Galileo reborn
In his own lifetime Galileo was the centre of violent controversy;but the scientific dust has long
since settled,and today we can see even his lamous clash with the Inquisition in something like its
proper perspective.But,in contrast,it is only in modern times that Galileo has become a problem
child for historians of science.
The old view of Galileo was delightfully uncomplicated.He was,above all,a man who experimented:who
despised the prejudices and book learning of the Aristotelians,who put his questions to nature
instead of the ancient,and who drew his conclusions fearlessly.He had been the first to turn a
telescope to the sky,and he had seen there evidence enough to overthrow Arisotle and Ptolemy
together.He was the man who climbed the Learning Tower of Pisa and dropped various weights from
the top,who rolled balls down inclined planes,and then generalized the results of his many
experiments into the famous law of free fall.
But a closer study of the evidence,supported by a deeper sense of the period,and particularly by a
new consciousness of the philosophical undercurrents in the scientific revolution,has profoundly
modified this view of Galileo.Today,although the old Galileo lives on in many popular writing,among
historians of science a new and more sophisticated picture has emerged.At the same time our sympathy
for Galileo's opponents has grown somewhat.His telescopic obretical consequences,and they provided
a striking demonstration of the potentialities hidden in instruments and apparatus.But can we blame
those who looked and failed to see what Galileo saw,if we remember that to use a telescope at the
limit of its powers calls for long experience and intimate familiarity with one's instrument?Was
the philosopher who refused to look through Galileo's telescope more culpable than those who alleged
that the spiral nebulae observed with Lord Rosse's great telescope in the eighteen-forties were
sratches left by the grinder?We can perhaps forgive those who said the moons of Jupiter were
produced by Galileo's spyglass if we recall that in his day,as for centuries before,curved glass was
the popular contrivance for producing not truth but illusion,untruth;and if a single curved glass
would distort nature,how much more would a pair of them?
since settled,and today we can see even his lamous clash with the Inquisition in something like its
proper perspective.But,in contrast,it is only in modern times that Galileo has become a problem
child for historians of science.
The old view of Galileo was delightfully uncomplicated.He was,above all,a man who experimented:who
despised the prejudices and book learning of the Aristotelians,who put his questions to nature
instead of the ancient,and who drew his conclusions fearlessly.He had been the first to turn a
telescope to the sky,and he had seen there evidence enough to overthrow Arisotle and Ptolemy
together.He was the man who climbed the Learning Tower of Pisa and dropped various weights from
the top,who rolled balls down inclined planes,and then generalized the results of his many
experiments into the famous law of free fall.
But a closer study of the evidence,supported by a deeper sense of the period,and particularly by a
new consciousness of the philosophical undercurrents in the scientific revolution,has profoundly
modified this view of Galileo.Today,although the old Galileo lives on in many popular writing,among
historians of science a new and more sophisticated picture has emerged.At the same time our sympathy
for Galileo's opponents has grown somewhat.His telescopic obretical consequences,and they provided
a striking demonstration of the potentialities hidden in instruments and apparatus.But can we blame
those who looked and failed to see what Galileo saw,if we remember that to use a telescope at the
limit of its powers calls for long experience and intimate familiarity with one's instrument?Was
the philosopher who refused to look through Galileo's telescope more culpable than those who alleged
that the spiral nebulae observed with Lord Rosse's great telescope in the eighteen-forties were
sratches left by the grinder?We can perhaps forgive those who said the moons of Jupiter were
produced by Galileo's spyglass if we recall that in his day,as for centuries before,curved glass was
the popular contrivance for producing not truth but illusion,untruth;and if a single curved glass
would distort nature,how much more would a pair of them?
下一篇:工作不是为了生气的
声明:以上文章均为用户自行添加,仅供打字交流使用,不代表本站观点,本站不承担任何法律责任,特此声明!如果有侵犯到您的权利,请及时联系我们删除。
文章熱度:☆☆☆☆☆
文章難度:☆☆☆☆☆
文章質量:☆☆☆☆☆
說明:系統根據文章的熱度、難度、質量自動認證,已認證的文章將參與打字排名!
本文打字排名TOP20
- 1huangz 12-03 16:28207 KPM
- 2游客11810743 11-12 20:17194 KPM
- 3镜花水月 12-01 18:43192 KPM
- 4佀庆晓 11-12 10:46175 KPM
- 5游客10664463 11-25 19:22136 KPM
- 6金小诺 11-12 22:43133 KPM
- 7游客11486668 01-26 16:1998 KPM
用户更多文章推荐
- CET-6-62017-01-01
- CET-6-62017-01-01
- CET-6-52016-12-30
- CE6-32016-12-28
- CET-6 22016-12-27
- (贵族歹徒)2016-11-21
- The great escape2016-11-20
- Hobbies2016-11-19
- Patterns of culture2016-11-18
- The process of ageing2016-11-16
- The cost of government2016-11-15
- Adolescence2016-11-15
- Education2016-11-13
- Knowledge and progress2016-11-12
- The modern city2016-11-10
- Secrecy in industry2016-11-09
- 十大民生热点2016-11-09
- The sporting spirit2016-11-08
- Spare that spider2016-11-06
- Finding fossil man2016-11-05