIGH DEGREE OF ACCURACY.
AND IF THAT'S TRUE, AND I
ASSURE YOU THAT IT IS, WHY DID
COPERNICUS' CONTEMPORARIES AND
IMMEDIATE SUCCESSORS, INCLUDING
ASTRONOMERS WHO THOROUGHLY
UNDERSTOOD THE SYSTEM WHO HAD
MASTERED HIS BOOK, WHY DID THEY
NOT ACCEPT THE HELIOCENTRIC
MODEL ON WHICH IT WAS BASED?
AND THE ANSWER REALLY IS QUITE
SIMPLE.
BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR
OF HELIOCENTRISM AT THAT TIME,
WAS WEAK.
WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN THE
EVIDENCE AVAILABLE -- I'M NOT
INTERESTED TONIGHT IN THE
EVIDENCE NOW AVAILABLE.
BUT WHAT WAS AVAILABLE IN 1543,
WHEN COPERNICUS PUBLISHED THAT
BOOK.
THERE WAS NO OBSERVATION, TAKEN
BY ITSELF, CAPABLE OF PROVING
THAT THE EARTH WAS A PLANET
MOVING THROUGH SPACE.
IN FACT OBSERVATION PROVED JUST
THE OPPOSITE.
I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT
THE EARTH, GO OUT AND LOOK AT
IT, AND IT WILL BE VERY, VERY
STATIONARY.
[Murmuring and laughing]
PREDICTIONS USING THE NEW
SYSTEM, COPERNICUS' PREDICTIONS
WERE NO MORE ACCURATE THAN WERE
THE PREDICTIONS OF THE OLD
GEOCENTRIC PTOLEMAIC MODEL.
IDENTICAL, BOTH OF THEM WERE
USING BASICALLY THE SAME
OBSERVATIONS AND THE SAME
MATHEMATICAL TECHNIQUES IN
THEIR MODELS.
THE ADVANTAGES OF THE-- OF
HELIOCENTRISM, SUCH AS THEY
WERE, FELL INTO THE ELUSIVE
REALM OF WHAT A PHYSICIST MIGHT
TODAY CALL THEORETICAL
ELEGANCE.
THAT IS, THE HELIOCENTRIC MODEL
WAS GEOMETRICALLY PRETTIER,
MORE UNIFORM -- THAT IS THE
MODELS OF ONE PLANET WAS MORE
LIKE THE MODEL OF THE OTHER
PLANETS THAN IN THE PTOLEMAIC
SYSTEM.
AND IT COULD TAKE FEWER AD HOC
FEATURES.
LET ME GIVE JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS, BUT I
HAVE TIME FOR JUST THE ONE.

He shows a slide that shows tree concentric circles with 7 equally distant dots on the on the ones two further ones. A line connects each dot to an arch on the upper part of the figure.

David says THERE'S THIS INTERESTING
PHENOMENON, IF YOU OBSERVE THE
STARS, AND THE PLANETS -- THE
PLANETS AGAINST THE BACKGROUND
OF THE STARS, OBSERVE A GIVEN
PLANET, BETWEEN ONE NIGHT AND
THE NEXT, JUST KEEP ON GOING,
YOU'LL FIND THAT THAT PLANET
CRAWLS SLOWLY IN A WEST TO EAST
DIRECTION AGAINST THE
BACKGROUND OF THE STARS.
BUT TIME
COMES WHEN THEY SLOW DOWN, ALL
OF THEM DO, THEY SLOW DOWN,
REVERSE THEMSELVES BRIEFLY,
SLOW DOWN AGAIN, AND THEN
RESUME THEIR WEST TO EAST
COURSE, SO THEY MAKE A LITTLE
LOOP.
AND THIS WAS
KNOWN TO ASTRONOMERS ALL THE
WAY BACK TO BABYLONIAN TIMES.
AND THE QUESTION IS WHY SHOULD
THE UNIVERSE BE THAT KIND OF
THING?
I MEAN WHY WOULD A CREATOR GOD
WHO IS OMNIPOTENT, AND PERHAPS
IS A GEOMETER TO BOOT, HAVE
THIS STRANGE PHENOMENON, THE
PLANETS MOVING, AS THEY MOVE
AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE
STARS, MAKE A LOOP?
COPERNICUS CAN ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
AND IF YOU'LL -- WHAT WE HAVE
HERE IS--
THIS IS THE EARTH, THE INSIDE
PLANET.
WE'RE GOING TO BE OBSERVING THE
PLANET MARS FROM VARIOUS
POSITIONS OF THE EARTH.
WHEN THE EARTH IS IN POSITION
ONE, MARS IN POSITION ONE,
THERE'S THE STELLAR SPHERE OUT
THERE, AND YOU CAN PLOT THE
LINE OF SIGHT OUT AGAINST THE
FIXED STARS.
AND NOTICE WHAT THE LINE OF
SIGHT -- WHAT HAPPENS.
WE'RE MOVING PROGRESSIVELY IN
THIS DIRECTION, ONE, TWO THREE,
BUT THEN WE GO BACK, FOUR FIVE,
AND THEN WE RESUME THIS
DIRECTION AGAIN.
IT'S SIMPLY AN OPTICAL ILLUSION
OWING TO THE FACT THAT THE
EARTH IS MOVING ON AN INSIDE
ORBIT AND IT IS MOVING FASTER
THAN MARS IS ON THIS ORBIT JUST
OUTSIDE IT.
SO, COPERNICUS CAN EXPLAIN
RETROGRADE MOTION, IT MAKES
SENSE NOW, YOU UNDERSTAND IT,
YOU SAY, AH-HA, THAT'S WHY WE
HAVE RETROGRADE MOTION.
THAT'S THE KIND OF ADVANTAGES
THE COPERNICAN MODEL HAD OVER
THE GEOCENTRIC MODEL, AND
THAT'S THE ONLY KIND OF
ADVANTAGE, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT
IT HAD.
AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS
THAT I CAN'T GO INTO -- IT
EXPLAINED WHY IN PTOLEMY'S
MODELS, THERE IS A CURIOUS
ANNUAL ELEMENT TO THE
INDIVIDUAL MODEL FOR EACH OF
THE PLANETS THAT PTOLEMY
COULDN'T EXPLAIN.
HE JUST SIMPLY SAID, THAT'S
WHAT THE MODEL REQUIRES, IN
ORDER TO MAKE ACCURATE
PREDICTIONS
COPERNICUS CAN EXPLAIN WHY THAT
IS THE CASE, HE ADDS
INTELLIGIBILITY, BRINGS
INTELLIGIBILITY TO THE
HELIOCENTRIC MODEL.
NOW AGAINST THESE ADVANTAGES,
THERE WERE SOME PRETTY SOLID
DISADVANTAGES.
FIRST OF ALL, HELIOCENTRISM
REPRESENTED A MASSIVE VIOLATION
OF COMMON SENSE.
AND COMMON SENSE IS NOT TO BE
UNDERESTIMATED.
I MEAN EVEN SCIENTISTS, YOU
HAVE COMMON SENSE, AND IT PLAYS
A ROLE IN DECISIONS THEY MAKE.
HELIOCENTRISM VIOLATED THE ONLY
COHERENT SYSTEM OF PHYSICS THEN
AVAILABLE -- ARISTOTLE'S
PHYSICS.
AND IT DOES NOT HELP TO ARGUE
THAT ARISTOTLE'S PHYSICS WAS
WRONG.
I MEAN IF WE'RE GOING TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON, WE
HAVE TO CONTEXTUALISE, WE HAVE
TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE
AVAILABLE TO THE HISTORICAL
ACTORS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND THE ONLY PHYSICS THEY HAD,
AND IT MADE A WHOLE LOT OF
SENSE, IN SO MANY WAYS,
COMPREHENSIVE, THAT THE
HELIOCENTRIC MODEL WAS SIMPLY
INCONSISTENT WITH IT, AND
THEREFORE REPRESENTED A MASSIVE
VIOLATION OF SCIENTIFIC COMMON
SENSE.
HURLING THE EARTH INTO THE
HEAVENS TOTALLY DESTROYED THE
DICHOTOMY BETWEEN HEAVENS AND
EARTH, WHICH HAD BEEN CENTRAL
TO EUROPEAN PEOPLE'S VIEW OF
THE WORLD FOR AT LEAST 2,000
YEARS.
I MEAN THERE'S EARTH DOWN HERE
AND THE HEAVENS UP THERE,
RIGHT?
I MEAN THE CELESTIAL-
TERRESTRIAL REGION.
EARTH AND WHAT'S ABOVE THE
EARTH.
BUT IF THE EARTH IS HURLED INTO
THE HEAVENS, THAT CONCEPTION IS
DESTROYED, AND CREATES SORT OF
A DOMINO EFFECT OF OTHER
CONCEPTIONS THAT ONE HAS TO
MODIFY.
FINALLY IF YOU REALLY YOU KNOW,
WANT-- AN EMPIRICAL TEST, IF
YOU WANT SOME OBSERVATION THAT
WILL SETTLE THE MATTER, WE
REALLY HAVE ONE, OR IT SEEMS TO
ME WE COME PRETTY CLOSE TO
HAVING ONE AT THE TIME.
EVERYTHING I'M TALKING ABOUT IS
ABOUT WHAT THINGS WERE
HAPPENING AT THE TIME.
THERE'S A SMALL MATTER OF
STELLAR PARALLAX.
THIS IS NOT THE WAY A MODERN
ASTRONOMER WOULD THINK OF
PARALLAX, BUT THIS IS THE WAY
THEY TALKED ABOUT PARALLAX.
HERE WE HAVE THE COPERNICAN
MODEL HELIOCENTRIC, SUN IN THE
CENTRE.

