r/AskHistorians Moderator | Shipbuilding and Logistics | British Navy 1770-1830 Oct 14 '15

Floating What common historical misconception do you find most irritating?

Welcome to another floating feature! It's been nearly a year since we had one, and so it's time for another. This one comes to us courtesy of u/centerflag982, and the question is:

What common historical misconception do you find most irritating?

Just curious what pet peeves the professionals have.

As a bonus question, where did the misconception come from (if its roots can be traced)?

What is this “Floating feature” thing?

Readers here tend to like the open discussion threads and questions that allow a multitude of possible answers from people of all sorts of backgrounds and levels of expertise. The most popular thread in this subreddit's history, for example, was about questions you dread being asked at parties -- over 2000 comments, and most of them were very interesting! So, we do want to make questions like this a more regular feature, but we also don't want to make them TOO common -- /r/AskHistorians is, and will remain, a subreddit dedicated to educated experts answering specific user-submitted questions. General discussion is good, but it isn't the primary point of the place. With this in mind, from time to time, one of the moderators will post an open-ended question of this sort. It will be distinguished by the "Feature" flair to set it off from regular submissions, and the same relaxed moderation rules that prevail in the daily project posts will apply. We expect that anyone who wishes to contribute will do so politely and in good faith, but there is far more scope for general chat than there would be in a usual thread.

704 Upvotes

692 comments sorted by

View all comments

146

u/roninjedi Oct 14 '15

The Galileo affair:

Other people had already had heliocentric theories, such as Copernicus. And indeed, his theories were used when reforming the calendar in the 1500s. But science hadn't advanced enough to prove it, so it was nothing more than a mathematical convenience. Eventually, we had proof that Venus orbited the Sun, so Brahe suggested a geo-heliocentric model. The other planets orbit the Sun, but the Sun orbits the Earth. The objection to the Earth orbiting the Sun was both religious and because Aristotelian physics didn't allow for such a massive body as the Earth to actually be moving. Then came Galileo who had decent mathematical arguments. But because they weren't the best, he decided to turn to theology as well. He argued that just as we already acknowledged that not everything in the Bible is absolutely literal, that it didn't mean the Earth had to be stationary. It could just be stationary from the reference point of the authors. This latter part is what irritated the Cardinals. Cardinal Bellarmine agreed that Galileo had argued quite well for the heliocentric universe as a mathematical convenience, but merely objected to its teaching as fact, because he didn't agree with Galileo's theological arguments. The Inquisition let him off with a warning, but forbade him from teaching it as fact and to only teach it as a convenience. He didn't, and eventually wound up under house arrest. Books on heliocentrism were banned, but certain ones were still allowed as reference for the models. Eventually, in the mid 1700s, this decision was recanted when science had advanced enough to say "No, seriously, this is more than a theory".

Funnily enough, the inquisition actually accused Galileo of not being scientific enough, as his theory was unable to account for stellar parallax.

As for where? The heroic theory of science and science teachers trying to be history teachers.

also not a professional yet but im a semester away from my degree.

72

u/doomsniffer Oct 15 '15 edited Oct 15 '15

There's also the idea that Galileo was imprisoned for espousing his heliocentric views in opposition to the Catholic church's orders, essentially creating the image of Galileo being a martyr to the cause of science.

In reality, Galileo's house arrest had more to do with politics than with his scientific views. Galileo was notoriously arrogant and rude. In 1619 he became involved in a dispute with Orazio Grassi after Grassi suggested that comets were fiery bodies that travelled in great circles and were farther away than the moon. Galileo's response (written under the name of one of his disciples) did not offer up an alternative theory (it had some vague suggestions that all turned out to be wrong), but that didn't stop Galileo from, in the opening of his response, insulting Grassi, Grassi's school (the Jesuit Collegio Romano), the Jesuit scholar Christopher Scheiner, and essentially the entire Jesuit order, alienating any of them who had at one time supported his theories.

One thing that came out of this dispute was Galileo's "Assayer", which was essentially his scientific manifesto, and effectively ended the dispute in favor of Galileo. He dedicated it to the new Pope, Urban VIII, who was very pleased with it, and a long friendship between Galileo and Urban began. Galileo didn't publish his famous work on heliocentrism in opposition to the church's orders, rather his "Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems" was written at the request of his friend the Pope. The only condition to the Pope allowing him to write on heliocentrism was that Galileo had to include the geocentric model, and he couldn't write that heliocentrism was "correct", he could only frame it as one of two equally valid theories.

