Review: THE ESSENTIAL GALILEO

THE ESSENTIAL GALILEO

Edited and Translated by
Maurice A Finocchiaro

       This book is a collection of some of the most important writings of Galileo.  The decision of "what was most important" was made based on consultation with scholars familiar with Galileo from around the world (and listed in the introduction of the book).  An excellent introduction is followed by a "Chronology of Galileo's Career and Aftermath" which is a listing of dates important to the life and story of Galileo.
       Any person who is interested in the science that Galileo came to understand should read this as a synopsis of his most perceptive writings in this book.  This book can also help anyone who wishes to understand the famous court proceedings through the words of Galileo himself.   One will find that Galileo understood much more science than most of his peers but also misunderstood natural events (such as tides) as well.  In addition, as John Paul II recognized, Galileo was also ahead of his time in understanding how to read sacred scripture.  Galileo also appears to have differentiated the methods used in scientific analysis from theological analysis.
       The Introduction  (pg 1-16) is a a fabulous summary of the life of Galileo.  It frames the activities and context of his life precisely.  In addition to the chronology the index of the book allows for quick access to the many topics and thoughts that Galileo investigated and pondered.   I found this chronology useful (referred to it often during reading).  The Chapters each provide translations of key Galileo writings in temporal order including his excerpts from his published works and private communications.
       Reading his words reveals that Galileo was certainly a scientist with amazing insight and confidence but also a skilled, even great writer.
       Galileo's writings speak for themselves well in this collection.

=======================

Interesting Quotes of General Interest:

Introduction

     "His [Galileo's] contributions to scientific knowledge were so radical that he constantly had to discuss with his opponents (scientific as well as ecclesiastic) not only what the facts were and what their best theoretical interpretation was, but also what the proper rules for establishing the facts and for interpreting them were."
                                                                                                                                   pg 2

     "His [Galileo's] orientation was critical of Aristotelian physics and was fundamentally Archimedean; that is he followed Archimedes' mathematical approach, accepted his physical principles of statics, and tried to build upon them for the analysis of how bodies move.  In his study of falling bodies, Galileo became and ingenious, skillful and indefatigable experimenter who pioneered experimentation as a procedure involving the combination of empirical observation with both mathematization and conceptual theorizing." 

                                                                                                                                     pg 4
Summary of Arguments against Copernican System that Galileo was "acutely aware" of:
      "The earth's motion seemed epistemologically absurd because it contradicted direct sense experience.  It seemed astronomically false becasue it had consequences that could not be observed, such as similarity between terrestrial and heavenly bodies, Venus phases, and annual stellar parallax.  It seemed mechanically impossible because the available laws of motion implied that bodies on a rotating earth would, for example, follow a slanted rather than vertical free fall, and would be thrown off by centrifugal force.  And it seemed theologically heretical because it contradicted the literal meaning and the traditional interpretation of the passages in the Bible.  Until 1609 Galileo apparently judged that the anti-Copernican arguments far outweighed the pro-Copernican ones.  Thus we find him teaching geostatic astronomy in his courses and reacting in a lukewarm and evasive manner when an enthusiastic Copernican life Johannes Kepler tried to engage him."
                                                                                                                                     pg 4-5
From "History and Demonstrations Concerning Sunspots" (1613)
Knowing properties vs. Knowing Essenses
     "I am opposing Aristotles's doctrine much less than those who would want to claim it inalterable.  For I am sure that he never regarded the conclusion of inalterability as certain as the principle that plane sense experience must have priority over any human theory.  Thus, one will philosophize better by giving assent to conclusions dependent on clear observations than by persisting in opinions that are repugnant to the senses and are confirmed only with probable or apparent reasons."
                                                                                                                                     pg 100
     "These [knowledge of sunspots] enable us to philosophize better about other more controversial questions regarding natural substances.  Finally lifting us to the final purpose of our efforts, namely the love of the Divine Architect, they can sustain our hope of learning all other truths from Him, source of light and truth."
                                                                                                                                   pg 102

Letter to Castelli (1613)

     “I should believe that it would be prudent not to allow anyone to oblige [284] scriptural passages to have to maintain the truth of any physical conclusions whose contrary could EVER be shown to us by the senses and demonstrative and necessary reasons. Who wants to fix a limit to the human mind? Who wants to assert that everything which is knowable in the world is already known?"