Another slide shows two concentric circles with a dot in the middle, representing the sun. Two dots on each concentric circle appear interrelated by lines.

David says TAKE THE EARTH IN TWO
POSITIONS, HERE IT IS, ONE
POSITION.
OBSERVING THE ANGLE BETWEEN
THE LINES OF SIGHT TO TWO
STARS.
STAR ONE AND STAR TWO.
WAIT SIX MONTHS.
THE EARTH IS NOW BACK HERE.
10 MILLION MILES FURTHER AWAY.
THAT'S COPERNICUS' FIGURE.
IT'S ABOUT 1/20th OF OUR VALUE.
BUT THIS DISTANCE IS 10 MILLION
MILES.
MEASURE THE ANGLES OF THE LINES
OF SIGHT TO THOSE SAME TWO
STARS, IT'S GOT TO BE SMALLER.
IT'S GOT TO BE SMALLER, BUT IT
ISN'T.
NO PARALLAX IS OBSERVED.
NO DIFFERENCE IN THE ANGLE
BETWEEN THOSE LINES OF SIGHT.
NOW THE ONLY WAY A
HELIOCENTRIST CAN DEAL WITH
THAT, IS TO ARGUE THAT THOSE
STARS ARE SO FAR AWAY IN THAT
DIRECTION, THAT 10 MILLION
MILES IS AN INFINITESIMAL BY
COMPARISON.
AND IT'S
ABSURD TO TALK -- CERTAINLY
IT'S ABSURD IN THE 16th
CENTURY, TO ARGUE THAT 10
MILLION MILES WAS
INFINITESIMAL?
I MEAN THAT'S A HELL OF A LOT
OF DISTANCE.
AND SO IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT THE UM...
THE INTELLECTUAL WORK THAT YOU
HAVE TO DO IF YOU'RE GOING TO
SAVE THIS HELIOCENTRIC MODEL
AGAINST THIS OBSERVATION IS SO
SERIOUS AS REALLY NOT TO BE A
SERIOUS OPTION AT THE TIME IN
THE 16th CENTURY.
SO THE DISADVANTAGES WERE
POWERFUL, IN MY VIEW, THE
ADVANTAGES WERE NOT DECISIVE,
THEY WERE POWERFUL -- THEY HAD
THEIR OWN POWER, BUT THEY WERE
NOT DECISIVE.
AND BEFORE THE END OF THE
CENTURY THERE WERE RESPECTABLE
ALTERNATIVES TO WHICH ONE MIGHT
BE RATIONALLY COMMITTED.
THERE'S THIS ASTRONOMER TYCHO
BRAHE, WHO PRESENTED A VIEW
THAT WAS...
THAT HAD THE EARTH IN THE
CENTRE, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE WAS
HELIOCENTRIC.
I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO IT,
THERE'S JUST NOT TIME.
AS A RESULT, HARDLY ANYONE TOOK
THE SYSTEM SERIOUSLY AS A
DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL REALITY
FOR HALF A CENTURY.
THE SYSTEM, THE HELIOCENTRIC
MODEL WAS NOT REJECTED BECAUSE
OF CLOSED MINDEDNESS, OR BLIND
CONSERVATISM, BUT ON THE BASIS
OF DEEPLY AND KNOWLEDGEABLY
HELD SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE.
THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT WERE
TOO POWERFUL.
THE FIRST SERIOUS CRITICS
PERCEIVED THE THEORETICAL
ELEGANCE OF THE HELIOCENTRIC
THEORY, THEY USED IT FOR
CALCULATIONS, BECAUSE IT WAS A
BIT EASIER TO CALCULATE WITH,
BUT THEY KNEW THAT IT COULD NOT
REPRESENT PHYSICAL REALITY.
THEORETICAL ELEGANCE ISN'T
ENOUGH.
A THEORY CAN BE THEORETICALLY
ELEGANT AND ALSO FALSE.
AS FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, A
KEY PLAYER IN OUR STORY, THERE
WAS HARDLY A STIR.
COPERNICUS HAD BEEN TALKED INTO
PUBLISHING HIS BOOK BY VARIOUS
FRIENDS, INCLUDING
ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICIALS.
HE DEDICATED IT TO THE POPE,
SOMETHING YOU DID NOT DO
WITHOUT THE POPE'S PERMISSION
AND, EXCEPT FOR ONE OR TWO
PEOPLE, NOBODY JUDGED HIS IDEAS
DANGEROUS.
FOOLISH, PERHAPS, BUT NO
THREAT.
NOW GALILEO -- THERE'S THE OLD
GEEZER HIMSELF.
GALILEO BECAME INVOLVED IN
HELIOCENTRISM 65 YEARS LATER.
THE YEAR WAS 1609.

A slide shows a picture of Galileo.

