
Galileo’s reputation is more hyperbole than truth - Hooke
https://aeon.co/opinions/galileo-s-reputation-is-more-hyperbole-than-truth
======
Ellahn
Had to stop reading at "...largely mythical war between science and
religion..."

History, countries, continents were shaped by religion persecuting shit.
Paganism was burned at the stake, and herbal medicine in European cultures is
almost inexistent when compared to Asian and (Native) American cultures.
Religion wages war on everything, which is epitomized by the crusades.

Galileo was persecuted because he voiced uncomfortable truths. Much like
Einstein and many others, he wasn't the only one who knew those truths. And
much like Einstein, he had the passion and the guts to pursue his path and
voice his findings.

This is his merit, and calling it Hyperbolic to recognize the worth of someone
risking their life for something shows at the very least a very poor
understanding of history.

A good way to criticize history would be to focus on the "History is written
by the winners" though.

------
javajosh
Dear Thony Christie, author:

500 years is a long time to wait before publishing a hit-piece like this. That
"astronomy would have proceeded fine without Galileo" doesn't matter. With two
(Newton, Einstein), possibly four (Lavoisier, Maxwell) exceptions, that could
be said of any scientific discovery. What's next - will you degrade Niels Bohr
for his childish characterization of the atom? Was Milliken's or Rutherford's
work obvious to their contemporaries and so obviated their work?

Please, allow me to quote from another group of obvious, undeserving creative
people, those who work at Pixar:

 _In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a
position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment.
We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the
bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the
average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism
designating it so._

Yours Truly, Josh

~~~
duaneb
Galileo made non-trivial advances in science. He's also famous for his house
arrest. Neither imply he deserves the reputation of "greatest scientist
ever"—admittedly, not a reputation I'm familiar with. Even in his time period,
Kepler probably deserves at least equal recognition.

~~~
Retra
Before Copernicus and Galileo, most of European 'academia' was holding
steadfast to the ideas proposed by Aristotle and his legacy. The heavens where
unchanging and divine - as clockwork, engineered in such a way that the divine
human capacity for logical thought could understand it and predict it. And
Earthly life was chaotic, dirty, and transient, with all regularity and flux a
side-effect of heavenly or humanly processes: the divine.

Galileo's telescope showed these people a supernova. Moons around jupiter.
Sunspots. Galileo _proved_ that the heavens were changing, which did a lot to
upset this worldview, and paved the way for people like Newton to do work
independent of the Aristotelian world-view, and assert that the same laws that
govern us on Earth also govern the heavens. (Let's also not forget that he
correctly disagreed with Aristotle on the behavior of objects under the
influence of gravity.)

Kepler deserves equal recognition, and he probably gets it. But really,
they're both dead, so the important thing is for _us_ to recognize what works
and what doesn't. Not who found out what works.

~~~
duaneb
> Kepler deserves equal recognition, and he probably gets it.

Evidently not; there isn't an article arguing he is the best scientist ever.