                                                                                                                                    pg 105

Letter to the Grand Dutchess Christina (1615)
     "...I think that in the course of examining Scripture one may find more appropriate passages whereby we would be entitled, if not to prove something for certain, at least to believe something on this topic based on the words of sacred authority....[citing St. Augustine].."Now then, always practicing a pious and serious moderation, we ought not to believe anything lightly about an obscure subject, lest we reject (out of love for our error) something which may be truly shown not to be in any way contrary to the holy books of either the Old or New Testament."
                                                                                                                                       pg 110                 
     "It is most pious to say and most prudent to take for granted that Holy Scripture can never lie, as long as its true meaning has been grasped; but I do think on can deny that this is frequently recondite and very different from what appears to be the literal meaning of the words.
                                                                                                                                   pg 115

     "Therefore, I think that in disputes about natural phenomena one must begin not with authority of scriptural passages, but with sense experiences and necessary demonstrations.  For the Holy Scripture and nature derive equally from the Godhead, the former as the dictation of the Holy Spirit and the latter as the most obedient executrix of God's orders....."

     "God reveals Himself no less exceptionally in the effects of nature than in the sacred words of Scripture"

                                                                                                                                    pg 116           

Galileo's Consideration on the Copernican Opinion (1615)
     "Moreover, we admit that a physical proposition which has been proved true by physical and mathematical demonstrations can never contradict scripture, but that in such a case it is the weakness of our mind which prevents us from grasping its [Scriptures] true meaning."
                                                                                                                                     pg 161
From Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (1632)
     "I applaud his (Aristotle) being examined and diligently studied and only blame submitting him in such a way that one blindly subscribes to all his assertions and accepts them as unquestionable dictates, without searching for (other) the reasons for them."
                                                                                                                                     pg 201

Fabulous "Particle Fever"! (with caveats)

     On Saturday of this last week I saw a small market but impressive dramatized documentary called "Particle Fever".  I was, as a Physics teacher, delighted that the pursuits of scientists (called Physicists) be depicted and highlighted in a largely positive way.  How do you entertain movie goers with a 50 year story about the scientific discovery of a sub atomic particle that no one will ever see? No matter how critical the particle is to the structure of our universe this topic would need very special treatment to become "entertaining".   The movie does a superb job in humanizing, dramatizing, honoring and even uplifting those people who seek truth in the physical sciences.  The movie certainly entertains even with the flaws and imperfections readily highlighted by critics (like myself).

    Typically our culture uplifts all sorts of pursuits that are, in my mind, entertaining and trivial.  There is the pushing and hitting of people on a field to make a ball cross over a line for points in a 60 minute period (often stretched to 120 minutes) as the most popular single event in our national culture annually (football).  In our culture those who may dance and act provocatively will be rewarded with huge sums of money and honors (though I admit this takes talent and training too).   I myself am part of this sports and entertainment culture (and recognize the human potential it reveals) but I also see the huge accomplishments of our scientists and engineers who help us understand our world and continuously make our daily lives more comfortable and physically pleasant.   Our culture does, in a limited way, support a cadre of people who seek truth and comprehension of our physical world.  This movie highlights this cadre of people that we, as a culture, take for granted.

     How does one highlight, dramatize and honor the human discovery of an idea like the "God Particle" (also called the Higgs Boson) in an entertaining way?   This movie honors and captures the human side of this pursuit (so the technical part of the story which causes eyes to glaze over is left lightly treated).  This "Particle Fever" does a profoundly good job at taking a 50 year journey of science and allowing us to see the people who dedicated life and livelihood to this pursuit in a highly entertaining way.

    Viewers of this film see an inspiring scientific breakthrough as it happens in the eyes of  six very different scientists with the launch of the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.   These six people are from different countries, different backgrounds and are in different states of life.  They are all united in the search for truth about our phsyical universe.  This is easily the most expensive experiment in the history of the planet that probed the edges of what  the edge of technical capabilities.  Scientists from over 100 countries pursue the goal of recreating conditions that existed just moments after the Big Bang and find physical properties of the "imagined" Higgs boson (a speculated particle 5o years ago) that explains the origin of our universe and the structure of all matter. 