David says THE TELESCOPE HAD BEEN INVENTED
THE PREVIOUS SUMMER, BUT A
DUTCHMAN.
IT CIRCULATED AS A TOY -- YOU
COULD SPY ON YOUR NEIGHBOURS.
GALILEO LEARNED ABOUT IT FROM A
FRIEND, QUICKLY PRODUCED ONE
HIMSELF, INCREASED ITS
MAGNIFICATION ALL THE WAY UP TO
20 POWER.
THAT'S THE MOST POWERFUL
TELESCOPE HE EVER HAD, AND HE
TURNED IT TO THE HEAVENS.
IT WAS GALILEO WHO CONVERTED
THE TOY INTO A SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENT.
HE MADE SOME STARTLING
DISCOVERIES WITH HIS TELESCOPE.
NEW STARS, PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN.
MOUNTAINS, VALLEYS AND CRATERS
ON THE MOON BECAME CLEARLY
VISIBLE.
VENUS HAD PHASES, JUPITER HAD
SATELLITES, SATURN HAD A RING
AND THE SUN HAD SPOTS.
IN 1610, THE YEAR AFTER HE
LEARNED OF THE TELESCOPE,
GALILEO PUBLISHED A BOOK
ENTITLED, "THE STARRY
MESSENGER," IN WHICH HE
DESCRIBED HIS TELESCOPIC
OBSERVATIONS, AND USED THEM AS
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF
HELIOCENTRISM, WHICH RAISES THE
QUESTION, HOW DO THESE
ARGUMENTS PROVE THE TRUTH OF
HELIOCENTRISM?
WELL THEY DON'T.
THEY LEND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
ADDITIONAL PLAUSIBILITY TO THE
HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM, BUT THEY
CERTAINLY DON'T PROVE IT TO BE
TRUE.
LET ME SUPPLY A SINGLE EXAMPLE.
ONE OF THE MAJOR OBJECTIONS, I
THINK THE MAJOR OBJECTION,
CERTAINLY WITH THE MOST
EMOTIONAL CONTENT ANYWAY,
OBJECTION TO THE HELIOCENTRIC
MODEL, WAS ITS CLAIM THAT A
GREAT HEAVY SPHERE LIKE THE
EARTH IS SAILING THROUGH SPACE
AT SOME INCREDIBLE RATE OF
SPEED.
I MEAN THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO
FLY.
[Audience Laughter]
I GUESS THAT'S NOT A GOOD
METAPHOR HERE.
I MEAN THE EARTH AFTER ALL, WAS
CONSIDERED THE MOST STABLE
THING THERE IS.
THE ONE THING YOU CAN COUNT ON
IS THAT THE EARTH IS THERE,
ROCK SOLID, A STABLE ELEMENT IN
THE UNIVERSE.
BUT GALILEO'S LUNAR
OBSERVATIONS MADE IT POSSIBLE
TO ARGUE THAT THE MOON AND
EARTH ARE TOPOGRAPHICALLY
SIMILAR, THEY BOTH HAVE
MOUNTAINS AND CRATERS AND
VALLEYS, AND THEREFORE MUST BE
MADE OF THE SAME STUFF.
AND THE MOON IS SAILING THROUGH
THE HEAVENS, ON EVERYBODY'S
COSMOLOGY.
I MEAN EVERY COSMOLOGICAL
SYSTEM HAS THE MOON UP IN THE
HEAVENS, AND SO GALILEO IS ABLE
TO ARGUE, WELL IF THE MOON CAN
DO IT, AND THE EARTH IS SIMILAR
TO THE MOON, THEN WHY NOT THE
EARTH?
IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T PROVE THAT
THE EARTH IS OUT THERE IN
SPACE, BUT IT UNDERCUTS TO SOME
EXTENT, ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS
TO THE HELIOCENTRIC MODEL.
SO THE POINT
IS THAT GALILEO HAD ARGUMENTS
RATHER THAN PROOF, AND IN
MARSHALLING THESE ARGUMENTS, HE
DEPLOYED HIS REMARKABLE
RHETORICAL GIFTS, WHICH IS TO
SAY THAT HIS ARGUMENTS WERE AS
NOTABLE FOR THEIR EMOTIONAL
POWER AS FOR THEIR LOGICAL
POWER.
GALILEO'S
AIM WAS NOT MERELY TO PRODUCE
CREATE CAREFULLY REASONED
SCHOLARLY PAPERS OF THE SORT
THAT THE PHYSICISTS AT THE
PERIMETER INSTITUTE WRITE.
HIS GOAL WAS TO WIN THE DEBATE
IN THE PUBLIC ARENA.
IT'S RATHER LIKE, RATHER LIKE
THE MODERN LEGAL SYSTEM, THE
AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM AT LEAST,
WHERE THE GOAL OF THE DEFENCE
ATTORNEY IS NOT TO BRING OUT
THE TRUTH, BUT TO WIN, TO WIN
THE ARGUMENT, WHATEVER IT
TAKES.
THIS IS WHAT THE RHETORICAL
TRADITION IN GALILEO'S DAY
TAUGHT ONE TO DO, AND THIS IS
WHAT GALILEO WAS TRYING TO DO.
TO WIN THE ARGUMENT BY WHATEVER
MEANS WERE AVAILABLE TO HIM.
SO THIS WAS PART SCHOLARLY
ARGUMENT, PART PROPAGANDA
CAMPAIGN, AND TO BE UH...
TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT, PART QUEST
FOR PATRONAGE.
I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT
PATRONAGE ANY FURTHER, BUT THIS
DID WIN THE PATRONAGE BATTLE
FOR GALILEO.
THE QUESTION, THE MORE
IMPORTANT QUESTION IS, WHY DID
THIS GET GALILEO INTO TROUBLE,
WHEREAS 65 YEARS EARLIER,
HELIOCENTRISM HAD CAUSED NO
STIR?
AND THE ANSWER IS THAT IN THAT
65 YEARS, THE CLIMATE OF
OPINION WITHIN THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH HAD CHANGED.
AND WHY HAD THE CLIMATE OF
OPINION WITHIN THE CHURCH
CHANGED?
PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE
PROTESTANT REFORMATION.
SYMBOLIC DATE, 1517, WHEN
MARTIN LUTHER NAILED THE 95
THESES TO THE WITTENBERG CHURCH
DOOR.
THIS PROTESTANT REFORMATION
SPLIT EUROPE ROUGHLY INTO
PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC HALVES.
AND NATURALLY THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH REACTED TO THIS, HAVING
JUST LOST HALF OF EUROPE AS A
RESULT OF WHAT EASILY COULD BE
CONSTRUED AS RELAXED OR LIBERAL
POLICIES, THE CHURCH TURNED
CONSERVATIVE AND TRADITIONAL.
IT BECAME A GREAT DEAL MORE
WORRIED ABOUT CONTROVERSY AND
DISSENT, AND IT TOOK A MUCH
STRICTER VIEW OF BIBLICAL
INTERPRETATION.
RE-EMPHASISING THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE LITERAL SENSE, WHICH WAS
NOT OF NEARLY SUCH GREAT
IMPORTANCE DURING THE MIDDLE
AGES, RE-EMPHASISING THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE LITERAL
SENSE, AND REFUSING TO EMBRACE
ANY INTERPRETATION NOT
SANCTIONED BY CHURCH TRADITION
OR THE CHURCH FATHERS.
AND IN PARTICULAR, THE LEADING
THEOLOGIANS AFFIRMED
EMPHATICALLY, THAT THEY WOULD
BE THE INTERPRETERS OF THE
BIBLE.
THEY NEEDED NO HELP FROM
LAYMEN.
SO IT WAS IN THIS NEW
AUTHORITARIAN CLIMATE THAT
GALILEO PUBLISHED THIS LITTLE
BOOK, "THE STARRY MESSENGER,"
IN 1610.
THE NEXT YEAR, 1611, HE MADE A
TRIUMPHANT VISIT TO ROME, WHERE
HE DISPLAYED HIS TELESCOPE AND
