This is interesting minutia but a closer look at the details entertains but doesn't change the fundamental picture for me. It was a battle of new ideas vs orthodoxy. It seems fairly obvious that all parties had world views that were partially informed by their religious views and what they thought were scientific ideals. The fact that the catholic church employed more than one person with a brain and tried to use him to refute Galileo while also crushing him with the power of law doesn't improve their position from my perspective. I don't see a lot of daylight between Riccioli and scientists employed by the petroleum industry or Phillip Morris.
Looking purely at the scientific case the bizarre world of epicycles seems like a vastly greater sin than star size or an entirely misunderstood Coriolis Effect that Riccioli posited but failed to calculate or measure correctly. I would go so far as to suggest that a stationary earth might seem intuitively obvious to a illiterate savage but anyone with a mathematical mind and access to a telescope ought to have figured out that stasis isn't the natural state of anything in the universe.
One might suggest that he author started from a place of wanting to present the Church he cares very much for in a better light and presented the best possible defense for its misbehavior. The best that can be said for him is that like a good attorney he believes in his client and defends him honestly. This doesn't make him correct. Science is the process of arriving at increasingly accurate models of reality by finding ways to test theories. This is inherently at odds with religion which is the process by which priests interpose themselves between man and god to derive status and importance by serving as the only valid conduit between man and both imaginary spiritual goods like salvation and the temporal goods they acquired by selling the former.
This is a problem when the shtick you have been selling everyone is universal truth because constantly having to revise it to be more in line with secular ideas makes it increasingly clear it was far from universal and once its clear that its just your best effort and not a very good one at that the long term viability of your mission is in doubt.
Looking purely at the scientific case the bizarre world of epicycles seems like a vastly greater sin than star size or an entirely misunderstood Coriolis Effect that Riccioli posited but failed to calculate or measure correctly. I would go so far as to suggest that a stationary earth might seem intuitively obvious to a illiterate savage but anyone with a mathematical mind and access to a telescope ought to have figured out that stasis isn't the natural state of anything in the universe.
One might suggest that he author started from a place of wanting to present the Church he cares very much for in a better light and presented the best possible defense for its misbehavior. The best that can be said for him is that like a good attorney he believes in his client and defends him honestly. This doesn't make him correct. Science is the process of arriving at increasingly accurate models of reality by finding ways to test theories. This is inherently at odds with religion which is the process by which priests interpose themselves between man and god to derive status and importance by serving as the only valid conduit between man and both imaginary spiritual goods like salvation and the temporal goods they acquired by selling the former.
This is a problem when the shtick you have been selling everyone is universal truth because constantly having to revise it to be more in line with secular ideas makes it increasingly clear it was far from universal and once its clear that its just your best effort and not a very good one at that the long term viability of your mission is in doubt.