    So I need to mention the "caveats" that do not do fatally harm and clearly aim to add insight and drama to the story.  

     The first caveat is an apparent political shot at the Rebublican Party for the termination of the United States version of the particle collider (Super Conducting Super Collider).  The real story is not so simple as depicting a single party bringing about an end to financing of this search for truth.  While the movie depicts Republican congressman ranting against the project it fails to recognize that the Republican Ronald Reagan presidential administration first envisioned and supported the effort, then George Bush (1st) supported and financed the initial efforts to build an American version of the collider.  The project failed to be completed in the United States for a variety of reasons that appealed to both parties.  The project was ambitious (eight times the power of the European CERN project) would have consumed far more resources.  Democrats saw a need to help the less fortunate with unemployment benefits and what they see as social justice oriented expenditures.  When the initial civil contruction of the tunnels ran well over budget and the democratic president faced mounting national debt the program was ended with the help of both parties.  Even those in the Physics community (from what I could read in the early 1990's) were split with scientists who needed funds for smaller projects seeing support dry up for that huge "hole in Texas".  I understand that the movie needed to simplify the struggle for the sake of entertainment but this particular depiction strikes a blow at the common saying I have heard "Science has friends on both sides of the aisle.  Science needs friends on both sides of the aisle."

    The second caveat is the use of obsecenties and terms that are offensive to a large portion of the people who would likely support this big effort in science.  While I do see that these "snippets" add emotion, drama and diversity it also allows people to draw the wrong conclusions about the effort and the people involved in the effort.  I do understand that one could cite the " reality" of verbal expression when the emotion on hearing of catastrophic failure was realized.  Even with these recognitions, on my part, I do think the inclusion of offensive language could hurt the movie in the very audiences that would enjoy watching the movien.

    Entertaining stories require struggle.  The scientist heroes in this film confront all all sorts of huge obstacles.  Economic, political, technical and finally philisophical issues arise to challenge the huge effort.   Mark Levinson is a physicist turned filmmaker and so this film is quite revealing in terms of framing the technical and scientific issues at the core of the struggle,  Particle Fever is a one of a kind fabulous presentation of scientific discovery using big science.  Until I saw this movie I thought such effort would be impossible but this movie has proved me wrong.  It is a among the best I have ever seen of any type (even with the caveats).

     

Is the Science Fair fair?

     I never won a science fair myself but I have had a couple of students (over the last 37 years) win the big prize (at the state level) overall disciplines.  I want to stress that winning at these highly competitive events is a tremendous accomplishment.  The notes below do not seek to disparage the accomplishments of my students. 

    The Science Fair requires a research project produced by a student is a very competitive event.  The competition clearly favors students with resources, experience (or access to experience) and demands significant effort by every participant.  Some will win. Many will be discouraged.  The science fair experience offers all opportunities to display initiative, character, persistence and competitiveness while developing skills that will serve them throughout a lifetime.

     It is hard to overstate the impact of this event on the lives of those who pour effort into their project.  I have spoken with engineers, physicists who discuss a high school science project forty years earlier with great enthusiasm.   Science students do win scholarships, awards and gain recognition otherwise not possible on the athletic field, as a star on the stage or as a student government representative.  I have seen young lives transformed by taking part in regional, state and international science fairs.  In my experience there is no science event (classroom or extracurricular) during the high school years that can have the impact of the "Science Fair".