HIS TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS.
HE WAS TREATED LIKE A
CELEBRITY, ACCLAIMED BY VARIOUS
DIGNITARIES, INCLUDING THE
JESUITS.
BY THIS TIME THE JESUITS WERE
THE EDUCATORS OF CATHOLIC
EUROPE, WITH A STRING OF JESUIT
UNIVERSITIES ACROSS THE
EUROPEAN LANDSCAPE.
GALILEO WENT TO THE COLLEGIO
ROMANO, THE FLAGSHIP UNIVERSITY
OF THAT SYSTEM.
THE PROFESSOR OF ASTRONOMY
CONFIRMED HIS TELESCOPIC
OBSERVATIONS.
THE MYTH YOU PROBABLY HAVE ALL
HEARD ABOUT THE LEADERS OF THE
CHURCH REFUSING TO EVEN LOOK
THROUGH THE TELESCOPE IS PURE
MYTHOLOGY.
GALILEO'S WORKSHOP COULD NOT
TURN OUT TELESCOPES FAST ENOUGH
TO SATISFY THE DEMAND EMANATING
FROM THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS.
EVERY ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE
WANTED ONE FOR THEMSELVES.
AND IN THIS 1611 VISIT TO ROME,
GALILEO WAS REALLY TREATED AS A
CELEBRITY IN HIS OBSERVATIONS
CONFIRMED, BUT NOT HIS
INTERPRETATION OF THEM.
THAT WAS QUITE A DIFFERENT
MATTER.
BACK HOME, A BIT OF LOCAL
OPPOSITION WAS BEGINNING TO
SURFACE.
IT CAME TO BE SEEN, ESPECIALLY
BY A GROUP OF QUITE
CONSERVATIVE DOMINICANS, THAT
HELIOCENTRISM POSED A THREAT TO
THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE,
AND BECAME A CONCERN AROUND
WHICH OPPOSITION TO GALILEO
AMONG CONSERVATIVE FLORENTINE
DOMINICANS COULD COALESCE.
SO THERE'S A BIT OF TROUBLE.
IT'S LOCAL AND GALILEO SORT OF
BECOMES GRADUALLY AWARE OF IT,
AND IT'S NOT COMFORTABLE.
THREE YEARS LATER, GALILEO
PUBLISHED ANOTHER WORK, WHICH
HE ENTITLED "LETTERS ON SUN
SPOTS," WHICH DEALT SOME MORE
TO THE TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH
HELIOCENTRISM.
GALILEO...
AND THAT LED TO EVEN ADDITIONAL
ATTACKS.
THERE'S MORE WORRY AMONG
CONSERVATIVES IN FLORENCE ABOUT
THIS GALILEO CHARACTER.
GALILEO, WHO
WAS ALWAYS COCKY, THOUGHT HE
WAS GOD'S GIFT TO THE UNIVERSE,
DEFENDED HIMSELF IN AN OPEN
LETTER TO HIS FRIEND, BENEDETTO
CASTELLI, WHICH WAS SOON
CIRCULATING IN MULTIPLE COPIES.
AN OPEN LETTER WAS HAND
WRITTEN, MEANT TO BE COPIED BY
HAND, AND CIRCULATED AMONG THE
INTELLIGENTSIA OF FLORENCE.
IN THAT LETTER HE POINTED OUT
THAT NATURE AND THE BIBLE ARE
COMPLEMENTARY PARTS OF GOD'S
REVELATION AND THEREFORE CANNOT
CONFLICT.
HE ARGUED THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT
WRITTEN IN SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE
AND IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED
LITERALLY WHEN IT DEALS WITH
WHAT APPEAR TO BE SCIENTIFIC
MATTERS.
INDEED HE WENT ON TO ARGUE THAT
THE SCIENTIST CAN TEACH THE
THEOLOGIAN HOW TO INTERPRET THE
BIBLE WHERE IT TOUCHES ON
SCIENTIFIC MATTERS, AND HERE
GALILEO IS BEGINNING TO WALK ON
DANGEROUS TURF.
BECAUSE OUT OF THE COUNCIL OF
TRENT CAME THE NOTION THAT
THEOLOGIANS DON'T NEED ANY HELP
FROM LAYMEN LIKE GALILEO.
WELL INSTEAD OF QUIETING THE
CONTROVERSY, GALILEO'S LETTER
STIRRED IT UP.
THE BISHOP OF FIESOLE, WHICH IS
A LITTLE HILL TOWN JUST OUTSIDE
FLORENCE, THE BISHOP OF
FIESOLE, CALLED FOR-- HE
PREACHED A SERMON IN WHICH HE
CALLED FOR THE JAILING OF
COPERNICUS.
I REMIND YOU THAT COPERNICUS
HAD BEEN DEAD FOR 70 YEARS.
[Audience Laughter]
BUT THIS BISHOP DIDN'T KNOW
THAT.
HE ONLY KNEW THAT THIS
COPERNICUS WAS A MENACE AND
SHOULD BE KEPT OFF THE STREETS.
[Audience Laughter]
ABOUT THE SAME TIME A DOMINICAN
NAMED NICOLO LORINI SECURED A
COPY OF THIS OPEN LETTER THAT
HAD BEEN CIRCULATING, AND SENT
IT TO A FRIEND OF HIS IN ROME,
WHO WAS A MEMBER OF THE
INQUISITION -- SENT IT WITH A
COVER LETTER IN WHICH HE
SUGGESTED THAT THIS GALILEO WAS
A TROUBLE MAKER AND THAT HE
DESERVED SOME WATCHING.
WELL GALILEO DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT
THAT YET, HE'D FIND OUT SOON
ENOUGH, BUT HE DOES FORESEE
TROUBLE AND DECIDES THAT HE
MUST GO TO ROME ONCE AGAIN TO
MAKE HIS CASE IN PERSON.
GALILEO IS CONVINCED THAT HE
HAS GOOD ARGUMENTS AND HE IS
NAIVE -- POLITICALLY NAIVE
ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT
ARGUMENTS WERE WHAT THIS
CONTEST WAS ABOUT.
GALILEO WAS POLITICALLY NAIVE
ON SEVERAL VERY UNFORTUNATE
OCCASIONS.
GALILEO HAD FOND MEMORIES OF
THAT 1611 VISIT TO ROME WHEN HE
WAS TREATED AS A CELEBRITY, SO
HE'S NOT AT ALL HESITANT TO GO
AGAIN, HE'D LIKE SOME MORE OF
THAT.
IN ROME, HE CUT QUITE A FIGURE.
HE DID THE COCKTAIL PARTY
CIRCUIT, HE ARGUED HIS CASE
WITH PASSION WHEREVER
OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF.
HE WAS CLEVER, HE WAS ARROGANT,
HE WAS IMPETUOUS, AND HE SEEMS,
ON BALANCE, TO HAVE BEEN MORE
EFFECTIVE IN STIRRING UP
TROUBLE AND MAKING ENEMIES,
THAN AS HE HAD HOPED, LAYING
THE MATTER TO REST.
ONE OF HIS FAVOURITE
TECHNIQUES, AND WE DO HAVE EYE
WITNESS TESTIMONY TO THIS FROM
THE FLORENTINE AMBASSADOR,
FLORENCE AND THE VATICAN STATES
WERE SEPARATE COUNTRIES, AND SO
FLORENCE HAD AN AMBASSADOR IN
ROME, WHO WAS GIVEN THE JOB OF
KIND OF TAILING GALILEO AND
KEEPING WATCH OVER HIM, AND
HE'S SCARED TO DEATH ABOUT
WHAT'S HAPPENING.
HE POINTS OUT THAT ONE OF
GALILEO'S FAVOURITE TECHNIQUES
IS TO ENGAGE, AT ONE OF THESE
SOIREES, TO ENGAGE SOME
POWERFUL FIGURE, MAYBE A
POWERFUL MEMBER OF THE COLLEGE
OF CARDINALS, IN A DEBATE, LEAD
HIM ON, AND THEN SPRING A TRAP
AND MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE A FOOL
IN FRONT OF HIS FRIENDS.
THE FRIENDS LOVED IT, OF
COURSE, BUT THE CARDINAL, THE
PERSON WHOSE OPINION MATTERED,
HAD BECOME AN ENEMY.
SO GALILEO GOT LOTS OF
ATTENTION, AND HE CERTAINLY DID
HAVE HIS FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS

