The Galileo case

was the Church right after all?
From Dr WE. Makin
Sir, Peter Hodgson continually cudgels the public, in your columns and elsewhere, with the words "science" and "scientist." These words were unknown in the age of Galileo. There is a very good reason for that. Science was one of the main consequences which flowed from the life and trial of Galileo. The term "scientist" is a more glaring anachronism, in Peter Hodgson's hands, than the clock in Julius Caesar. There were no scientists in the first half of the seventeenth century. His repeated use of the mantra "medieval science" is nonsense — a contradiction in terms.
Why? The first condition of science is the existence of a professional body of scientists. "Professional" means answerable to nobody but their peers for the assessment of hypotheses, methods, conclusions and evidence. Science is therefore an institution — not a method. Scientific institutions did not even begin to come into existence until the second half of the seventeenth century. Lactantius — chaplain to Constantine the Great — set the tone by forbidding philosophers atomism, any study of purely material causes and the existence of the antipodes. Theology was now crowned Queen of the sciences. This meant that reli gious belief indirectly monitored which hypotheses, methods, conclusions and evidence were acceptable. Anything remotely unorthodox which surfaced, despite all these precautions, was checkmated by the Church. Such was the strength of the general consensus, this very rarely happened.
It is therefore a gross error to accuse Galileo's opponents of maliciously confusing science and theology. They were simply maintaining the medieval status quo. Science and philosophy still had only amateur status — mere pawns on a chess board. Galileo's achievement was to break these rules. Science, which had previously been no more than a pawn, now became a rival Queen. This came about not just because Galileo was eventually seen to be right. It takes two to tango. The paradox is that if the Church had not allowed the trial of Galileo to take place there might not have been any scientific revolution at all. The separation of science and theology — which Peter Hodgson fondly imagines to be some eternal truth — would have happened much later. Or maybe not at all. History is rarely as inevitable as hindsight suggests. The theory that the earth moved was often kicked around in Greek and medieval times. It did not lead — in itself— to any scientific revolution. That
revolution, which created an international and professional body of independent scientists, came about as a direct response to the controversy over Galileo. We have to get out of the namby-pamby mindlessness which sees all conflict as inherently undesirable. What does Peter Hodgson think might have happened if Jesus had never been put on trial?
Mary Kenny, with her usual robust common sense, argues that the challenge to Galileo was every bit as vital as his original hypothesis. Even if she were wrong, it is hardly scientific or professional to dismiss her as "outrageous". It is so easy to forget that Galileo appeared very outrageous once. Anyone who has actually studied seventeenth century astronomy knows that a sun-centred system was anything but a self-evident truth in 1629.
Then why apologise at all? It was surety the personal tragedy of a wise old man, terrified of torture, imprisonment or sudden death, which was uppermost in the Holy Father's mind. History is all about empathising with our all too human victims — whether they were "ultimately' right or wrong is really a matter for God not us.
Yours faithfully, WILLIAM MAKIN Great Barford, Beds.