Galileo

And the Science Deniers

De: Mario Livio

Narrado por: Jonathan Davis

An “intriguing and accessible” (Publishers Weekly) interpretation of the life of Galileo Galilei, one of history’s greatest and most fascinating scientists, that sheds new light on his discoveries and how he was challenged by science deniers.

“We really need this story now, because we’re living through the next chapter of science denial.” (Bill McKibben)

Galileo’s story may be more relevant today than ever before. At present, we face enormous crises - such as minimizing the dangers of climate change - because the science behind these threats is erroneously questioned or ignored. Galileo encountered this problem 400 years ago. His discoveries, based on careful observations and ingenious experiments, contradicted conventional wisdom and the teachings of the church at the time. Consequently, in a blatant assault on freedom of thought, his books were forbidden by church authorities.

Astrophysicist and best-selling author Mario Livio draws on his own scientific expertise and uses his “gifts as a great storyteller” (The Washington Post) to provide a “refreshing perspective” (Booklist) into how Galileo reached his bold new conclusions about the cosmos and the laws of nature. A freethinker who followed the evidence wherever it led him, Galileo was one of the most significant figures behind the scientific revolution. He believed that every educated person should know science as well as literature and insisted on reaching the widest audience possible, publishing his books in Italian rather than Latin.

Galileo was put on trial with his life in the balance for refusing to renounce his scientific convictions. He remains a hero and inspiration to scientists and all of those who respect science - which, as Livio reminds us in this “admirably clear and concise” (The Times, London) book, remains threatened everyday.

©2020 Mario Livio (P)2020 Simon & Schuster

Completely

appropriate, especially in this day and age. Science rules! Galileo understood this very well and his life and many, many others have put us all on a better path... Buy it! It moves... :)

Well-written

While I disagree with and consider incompatible the comparison of Galileo's research and studies of the mechanics of celestial bodies and the concept of large-scale biological evolution, I nonetheless think the book is well-written. The book presents an insightful and meaningful summary of not only Galileo's scientific life, but also of his thoughts regarding the relationship between science and Christianity.

The endless struggle to circle wide and quiet around the obsticles to truth.

great book! a look at the endless struggle to speak your version of truth and the stories in the Bible as science exploded following the invention of the telescope. toward the end of the book the author interjects his questionable version of climate change. aparently the author has yet to investigate the Milankivich Cycles that influence the ice age cycles of earth. IMO

struggled to get through this one

the story of Galileo's life was interesting. I prefer biographies with less editorial content. realizing there must be some in every biography of long gone personages it should apply to them. Not a leap 400 years forward to comment on current issues. though I did not disagree with his conclusions, I do not feel the timing nor placement appropriate

Excellent

Definitely a book for the times it is written for, meaning circa 2020. With so many conspiracy "theories" and people willing to believe fantastical ideas.

Thrilling!

Excellent book, tells the story in an really compelling way. It paints a three-dimensional picture of Galileo and his saga of discovery and clash with the Catholic church.
From time to time is hard to followup with all the characters, but it doesn't diminish the narrative.

SSDD

This book not only being a great biography also gives insight to science deniers of the present day.

Too much

Maybe history buffs will like this much better than I. If you like detail and hundreds of Italian names, this is your book. I found it tedious and repetitious. Galileo was a great scientist and progressed the scientific method dramatically. The church was what it was then and now; a great impediment to truth and progress, and mainly interested in protecting itself.

Good but Incomplete

I was expecting to really like this book and I partly did. It was certainly interesting and covered the main details of Galileo’s discoveries. Livio is also an astrophysicist so he knows more of the significance of Galileo’s discoveries. We know that Galileo lived in a time of great change that also normally is accompanied by great inertia, especially by those in power. We all know that he posited that the earth was not stationary with the sun moving around it, but that the sun was stationary, at least relative to the earth and the other planets. We all know that he was persecuted by the church based on a misinterpretation of the Bible which spoke of the sun rising and setting and returning to its place to rise again. He was threatened until he recanted his theory. 