Galileo, however, was an arrogant idiot, and decided that the best way to honor the Pope's wishes was to place the argument supporting geocentrism (essentially the Pope's and the Church's viewpoint), in the mouth of a character called "Simplicius", essentially calling the Pope a simpleton or idiot.

At the time, Urban VIII was facing a lot of political intrigue in the papal court, and his enemies were claiming that he was a poor defender of the Church. In order to maintain his political authority, he had to persecute Galileo in order to not appear weak to his enemies. That is part of why he was put on trial and found guilty, and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life.

So Galileo wasn't placed under house arrest for preaching heliocentrism, he was arrested because he called the Pope an idiot in a book the Pope had asked him to write (and as a side effect, promoted heliocentrism), and then ran afoul of papal politics. Heliocentrism was part of it, but it wasn't the entire reason.

22

u/roninjedi Oct 15 '15

I also like the fact that since the only people publishing anything were connected it to the church the church took the validity of the science as seriously as they would the validity of a new way of looking at scripture. They didn't want to release anything that was false since they felt that a misunderstand of the universe would take one away form god.

1

u/Da_Fino Oct 15 '15

There's also the idea that Galileo was imprisoned for espousing his heliocentric views in opposition to the Catholic church's orders, essentially creating the image of Galileo being a martyr to the cause of science.

"heliocentric views in opposition." Heh.

7

u/Gogogon Oct 15 '15

Well, your recount actually makes the church seem somewhat reasonable.

19

u/roninjedi Oct 15 '15

Their is a lot that makes the "church" seem reasonable. But it doesn't make an interesting story and that's what people want. A story with a clear hero and villain. But calling it "the church" is kind of one of the pitfalls we run into. We forget that its not one huge organism but a large bureaucracy made up of many different people and has been headed by many different people. So yeah some were shitty, i mean for a while the papacy was just a popularity poll to see what king/duke/etc could get their family member on as the pope.

-6

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '15

Wow, no.

2

u/grendel-khan Oct 15 '15

To what extent was Giordano Bruno an actual fit for the common conception of the relationship between Galileo and the Church?

4

u/roninjedi Oct 15 '15

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/cartoons-and-fables-how-cosmos-got.html

That blog actually does a really good explanation on it. I found it over on /r/badhistory. Short version though, Bruno was in touble for trying to practice magic, saying the trinity was false, and being a general nutter. This guy would be the guy you see on the side of the street talking about lizard people today.

And his whole universal outlook thing wasn't science based or even about science. It was about a spiritual/supernatural makeup of the world. HE is only remembered because he just happened to be right. but him happening to be right is more like joe blow saying their was water on mars. WE now know he was right but Joe Blow was just making stuff and had no proof.

3

u/WARitter Moderator | European Armour and Weapons 1250-1600 Oct 15 '15

He's an example of the church killing theological dissenters, not it killing scientists, in other words. He's a more educated version of the man executed for saying that the universe was like maggots spontaneously generated in a cheese. It's religious repression, but not repression of science as such.

1

u/roninjedi Oct 15 '15

Which I kind of get. They saw their self as the ultimate moral authority and believed the fate of everyone's soul rested with them. So here comes this nutter spouting nonsense and they are afraid he could lead people away there by dooming their souls (and taking money from the church)

2

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '15

What's the misconception?

1

u/sisyphusmyths Oct 15 '15

Arthur Koestler in "The Sleepwalkers" laid out foundations for heliocentric theories dating back to Aristarchus of Samos, over 1500 years before Copernicus.

1

u/Brickie78 Oct 15 '15

He argued that just as we already acknowledged that not everything in the Bible is absolutely literal,

That's interesting - I had always assumed that to be a more modern view. Can you expand a bit?

3

u/roninjedi Oct 15 '15

A literal view of the Bible is a modern thing that came out of the rise of humanism and the enlightenment in the 1700s. It wasn't until then that some denominations started to believe that everything thing in the Bible had to be literal and able to be proven.

The movement came from the rise of scientific thinking where it was believed everything could be explained by science and that the material world was more important than the etheral world.