- NOT A HUGE BAND OF THEM, BUT
YOU KNOW, NOT...
THERE WERE QUITE A FEW.
BUT HE DID NOT CONVINCE THE
PEOPLE WHO COUNTED.
INDEED, IT WAS DURING THIS
VISIT TO ROME BY GALILEO -- THE
YEAR WAS NOW 1616, HE WAS THERE
FOR SEVERAL MONTHS -- THE
INQUISITION FINALLY ACTING ON
THAT LETTER THAT LORINI HAD
SENT, THE OPEN LETTER BY
GALILEO, WITH THE COVER LETTER
BY LORINI.
THE INQUISITION FINALLY ACTED
ON THOSE CHARGES, CENSURING TWO
PROPOSITIONS THAT EMBODIED THE
ESSENTIALS OF THE HELIOCENTRIC
SYSTEM, AND THIS REALLY IS THE
CRUCIAL MOMENT IN THE STORY.
THE INQUISITION IS CONCERNED
ABOUT TWO PROPOSITIONS THAT THE
SUN IS AT REST, AND THAT THE
EARTH IS IN ORBIT AROUND IT.
THOSE ARE HELIOCENTRIC
PROPOSITIONS.
THOSE WERE DECLARED FOOLISH,
ABSURD AND HERETICAL, AND
COPERNICUS' BOOK WAS PUT ON THE
INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS,
UNTIL CORRECTED.
NOW THIS WAS THE CRITICAL
TURNING POINT IN GALILEO'S
HELIOCENTRIC CAMPAIGN, AND WE
MUST PAUSE AND CONSIDER WHAT
LAY BEHIND THIS DECLARATION.
I MEAN WHY DID THE INQUISITION
DECIDE AS IT DID?
AND IF WE'RE GOING TO
UNDERSTAND THAT, WE NEED TO
STAND IN THE SHOES OF THOSE WHO
FORMULATED THE DECISION INSOFAR
AS WE CAN.
THE ISSUE WAS, WHO GETS TO
DECIDE CLAIMS TO COSMOLOGICAL
TRUTH.
WERE COSMOLOGICAL TRUTH CLAIMS
DEPENDENT ON THE HUMAN
CAPACITIES OF REASON AND SENSE
EXPERIENCE, OR ON BIBLICAL
REVELATION, ON SCIENCE OR ON
THEOLOGY?
REASON, OR SO GALILEO CLAIMED,
TAUGHT THE MOBILITY OF THE
EARTH, BUT REVELATION, SAID THE
LEADING THEOLOGIANS OF THE
CHURCH, CLEARLY TAUGHT ITS
FIXITY.
AND LET ME GIVE YOU UM...
THREE OF THE PASSAGES.
THERE ARE ABOUT HALF A DOZEN
THAT ENTERED IN.

He reads a slide with the passages.