     The "Science Service" (formed by a journalist E. W. Scripps in 1921) spawned science clubs and activities focused on public experiences in science.  In 1942 the "Science Talent Search" was established by the Science Service and Westinghouse with the purpose to encourage talented students to pursue a career in science or engineering.  The "Science Fair" of today is guided by the standards of the "Science Talent Search" and now accepts science projects from around the world through a network of local, regional, state and nationally organized hubs.
     There are two distinct classes of the many awards, scholarships, prizes and recognitions at the competition.  Science Fair category awards in subject categories (such as Chemistry or Botany) are selected by judges associated with the Science Fair (and normally handed out on Saturday morning).  Special awards are granted by numerous societies and institutions with particular interests at every level of the Science Fair network.  "Conservation Clubs" may select the best project with an environmental focus. The military selects projects with applications relating to the military mission.  Associations of doctors and dentists may offer awards relating to medical and dental health issues.  These representatives from these associations may have no contact with judges associated with the fair   It is therefore possible to win special awards but not win official "Science Fair Awards".  It is also possible that a project win a "Science Fair" category award but win no special awards at all.  It is often happens that high quality projects garner both the Science Fair category awards and numerous special awards.  The winnings can become significant and even substantial with each level of science fair competition offering a new set of prizes, cash awards and college scholarships.
     Judging many dozens of science fair projects uniformly in a 4-24 hour window is the most amazing feat of the science fair.  Individual projects can have a huge amount of data, extensive logs over many months of effort, research papers, advanced mathematical and statistical operations and pages and pages of programming code printed out for review.  A judge with 3-5 hours of available time may be asked to review 5-50 projects.  The time factor (in judging) is huge and so a number of techniques are used to reduce the judging load.  Projects can be "red flagged" or stricken from the judging list because required forms are incorrectly filled out, the size of the display board is wrong or some policy is violated. Removing projects from the list of those being evaluated allows judges to focus time on other project.  Projects can be eliminated quickly when, without the presence of a mentor, a casual conversation reveals a lack of project knowledge.  Insufficient or incoherent research, deficient logs and data that fails to support the conclusions of the project all allow for a judge to quickly move on to another project.  Rapid judging has the impact of favoring those project displays with visual appeal and participants than present themselves well and are fluent in articulating the project.
     Many winning projects are variations of topics done in previous years and so the research reports that accompany the projects can become quite extensive (20-300 pages).  Forms from previous years, seemingly difficult to complete in the past, are dated and signed again for a similar project.  The project display board is redone and improved.  The mastery of the content shared during interviews with the judges become more evident with each year of investigation in a similar content.  When the confidence of the participant grows so does the ability of the participant to articulate the purposes, procedures, findings and implications of the project.  Experience, or access to experience, can have a huge impact (as it does in most academic competitive events).
     Participants may have different degrees of mentoring available to them and this can be the single biggest difference between the outstanding project and the winning project.  One student (from a school I worked at) had a mother who was a commercial artist.  Her project display board with colored stage lights discreetly highlighted an surreal professional display.  Her father was a research professor who was published extensively and often had his daughter with him on a research vessel during the summer months.  She was well versed and understood her project and was very articulate.  She did her project but had significant assistance.  The project, redone over three years, garnered over a dozen scholarships and many awards.  The mentoring, guiding, tutoring, advising and constructive critique of her parents was an asset that not every science fair participant has (or could ever have).
     A casual walk down the row of science display boards can quickly reveal the huge disparity in available resources that support the project.  Some students will spend well over a thousand dollars on a single project.  Students may be in educational environments that have little or no available equipment.  I have seen students who built computer cooling systems and bought computers and cooling systems just for the project (they won at the state and international levels.)  Some students borrow the school equipment.  Some students have little available funding and are at schools with sparse or dated equipment. Those who are able and willing to spend much more can spend much more.  Funding can have a huge impact on the equipment, quality of the equipment and even on the display board hardware.  There is no limit or budget to the Science Fair project so this becomes another factor that not every participant has access to.
      Not all future scientists win at the Science Fair.  I spoke with Russell Hulse, a Nobel Prize Winner in Physics, about his Science Fair project (radio telescope) that never won.  The lack of mentoring, resources and his personal admission that the display board never looked as good as others meant that his project fell short year after year.  He does report that he learned more from his projects than he did in the science class. Each day he looked forward to the end of school so he could go home and work on his latest science project.
     The Science Fair is not fair and I am certain that no can ever make it fair with more rules.  The science fair has winners who never win and that is the strength of the experience.  The winners are those who generate projects and research with noble purposes, with genuine curiosity, with personal investment while displaying the persistence and effort.
  
  ===================================================

Please note that the views expressed here by me do not  represent the views of McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, Archdiocese of Mobile or any  part of the Universal Catholic Church.