Gretchen Becker
Science Conversation, Reaction Paper
9.28.10
The Success of Galieo’s Dialogue
The persistence of Aristotilean philosophy and views of the universe appear chiefly in
modern English when describing the motions of the sun. The bright star rises and sets, as if the
Earth in our minds remains motionless despite our accepting otherwise. Peripatetics of both
Copernicus and Galileo’s time accepted a sun in motion about a still earth, especially since the
prevailing opinions of scientists, great thinkers, and religious authorities aligned with the system
of Aristotle. Life experience resonated with religious beliefs and cultural understanding in Italy.
An educated Copernican supporter, Sagredo, of Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief
World Systems argues, “I…believe that one who forsakes an opinion which he imbibed with his
milk and which is supported by multitudes… must of necessity be moved… by the most
effective arguments,” (151). These arguments needed to be detailed before the new system
inspired by Copernicus could be accepted. But, did Galileo in the Dialogue achieve his primary
motive, to convince his readers of the Copernican system, or did it fall in its secondary attempt to
appease the Church and present the new truth as merely plausible? This question can be
answered by understanding the parties involved, their reactions, and a reader’s opinion today.
A Peripatetic’s view of physics allowed the characterization of a deity as the source of
the planetary and solar inclinations. Philosophy, with the logic of Aristotle as its backbone,
harmonized science and religion. Moreover, the Church was a symbol of cultural and political
authority empowered to condemn scientists and philosophers alike if new ideas contravened
Holy Scripture. The Church primarily accepted Galileo’s work through his attempts to make the
Becker 2
Copernican views inconclusive yet persuasive, as shown primarily in his addressing the reader,
“I decided to appear…as a witness of the sober truth…I have taken the Copernican side in the
discourse,” (6). Unfortunately, the Church’s acceptance waned through Galileo’s lifetime.
Simplicio’s purpose in the Dialogue was meant to represent the Aristotelian world system
of a motionless earth, the perfect heavens, and a prime mover. Unwilling to accept attacks on
Aristotle and his conclusions, he was instead characterized by Galileo as a simple-minded
follower, fitting his name. At the end the dialogue, he concludes, “As to the discourses we have
held… I am not entirely convinced; but from such feeble ideas of the matter as I have formed, I
admit, that your thoughts seem to me more ingenious than many others I have heard. I do not
therefore consider them true and conclusive,” (538). As a reader, I find the Peripatetics
arguments themselves realistic and carefully considered, although they may have been better
represented by an equally quick-minded supporter of Aristotle. Simplicio’s character works to
devalue this world system from the beginning, at least in the minds of many educated laymen.
Sagredo, with the help of Salviati’s explanation of the Copernican viewpoint, conversely
paints the picture of rational counterarguments. Sometimes his insight is conclusive enough to
convince Simplicio and Sagredo, which serves to further the purpose of the dialogue format in
the eyes of a reader. In my opinion, the Copernican arguments are strong, although I feel
Simplicio misrepresents and stereotypes the Peripatetics. Advances in technology and science
since Galileo’s time serve as further evidence to support many arguments. The few I do disagree
with, such as the explanation of the tides on the fourth day, is not on the basis of their reasoning
but with respect to current knowledge concerning the moon’s creation of the tides. Although in
these respects the logic and reasoning found in Sagredo’s and Salviati’s arguments outweigh
Becker 3
those of Simplicio’s, Galileo respectfully gives realistic rebuttals to support the Peripatetics. This
allows for enough inconclusively necessary for the Church’s accepting the publication.
In the end, I believe Galileo acted in his best interest to present both sides, even if
unequally. If not for the Church’s authority, Galileo may have presented the Copernican view,
which would exclude the Peripatetics from discussion and rebuttal. All publications, scientific
and otherwise, arise in the midst of culture and predispositions, and battles like this one continue
to this day, such as arguments over global warming. Whenever trust is put into the hands of few
who hold the evidence, questions and doubts are raised. Characters like Sagredo and Simplicio
must therefore “appear openly in the theater of the world as a witness,” (5), just as Galileo did.
Works Cited
Cohen, I. Bernard. The Birth of a New Physics. New York: W.W. Norton, 1985. Print.
Galilei, Galileo, and Stillman Drake. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. New York:
Modern Library, 2001. Print.