He says JOSHUA 10, VERSES 12 AND 13.
"THEN SPOKE JOSHUA TO THE LORD
IN THE DAY WHEN THE LORD GAVE
THE AMORITES OVER TO THE MEN OF
ISRAEL, AND HE SAID IN THE
SIGHT OF ISRAEL, SUN, STAND
THOU STILL AT GIBEON, AND THOU
MOON IN THE VALLEY OF AJALON,
AND THE SUN STOOD STILL, AND
THE MOON STAYED, UNTIL THE
NATION TOOK VENGEANCE ON THEIR
ENEMIES."
THE ISRAELITES ARE -- YOU KNOW,
NEED TO FINISH OFF THE
AMORITES, THEY NEED MORE TIME,
AND SO WHAT DOES JOSHUA
COMMAND?
HE DOES NOT COMMAND THE EARTH
TO STOP ROTATING ON ITS AXIS,
OR STOP REVOLVING ABOUT THE
SUN, HE COMMANDS THE SUN TO
STAND STILL.
IT'S APPARENT THAT THE SUN IS
OTHERWISE THE THING THAT IS
MOVING, THIS IS CLEARLY A
GEOCENTRIC PASSAGE.
ECCLESIASTES 1-5, "THE SUN
RISES AND SETS, AND HASTENS TO
THE PLACE OF ITS RISING."
WHAT COULD BE MORE HELIOCENTRIC
THAN THAT?
IT'S THE SUN THAT DOES THE
MOVING.
AND PSALM 104-5, "THOU DIDST
SET THE EARTH ON ITS FOUNDATION
SO THAT IT SHOULD NEVER BE
SHAKEN.
AND THAT WORD, "SHAKEN," WAS...
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT WAS
INFLATED QUITE A BIT, I THINK,
BY VARIOUS PEOPLE, AND IT WAS
PART OF THE ARGUMENT AS WELL.
ADD TO THESE PASSAGES A FURTHER
PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATION.
AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, SO IF
YOU'RE THINKING THIS WOULD BE A
GOOD TIME TO NOD OFF, IT
WOULDN'T.
[Audience Laughter]
STAY AWAKE HERE.
MANY ASTRONOMERS, PROBABLY THE
MAJORITY AT THE TIME MAINTAINED
THAT ASTRONOMICAL MODELS WERE
DESIGNED MERELY TO PREDICT
PLANETARY OBSERVATIONS, WITH NO
PRETENCE OF DESCRIBING PHYSICAL
REALITY.
THAT'S THE DOMINANT VIEW.
IT'S JUST,
THESE ARE MATHEMATICAL MODELS
THAT MAKE ACCURATE PREDICTIONS,
SO WE'LL USE THEM, BUT WE KNOW
THE UNIVERSE IS NOT, IT DOES
NOT REPRESENT THE STRUCTURE OF
THE UNIVERSE.
WE CAN'T GET UP INTO THE--
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT GOD COULD
HAVE -- IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS,
PRODUCED THESE OBSERVATIONS.
THERE HAD BEEN MANY DIFFERENT
MECHANISMS, AND WE DON'T KNOW
WHICH MECHANISM GOD CHOSE.
WE CAN'T GET UP THERE TO SEE
AND FIND OUT WHAT HE USED, AND
THEREFORE YOU KNOW, THIS JUST
DOES NOT DEAL WITH PHYSICAL
REALITY.
SO PUT
YOURSELF IN THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL
SHOES OF THE LEADING
THEOLOGIANS.
ON THE ONE HAND WE HAVE WHAT
SEEMS TO BE CLEAR POLITICAL...
BIBLICAL STATEMENTS TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE SUN MOVES WHILE
THE EARTH IS FIXED.
AGAINST IT, WHAT DO WE HAVE?
SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
NO, SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS AND
ARGUMENTS, ASSERTED WITHIN A
CLIMATE THAT CASTS DOUBT THE
ABILITY OF THE HUMAN INTELLECT
EVER TO DISCOVER THE TRUE
COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEM.
SO IT WAS NOT, AS THE CHURCH
LEADERSHIP SAW IT, AND IT'S
THEIR VIEW WE'RE TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND HERE.
IT'S THEIR DECISION, OF THE
INQUISITION THAT WE'RE TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND.
AS THEY SAW IT, IT WAS NOT
BIBLICAL CERTAINTIES AGAINST
SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTIES, BUT
BIBLICAL CERTAINTIES AGAINST
IMPROBABLY SCIENTIFIC
CONJECTURES.
FROM THE CHURCH'S PERSPECTIVE,
NO CHOICE WOULD HAVE BEEN
EASIER.
NOW THE CHURCH HAS BEEN OFTEN
VILIFIED FOR NOT MODIFYING ITS
INTERPRETATION OF THESE
PASSAGES IN ORDER TO GET INTO
STEP WITH THE LATEST SCIENTIFIC
OPINION.
LET ME MAKE CLEAR THEREFORE,
THAT THE CHURCH WAS IN STEP
WITH THE LATEST SCIENTIFIC
OPINION.
THE OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC
MAJORITY WAS STILL GEOCENTRIC.
IF THE POPE IN A FIT OF
DEMOCRATIC FERVOUR HAD DECIDED
TO HAVE A SECRET BALLOT AMONG
ALL EUROPEAN ASTRONOMERS ABOUT