The book focuses on the time of his scientific discoveries and his trial by the inquisition. He didn’t invent the telescope but once he got this new invention that could magnify distant things, he kept improving it to see even further and used it to focus on the sky. He discovered that the moon also had mountains and valleys and craters. The moon was thought to be made of something different than the earth which allowed it to float in the sky. He discovered that there were planets that are like our moon and eventually realized that some of them had moons also. But, the most controversial part was that he came to the belief that Copernicus was right, putting him in the crosshairs of the church. 

And, this is the real focus of the book. It is about how those who deny science hinder the development of knowledge and progress. In that, it does a fairly good job but overlooks a few less convenient facts. The problem is that Galileo didn’t directly oppose the Bible with his views. He opposed the interpretation of the Bible by the Roman Church. He specifically tried to explain how the Bible could be true while the facts that he saw were also true. The Roman Church’s view was based on a literal interpretation of the actual words of scripture when it states that the sun rises in the east. In other words, the issue was not just whether the Bible was literally true, but whether the Bible could have been using metaphorical language. Every language uses metaphor and only those who don’t know the language don’t understand what they mean. 

In addition, it ignores the fact that, at the time, the facts that Galileo saw through his telescope didn’t rule out another interpretation. The view of the Roman Church was that the earth didn’t move and the sun, planets, and stars rotated around the earth. Galileo’s findings clearly showed that that was not true. However, another scientist of the age, Tycho Brahe interpreted those same facts to also show a stationary earth with the sun, moon, and stars circling the earth, but the planets (not including the earth) circling the sun. With the limited knowledge of the day, that view could not be proven wrong. Galileo argued against it by using the tides, which he said rose and fell because of the rotation of the earth, just like water in a pan will slosh around when the pan is moved. However, we now know that is not what causes the tides and that they are instead caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. The Roman Church did not argue against that and thus it was not purely that they were against science per se. They were against Galileo’s interpretation of the science. There were others who defended Galileo without believing that he was correct, believing that Brahe’s view was better. However, the fact remains that the Roman Church did place itself as judge over which science to accept and based it on a misinterpretation of the Bible. By doing so they impeded the free expression that allows science to progress and throttled a brilliant mind who may have gone on to make more discoveries if he had had the freedom to do so. It also took his publications out of circulation so that others could not benefit from them. Though some copies were preserved and spread, the reach was severely limited. 

It also tries to extend that to a comparison with science deniers today and again with a mixed result. It certainly is true that there are many deniers of science today and their tribe seems to be increasing. Climate change is an example as is the recent rejection of the science behind Covid-19 (Livio completed the book before the pandemic became well-known and before it had spread widely and doesn’t mention it as an example). Livio discusses both evolution and climate change and ranks the latter as of greater importance (because if a group doesn’t believe in evolution, it doesn’t hurt those around them but if people don’t believe in climate change and take no effort to slow its progress it will have disastrous consequences). What Livio doesn’t note is that science is always changing as new information is found or new explanations for existing information are put forth. Science is based on extant knowledge which is, by definition, always incomplete. It does make mistakes. And, scientists are human. There are great checks and balances in the system, but some scientists still fudge the data (sometimes purposely, sometimes due to preconceived notions) to achieve recognition for their discoveries. While I agree with him on the dangers involved in denying science, scientists have to also accept that some of the blame for that is in their own hubris in making declarative statements too soon which have to be retracted or overturned later, thus reducing the trust of many people who don’t understand the science, but do remember the times when they have been deceived or put down as ignorant.

Overall, the book is good but could be better. The subject is certainly important but not every disagreement with “science” is a denial of science per se and is more of a built-up mistrust of not only scientists but others in authority who have fooled them, not once, and not even twice. It would have been much better if he had treated this part of his subject with more humility and delved more into the reasons that more and more people are denying science. In a sense, his book is aimed more at people who believe, he is preaching to the choir, instead of writing more towards those who are his subjects, who are more and more suspicious of science. It turns out that in today’s world, it’s not religion that is the real problem. It’s much broader than that, and the issue is even much broader than just denying science. It’s more of a suspicion of those in authority and those who are educated but don’t understand the way the average person sees their world.

Should be required reading by anyone in leadership

While the author repeatedly emphasizes the conflict of science and religion his argument is valid across all fields. Dogmatism in any field is district I've and non-productive.