- YOU KNOW, BETWEEN
HELIOCENTRISM AND GEOCENTRISM,
HELIOCENTRISM WOULD HAVE LOST
BY A LANDSLIDE.
SO HOW INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH WOULD VIOLATE
ITS OWN, OR WOULD OVERTHROW ITS
OWN TRADITIONAL PRINCIPLES OF
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, AND
MAJORITY SCIENTIFIC OPINION,
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
SCIENTIFIC OPINION, IN ORDER TO
JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON OF THIS
FLORENTINE -- THIS ARROGANT
FLORENTINE NUT?
SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU AND I
HAD BEEN THERE, WE WOULD HAVE
VOTED THE SAME WAY.
I MEAN DO YOU WANT TO GO WITH
THE SCIENTIFIC MAJORITY OR NOT?
WELL OKAY, SO THAT'S THE--
SO MUCH FOR THE JUDGEMENT OF
THE INQUISITION, LET US RETURN
BRIEFLY TO THE COURSE OF
EVENTS.
AND LET ME SEE HOW MY TIME IS
GOING.
YEAH, I THINK WE CAN MAKE IT
HERE.
COPERNICANISM WAS CENSURED THEN
IN 1616.
IT WAS DECLARED HERESY.
THIS IS THE CRUCIAL MOMENT,
1616, IT WAS DECLARED FALSE AND
HERETICAL.
GALILEO WAS IN NO DANGER.
HE WAS NOT DECLARED A HERETIC,
HE WAS SIMPLY CALLED IN BY THE
PAPAL CHIEF OF STAFF AND
INFORMED THAT HELIOCENTRISM HAD
BEEN DECLARED FALSE AND
HERETICAL AND WAS NOT TO BE
HELD OR DEFENDED.
GALILEO SAID OKAY, HE
ACQUIESCED.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE REALISED
HE HAD NO CHOICE.
AND IT WAS A FORMALITY AND SO
THAT WAS THE END OF IT AS FAR
AS HE WAS CONCERNED.
WHAT WAS IMPORTANT IS THAT HIS
HELIOCENTRIC CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN
DERAILED, BUT HIS PERSONAL
SAFETY WAS NOT AT ISSUE.
THREE YEARS LATER, AND GALILEO
GOES BACK TO FLORENCE, AND HE'S
GOT OTHER IRONS IN THE FIRE AND
HE'S DOING LOTS OF OTHER
THINGS.
THREE YEARS LATER, EUROPE WAS
VISITED BY A SERIES OF HIGHLY
VISIBLE COMETS, ONE AFTER THE
OTHER.
THREE -- THREE IN A ROW, I
DON'T KNOW WHAT INTERVALS, BUT
PRETTY CLOSE.
EVERYBODY WAS AWARE OF THEM.
GALILEO BECAME INVOLVED IN A
BITTER CONTROVERSY WITH A
LEADING JESUIT SCIENTIST
REGARDING THE NATURE OF COMETS.
WHAT ARE COMETS?
THAT CONTROVERSY CULMINATED IN
A VICIOUS ATTACK BY GALILEO ON
THIS JESUIT ASTRONOMER, WHAT
ONE HISTORIAN HAS CALLED THE
MOST VICIOUS ATTACK IN THE
ENTIRE HISTORY OF SCIENCE.
HE ACCUSED THIS JESUIT
ASTRONOMER OF RUDE BEHAVIOUR,
FRAUD, INTELLECTUAL THEFT,
QUESTIONED NOT ONLY HIS
INTELLIGENCE, BUT ALSO HIS
ANCESTRY.
[Audience Laughter]
AND THE CRITICAL POINT HERE IS
THAT GALILEO HAD HAD FRIENDLY
RELATIONS WITH THE JESUITS EVER
SINCE 1611.
REMEMBER, HE WENT DOWN TO THE
COLLEGIO ROMANO IN ROME, AND HE
WAS ACCLAIMED BY THE JESUITS
AND THEY WERE ON HIS SIDE.
THE FACT THAT THE DOMINICANS IN
FLORENCE WERE AGAINST HIM, MADE
IT CLEAR TO THE JESUITS THAT
GALILEO WAS OKAY.
[Audience Laughter]
THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE ON
THE SAME SIDE OF THE FENCE AS
THE DOMINICANS.
SO HERE, ARE
CRUCIAL ALLIES, THAT GALILEO
ALIENATES.
THEY WERE POWERFUL ALLIES, OR
WOULD HAVE BEEN POWERFUL
ALLIES.
HE POISONED THE WATERS.
WELL POPE
PAUL V, HE DIED IN 1621, HE'D
BEEN THE POPE THROUGHOUT THE
STORY I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU.
IN 1623, THERE WAS AN INTERIM
POPE, BUT THEN IN 1623 A NEW
POPE, MAFEO BARBERINI WAS
ELECTED, AND TOOK THE PAPAL
NAME URBAN VIII, AND I'LL REFER
TO HIM AS URBAN.
AND THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE
STROKE OF LUCK, BECAUSE URBAN
IS ONE OF GALILEO'S ADMIRERS,
AND FRIENDS -- I THINK IT'S NOT
TOO MUCH TO SAY FRIEND.
AT ONE POINT WHEN GALILEO WAS
ILL, HE'S GETTING OLD NOW, AND
WAS ILL A NUMBER OF TIMES.
URBAN, WHEN HE WAS STILL A
MEMBER OF THE COLLEGE OF
CARDINALS AND NOT YET URBAN,
WROTE A POEM IN PRAISE OF
GALILEO AS ITALY'S GREATEST
INTELLECT, AND GALILEO, SHORTLY
BEFORE THAT CARDINAL BECAME
POPE, HAD WRITTEN HIM A LETTER
OF CONGRATULATIONS THAT HIS
NEPHEW HAD RECEIVED A
THEOLOGICAL DOCTORATE AND SO
ON.
I MEAN THERE WAS-- THERE WERE
FRIENDLY EXCHANGES URBAN WAS
REGARDED AS A MODERATE ON THE
SUBJECT OF COSMOLOGY, AS OPEN
MINDED AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS
JUST AN INCREDIBLE STROKE OF
LUCK.
GALILEO DECIDES HE MUST TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF IT.
HE REQUESTS AN AUDIENCE WITH
THE POPE.
THEY END UP MEETING SIX TIMES.
GALILEO WORKS THE CONVERSATION
AROUND TO THE SUBJECT OF
COSMOLOGY.
URBAN MADE CLEAR HIS BELIEF
THAT HUMANS WERE, IN PRINCIPLE,
INCAPABLE OF ACHIEVING
CERTAINTY REGARDING
COSMOLOGICAL MATTERS.
URBAN IS VERY WELL INFORMED ON
THE ASTRONOMICAL ISSUES.
HE'S NOT IGNORANT, HE KNOWS
EXACTLY WHAT GALILEO IS TALKING
ABOUT.
HE ARGUES THAT TO DEVELOP A
MODEL THAT WOULD MADE ACCURATE
ASTRONOMICAL PREDICTIONS WAS
NOT TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THAT
MODEL, AND ON THAT POINT OF
COURSE, HE WAS ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT.
MANY MODELS CAN PRODUCE THE
SAME PREDICTIONS.
NONETHELESS, IT BECAME CLEAR
FROM THEIR DISCUSSIONS THAT
GALILEO WAS FREE TO EXPLORE THE
PROS AND CONS OF HELIOCENTRISM
AS LONG AS HE TREATED IT AS
MERE HYPOTHESIS.
OKAY, HE COULD WRITE A BOOK,
DEALING WITH THE PROS AND CONS,
BUT HE BETTER NOT COME DOWN ON
THE PRO SIDE OF THINGS.
IT SEEMED FAIR ENOUGH TO
GALILEO.
HE WENT BACK HOME, SET TO WORK,
COMPLETED HIS "DIALOGUE ON THE
TWO CHIEF WORLD SYSTEMS" IN
1629.
IN THE BOOK, HE PRESENTED
POWERFUL AND EXTENSIVE
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
HELIOCENTRISM, UNMISTAKEABLY
DEFENDING IT AS TRUE.
HOW DID HE THINK HE COULD GET
AWAY WITH THIS, AFTER THE POPE
MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT
THAT WAS NOT TO BE ALLOWED.
WELL AT THE CLOSE-- THERE ARE
FOUR DAYS OF DIALOGUE, AND AT
THE CLOSE OF THE FOUR DAYS,
GALILEO HAS SALVIATTI, HIS
MOUTHPIECE, DISCLAIM BELIEF IN
THE TRUTH OF HELIOCENTRISM
PORTRAYING IT AS A PLAY.
SALVIATTI SAYS TO THE OTHER
PARTICIPANTS, WELL GUYS, IT'S
BEEN FUN TO GET TOGETHER AND
MAKE THESE ARGUMENTS, BUT YOU
KNOW, IT'S JUST BEEN PRETENCE,
JUST A PLAY, JUST DRAMA THAT
WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH.
SO THAT WAS BAD ENOUGH, BUT
THEN ON THE FINAL PAGE, GALILEO
PUTS THE POPE'S ADMONITION
ABOUT THE HYPOTHETICAL
CHARACTER OF HELIOCENTRISM
OWING TO OUR INABILITY TO
DETERMINE THE DIVINE PLAN, INTO
THE MOUTH OF SIMPLICIO, THE
SLOW WITTED ARISTOTELIAN
LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE DIALOGUE,
ALMOST VERBATIM, ALMOST WORD
FOR WORD.
THE BOOK WAS SUBMITTED FOR
LICENSING.
NO BOOK COULD BE PUBLISHED
WITHOUT THE LICENSE OF THE
CHURCH, AND IT WAS, IN FACT,
LICENSED.
GALILEO APPLIED PRESSURE -- THE
POOR GUY WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF
THAT BUREAU, HE WAS ABOUT TO
LOSE HIS HEAD OVER THIS, I'M
SURE HE FELT.
HE KNEW THAT GALILEO HAD BEEN
GIVEN PERMISSION TO WRITE A
BOOK, BUT HE WASN'T AT ALL
SURE THAT THE BOOK HE HAD IN
FRONT OF HIM WAS THE BOOK THE
POPE HAD IN MIND.
BUT IN THE END, THE BOOK WAS
LICENSED, PUBLISHED IN 1632, IT
WAS A LITERARY HIT, BOUGHT OFF
THE BOOKSHELVES -- THIS IS
WRITTEN IN ITALIAN, BY THE WAY.
GALILEO'S FIRST BOOK WAS IN
LATIN.
BUT THEN HE'S NOW -- THIS ONE
IS ITALIAN, MEANT FOR THE
EDUCATED PUBLIC, AND IT WAS
BOUGHT UP FROM THE BOOKSELLERS
AS FAST AS IT APPEARED ON THE
SHELVES.
THE POPE DISCOVERED HIS WORDS
IN SIMPLICIO'S MOUTH, PROBABLY
WITH JESUIT HELP.
NOBODY BELIEVES THE POPE SAT
DOWN AND READ THE BOOK FROM
COVER TO COVER, AND GOT TO THE
END OF IT.
BUT THE JESUITS, IT'S ASSUMED,
SHOWED HIM HIS WORDS.
HE BECAME CONVINCED THAT
GALILEO HAD BLATANTLY VIOLATED
HIS INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT THE
HYPOTHETICAL CHARACTER OF
HELIOCENTRISM, WHICH INDEED
GALILEO HAD.
AND MOREOVER THAT GALILEO SET
OUT TO RIDICULE HIM BY PLACING
HIS WORDS IN SIMPLICIO'S MOUTH.
SUCH
INSUBORDINATION COULD NOT GO
UNPUNISHED, AND IT WAS
INEVITABLE THAT THE MACHINERY
OF THE INQUISITION WOULD BE PUT
IN MOTION AGAINST GALILEO.
THE POPE JUST FLEW INTO A
TOWERING RAGE.
AND AGAIN WE
HAVE AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT FROM
THE FLORENTINE AMBASSADOR.
THE POPE-- THE 30 YEARS WAR WAS
GOING ON, BETWEEN PROTESTANTS
AND CATHOLICS, AND THE POPE WAS
CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE WITH SPAIN
CONTROLLING MORE THAN HALF OF
THE ITALIAN PENINSULA, AND
THREATENING THE VATICAN STATES,
AND PROTESTANTS FROM THE NORTH,
AND HE HAD TO MAKE DECISIONS,
VARIOUS KINDS OF COMPROMISES,
YOU KNOW, FOR STRATEGIC
REASONS, AND YOU KNOW,
EVERYTHING WAS GOING WRONG, AND
THEN THIS LANDS ON HIS DESK,
AND HE GOES INTO A TOWERING
RAGE, AND SAYS, THIS GUY HAS
GOT TO BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL.
WELL THE SUBSEQUENT TRIAL WAS
NOT ABOUT -- THIS IS IMPORTANT,
TOO, THIS IS THE SECOND
IMPORTANT THING -- WELL MAYBE
EVEN THE THIRD.
THE SUBSEQUENT TRIAL WAS NOT
ABOUT BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
OR COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES.
THAT HAD BEEN SETTLED IN 1616.
IN 1616, THE CHURCH HAD MADE
ITS STATEMENT HELIOCENTRISM IS
FOOLISH, ABSURD AND HERETICAL.
NOW WHAT IS AT ISSUE IS THE
AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH AND THE DISOBEDIENCE AND
FLAGRANT INSUBORDINATION ON
GALILEO'S PART.
SO THE TRIAL IS ABOUT SOMETHING
TOTALLY DIFFERENT, IT'S ABOUT
GALILEO'S BEHAVIOUR.
DID HE OR DID HE NOT DISOBEY
ORDERS?
AND OF THAT, IT WAS CLEAR TO
EVERYBODY THAT GALILEO WAS
GUILTY.
I MEAN HE WAS, HE WAS GUILTY OF
THAT.
LET'S SEE IF I HAVE TIME FOR...
YEAH, MAYBE I DO.
A FEW I DON'T KNOW, 15 OR 20
YEARS AGO, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
DECIDED TO REOPEN THE GALILEO
CASE, YOU MAY REMEMBER.
A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE, A
DOMINICAN, WAS ON THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, AND HE WAS SCARED TO
DEATH THAT THE CHURCH WOULD IN
FACT RETRY GALILEO, BECAUSE IN
HIS VIEW, IN A RETRIAL, THE
ONLY EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WOULD
BE THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AT
THE TIME, IN WHICH CASE GALILEO
WOULD LOSE AGAIN.
[Audience Laughter]
IMAGINE THE PUBLIC RELATIONS
DISASTER.
[Audience Laughter]
SO IN THE END, THAT ARGUMENT
PREVAILED, AND IN THE END, THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH SIMPLY DECLARED
THAT ERRORS HAD BEEN MADE.
SO GALILEO ASKED PERMISSION TO
MAKE A STATEMENT.
HE SAW THAT THINGS WERE GOING
BADLY, AND YOU KNOW, HE DECIDED
HE'D BETTER MAKE THE BEST OF
IT.
HE ASKS IF HE CAN MAKE A
STATEMENT, AND HE UM, HE'S
GIVEN PERMISSION.
HE STATES THAT HE HAS RE-READ
HIS BOOK, AND WAS STUNNED TO
FIND THAT HE HAD, IN FACT,
CONTRARY TO HIS INTENTION,
DEFENDED HELIOCENTRISM.
[Audience Laughter]
AND HER IT IS, THIS IS PART OF
IT.

A slide appears with an book excerpt.

He says "IT OCCURRED TO ME TO RE-READ
MY DIALOGUE, WHICH I HAD NOT
SEEN FOR THREE YEARS, IN ORDER
TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER, CONTRARY
TO MY MOST SINCERE INTENTION,
THERE HAD INADVERTENTLY FALLEN
FROM MY PEN ANYTHING FROM WHICH
A READER MIGHT INFER SOME SIGN
OF DISOBEDIENCE ON MY PART.
I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN A COPY OF
MY BOOK, AND BECAUSE I HAD NOT
SEEN IT--."
WELL HE HAD TO SEND FOR IT.
[Audience Laughter]
"I OBTAINED A COPY OF MY BOOK,
AND BECAUSE I HAD NOT SEEN IT
FOR SO LONG, IT SEEMED TO ME
LIKE A NEW WRITING, AND BY
ANOTHER AUTHOR.
I FREELY CONFESS THAT IT SEEMED
TO ME COMPOSED IN SUCH A WAY
THAT A READER, IGNORANT OF MY
REAL PURPOSE, MIGHT HAVE REASON
TO THINK THAT THE ARGUMENTS
PRESENTED FOR THE FALSE SIDE,
WHICH I REALLY INTENDED TO
REFUTE, WERE EXPRESSED IN SUCH
A WAY AS TO COMPEL CONVICTION
RATHER THAN TO BE EASILY
REFUTED."
WELL IT WAS A NICE TRY, BUT IT
WASN'T GOING TO DO THE JOB.
[Applause and Laughter]
THE INQUISITION DID IN FACT
LOOK FOR WAYS OF BEING LENIENT.
I MEAN THEY WERE, THEY DID NOT,
IT TURNS OUT THEY WERE NOT OUT
TO GET GALILEO.
THEY FELT OBLIGATED, I MEAN, IF
THEY WERE HAVING A TRIAL, AND
THE OUTCOME WAS CLEAR, BUT THEY
WERE LOOKING FOR WAYS OF
SOFTENING THE BLOW ON GALILEO.
BUT ANYWAY, SENTENCE WAS
PASSED, GALILEO WAS FORCED TO
RECANT, AND HERE -- IT'S A LONG
RECANTATION.
HE DIDN'T WRITE IT.
THEY WRITE THE RECANTATION.
HE GETS ON HIS KNEES, THEY TAKE
HIM TO A CHURCH, HE FALLS TO
HIS KNEES, AND HE READS IT.
AND A CRITICAL PART OF IT IS
THE PART THAT WE HAVE HERE.
"BEFORE THE DECISION OF THE
HOLY CONGREGATION OF THE
INDEX," THAT'S THE INQUISITION,
"BEFORE THAT, I WAS INDIFFERENT
AND REGARDED BOTH OPINIONS AS
OPEN TO DISCUSSION."
GEOCENTRIC, HELIOCENTRIC.
"BUT AFTER THE SAID DECISION, I
CEASE TO HAVE ANY DOUBT, AND I
HELD, AS I STILL HOLD, THE
OPINION OF PTOLEMY, THAT IS THE
FIXITY OF THE EARTH AND THE
MOTION OF THE SUN."
THERE'S A
MYTH THAT GALILEO, UNDER HIS
BREATH, SAID, "YET IT MOVES."
BUT THERE'S NO DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE OF THAT.
EVERYBODY
KNEW IT WAS A FORMALITY.
THE ISSUE IS NOT, WHAT DOES
GALILEO BELIEVE, BUT WHAT IS
GALILEO GOING TO SAY.
I MEAN EVERYBODY KNEW THAT
GALILEO WAS STILL A
HELIOCENTRIST.
FOR THE REMAINING TEN YEARS OF
HIS LIFE, HE WAS UNDER HOUSE
ARREST, COMFORTABLY HOUSED IN
HIS VILLA JUST OUTSIDE
FLORENCE, WITH FEW RESTRICTIONS
ON WHO COULD COME AND GO.
THAT VILLA WAS PURCHASED BY THE
ITALIAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT 20
YEARS AGO, AND YOU CAN NOW--
IT'S BEEN RESTORED, AND YOU CAN
NOW GO AND VISIT IT.
IT'S A VERY COMFORTABLE PLACE,
IT'S A NICE VILLA, GREAT VIEW,
HIGH AND NICE BREEZES.
GALILEO WAS GOING BLIND DURING
THIS PERIOD, WAS ALMOST TOTALLY
BLIND BY THE END OF THAT
PERIOD, PERHAPS BECAUSE OF HIS
TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS OF THE
SUN.
THE UM, FEW RESTRICTIONS ON WHO
COULD COME AND GO, AND GALILEO
WAS EVEN ALLOWED OUT TO VISIT
HIS DAUGHTER IN A NEARBY
NUNNERY, ON I THINK MORE THAN
ONE OCCASION.
GALILEO WAS NOT TORTURED, NEVER
SPENT ONE SECOND IN A DUNGEON
OR A JAIL OR A PRISON OF ANY
KIND.
HE WAS NOT TORTURED, HE WAS NOT
IMPRISONED, HE WAS SIMPLY
SILENCED.
AND I DON'T MEAN TO BELITTLE
SILENCING, IT'S EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT, BUT I KNOW THE
DIFFERENCE BEING SILENCED AND
BEING TORTURED.
WELL, THAT'S THE STORY.
LET ME JUST TAKE A FEW MINUTES
TO OFFER YOU A TAKE HOME
MESSAGE.
GALILEO'S STRUGGLE WITH THE
CHURCH HAS OFTEN BEEN PORTRAYED
AS A BATTLE IN THE LONG WARFARE
BETWEEN SCIENCE AND
CHRISTIANITY.
THAT, HOWEVER IS A NAIVE
INTERPRETATION WHICH IGNORES
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.
LET ME OFFER, BRIEFLY AN
ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION
BASED ON THE LATEST HISTORICAL
EVIDENCE, THE MOST RECENT
FINDINGS.
THREE POINTS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE GALILEO
AFFAIR WAS NOT MERELY AN
IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT, BY WHICH
I MEAN IT WAS NOT SIMPLY A
MATTER OF SCIENTIFIC
RATIONALISM, MORE OR LESS IN
THE ABSTRACT, SCIENTIFIC
RATIONALISM AGAINST RELIGIOUS
AUTHORITY.
IT WAS PARTLY THAT.
BUT IT WAS NOT MERELY
SCIENTIFIC RATIONALISM VERSUS
RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.
IT HAD ALSO AN ENORMOUS HUMAN
AND POLITICAL DIMENSION.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT,
SCIENCE AND RELIGION CANNOT
INTERACT.
SCIENTISTS AND THEOLOGIANS CAN
INTERACT.
AND WHEN HUMAN BEINGS ARE
INVOLVED, THE INTERACTION IS
NEVER PURELY THEORETICAL OR
IDEOLOGICAL.
THERE WERE POLITICAL EVENTS
THAT UNDERMINED URBAN'S
AUTHORITY AND MADE HIM
EXTREMELY IRRITABLE AND
SUSPICIOUS.
I SAID A FEW WORDS ABOUT THAT
EARLIER.
DOMINICAN-JESUIT POLITICS
PLAYED SOME ROLE IN THE DRAMA,
AS DID GALILEO'S ALIENATION OF
THE JESUITS AND HIS APPARENT
BETRAYAL OF THE POPE.
AND OF COURSE, GALILEO'S
PERSONALITY LOOMS ENORMOUSLY
LARGE IN THIS STORY.
HAD GALILEO PAID MORE ATTENTION
TO DIPLOMACY, I'M CONFIDENT
THAT HE COULD HAVE CARRIED OUT
A SIGNIFICANT CAMPAIGN ON
BEHALF OF HELIOCENTRISM WITHOUT
CONDEMNATION.
I MEAN THERE IS A SENSE IN
WHICH HE BROUGHT IT ON HIMSELF.
IT FOLLOWS IN THE SECOND PLACE,
THAT THE OUTCOME OF THE GALILEO
AFFAIR WAS A CONTINGENT EVENT,
BY WHICH I MEAN THAT IT DIDN'T
HAVE TO TURN OUT AS IT DID,
BECAUSE IT IS A CONTINGENT
EVENT POWERFULLY INFLUENCED BY
LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
ALL HISTORICAL EVENTS TAKE
PLACE AT A CERTAIN TIME AND IN
A CERTAIN PLACE, AND THAT
LOCATION AND THAT TIMING MAKES
A DIFFERENCE.
THE GALILEO AFFAIR IS NOT
MERELY ABOUT UNIVERSAL OR
GLOBAL ASPECTS OF SCIENCE AND
RELIGION, BUT ABOUT THE LOCAL
CIRCUMSTANCES IMPINGING IN
INDIVIDUAL HISTORICAL ACTORS,
FEARS, RIVALRIES, GREED,
REVENGE, AMBITION, PERSONALITY,
POLITICAL CONTEXT, SOCIO-
ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCE -- ALL OF
THOSE THINGS ENTER INTO THE
GALILEO STORY.
AND FINALLY, WELL SORRY, JUST
TO SUMMARISE THAT, HISTORICAL
EVENTS ARE SITUATED IN TIME AND
SPACE, THAT'S THE POINT.
THEY ARE CONTINGENT, LOCAL
EVENTS, AND OUR ANALYSIS NEEDS
TO RESPOND TO THAT FEATURE OF
THE SCIENCE-RELIGION
INTERACTION.
FINALLY, WAS THIS IN FACT, IN
ANY SENSE, A BATTLE BETWEEN
CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE?
IT'S BEEN PORTRAYED AS A BATTLE
IN THE PERPETUAL WARFARE OF
SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY.
ANDREW DIXON
WHITE, IN HIS BOOK OF 1896,
WHICH IS STILL IN PRINT, IT'S
GONE THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE 60
OR 75 PRINTINGS, NOW, AND IN 18
FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
THAT'S THE STORY, THIS IS ONE
OF THE GREAT BATTLES IN THE
LONG WARFARE BETWEEN SCIENCE
AND THEOLOGY.
BUT LOOK AT
THE FACTS.
EVERY ONE OF THE COMBATANTS
CALLED HIMSELF A CHRISTIAN, SAW
HIMSELF AS A CHRISTIAN.
THERE ISN'T ANYBODY YOU CAN
MENTION IN THIS STORY, IN THE
MOST COMPLETE VERSION, WHO IS
NOT A CHRISTIAN, WHO DOES NOT
DECLARE THE AUTHORITY OF
SCRIPTURE.
EVERYBODY.
EVERYBODY DOES.
EVERY ONE OF THE COMBATANTS
ALSO HAD WELL CONSIDERED
COSMOLOGICAL VIEWS, TO WHICH
HE, AND IN ONE CASE, SHE, WAS
ENTITLED.
THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WERE NOT
SCIENTIFIC IGNORAMUSES.
THEY WERE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTOOD
THE SCIENTIFIC ISSUES.
SO LOOKED AT CLOSELY, THE
BATTLE TURNS OUT NOT TO HAVE
BEEN BETWEEN SCIENCE AND
CHRISTIANITY, BUT WITHIN
CHRISTIANITY BETWEEN
PROGRESSIVES AND CONSERVATIVES,
AND WITHIN SCIENCE, BETWEEN
PROGRESSIVES AND CONSERVATIVES.
I HAVE AN OVERHEAD THAT MAY, IN
A PRIMITIVE KIND OF WAY, YEAH,
WELL OKAY, TRADITIONAL AND
PROGRESSIVE ARE THE CATEGORIES
OVER HERE ON THE LEFT, AND NOW
YOU JUST HAVE TO REMEMBER
THOSE.

A slide shows a table with three rows and two columns with the headers "Theology" and "Science." Below "Theology," the first cell reads "Bible interpreted literally and according to church tradition" against "Geocentric Cosmology" in the "Science" column. Then in the second row, the cell under "Theology" reads "Non literal and non-traditional interpretation of the Bible permitted" against "Heliocentric Cosmology" in the "Science" column.

David says THE REAL BATTLE, IT SEEMS TO
ME, IS BETWEEN THE
TRADITIONALISTS AND THE
PROGRESSIVES, WHO ARE WILLING
TO REINTERPRET, YOU KNOW,
REVISE THEIR PRINCIPLES OF
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, AND
BETWEEN SCIENTISTS AND
COSMOLOGISTS WHO ARE
TRADITIONAL AND THE ONES WHO
ARE PROGRESSIVE.
AND WHERE DO YOU SEE CONFLICT?
I MEAN THERE'S AN ALLIANCE,
THERE'S AN ALLIANCE RIGHT HERE,
BETWEEN THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE,
AND AN ALLIANCE RIGHT THERE.
IF YOU WANT A CONFLICT, YOU'VE
GOT TO GO FROM ONE OF THESE YOU
KNOW, DIAGONALLY RELATED BOXES.
UM...
WHERE DO YOU FIND--
THERE'S NO POINT AT WHICH YOU
CAN DRAW BATTLE LINES, AND PUT
ALL THE SCIENTISTS ON THIS
SIDE, OR EVEN MOST OF THE
SCIENTISTS ON THIS SIDE, AND
THE CHRISTIANS ON THAT SIDE.
THIS IS MORE LIKE A SCRUM, LIKE
A FREE FOR ALL, CHANGING
IDEOLOGIES, SHIFTING LOYALTIES,
ALL IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT.
AND THAT'S THE STORY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING SO PATIENT,
I APPRECIATE IT.

The audience applauds.

Watch: Preston Manning Bridging the Gap Between Science & Politics