Rating: 
Summary: Lies to preserve ignorance is right?,
Review: A reader from Carlyle gave this book 1 star as he insisted that "The Churchmen's response was to murder him. I fail to see how this could be "right" in any valid world-view".As Galileo lived for several years after the trial, and died peacefully at the age of 78, this is a rather peculiar statement. I fail to see how calling this murder could be "right" in any valid world-view. I guess the morale is that its better to read the book before one reviews it, so as not to make a fool of oneself. Anyway this is an important book for anyone wanting to consider what happened to Galileo, and which issues really were involved. Its an exciting read and if nothing else it may lead to a more serious consideration both of the rise and the role of science. And then please read Rodney Stark's "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery", also recently released.
Rating: 
Summary: Better When He Sticks to History
Review: As one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of the scientific method, there can be no doubt of Galileo's influence on our modern world. If nothing else, the sheer number of books about him and the scientific revolution that have been published recently attest to this. (My favorite among these being Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel.) Mr. Roland has made a solid addition to this collection. Mr. Roland's main theme is the correction of what he considers a misunderstanding of the real conflict between the Church and Galileo. Whereas most people seem to believe that it was Galileo's support of the Copernican heliocentric theory of the solar system that got him into trouble, Roland points out that this was secondary. His true conflict came because of his insistence that the scientific method was the only way to truth. Clearly this is something that the Church could not and cannot tolerate. Along the way we are treated to a nice history of the early years of scientific method as well as an outline of Galileo's career and achievements. Unfortunately, we are also made to endure Rowland's emulation of Galileo's method of prose. In between chapters of excellent history and commentary we have a basically irritating dialogue between the author as narrator and what I assume are the fictional characters of Sr. Maria Celeste and Berkowitz, who hold the positions of the Church and science, respectively. Of course, in a reversal of Galileo, the nun gets the best of the argument every time. And it's not that I don't like what Rowland has to say. I agree with his thesis. I may not feel it's been overlooked as much as he does but I certainly think his reminder of Galileo's weaknesses as both scientist and writer is timely and worthwhile, though I don't dismiss Galileo's achievements as Rowland is often wont to. It's just that I don't feel much is achieved by effectively silencing the other party instead of presenting a truly reasoned discussion. Certainly Galileo could be hamfisted in his prose and we are used to the kind of virtual ad hominem approach to argument that passes as debate in everything today, but I still don't like it. A very good book would have been much better without it. Still, I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater here. With the impact--and often, admittedly, negative impact--that science has had on our world it is perhaps no surprise that we look back to the founders and foundation of modern science for answers. Though he doesn't provide perfect insight or perfectly readable prose, Rowland has certainly made a fair addition to our look backward at this most important of periods. It is worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Better When He Sticks to History
Review: As one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of the scientific method, there can be no doubt of Galileo's influence on our modern world. If nothing else, the sheer number of books about him and the scientific revolution that have been published recently attest to this. (My favorite among these being Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel.) Mr. Roland has made a solid addition to this collection. Mr. Roland's main theme is the correction of what he considers a misunderstanding of the real conflict between the Church and Galileo. Whereas most people seem to believe that it was Galileo's support of the Copernican heliocentric theory of the solar system that got him into trouble, Roland points out that this was secondary. His true conflict came because of his insistence that the scientific method was the only way to truth. Clearly this is something that the Church could not and cannot tolerate. Along the way we are treated to a nice history of the early years of scientific method as well as an outline of Galileo's career and achievements. Unfortunately, we are also made to endure Rowland's emulation of Galileo's method of prose. In between chapters of excellent history and commentary we have a basically irritating dialogue between the author as narrator and what I assume are the fictional characters of Sr. Maria Celeste and Berkowitz, who hold the positions of the Church and science, respectively. Of course, in a reversal of Galileo, the nun gets the best of the argument every time. And it's not that I don't like what Rowland has to say. I agree with his thesis. I may not feel it's been overlooked as much as he does but I certainly think his reminder of Galileo's weaknesses as both scientist and writer is timely and worthwhile, though I don't dismiss Galileo's achievements as Rowland is often wont to. It's just that I don't feel much is achieved by effectively silencing the other party instead of presenting a truly reasoned discussion. Certainly Galileo could be hamfisted in his prose and we are used to the kind of virtual ad hominem approach to argument that passes as debate in everything today, but I still don't like it. A very good book would have been much better without it. Still, I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater here. With the impact--and often, admittedly, negative impact--that science has had on our world it is perhaps no surprise that we look back to the founders and foundation of modern science for answers. Though he doesn't provide perfect insight or perfectly readable prose, Rowland has certainly made a fair addition to our look backward at this most important of periods. It is worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Murder to preserve ignorance is right?
Review: Faith is a wonderful thing, until proven wrong. A faith in God is good (even if He or She or They go by a different name(s)); faith that only you or your organization know what God wants is probably the most terrible thing possible. Reason is a logical method of thinking, but can wander into faith or untruth when it doesn't seek verification. Science is a method of combining reason with verifiable facts to attempt to reach verifiable truth. However, truth is seldom simple and often not straighforward; so we can only get close (for now, maybe forever). Galileo may well have started the world on the road of science and a search for truth. The Church of the time had two problems with that: 1) it challenged the Church's religious authority to claim that only they knew the truth, and 2) it challenged the Church's polical authority to dictate what people could do and how they should live. Note that at the time, the Church had enormous political and economic power, and Galileo was threatening that. The Churchmen's response was to murder him. I fail to see how this could be "right" in any valid world-view. Of course, given that the Churchmen of the time were motivated by power and money, more than piety this response was quite predictable. Galileo's mistake was in failing to ensure that he had adequate political, economic, and military backing to protect himself before making his announcement. Science, religions, and political systems must check their beliefs and theories against reality or they end up having little or no connection to reality and cannot be of service to people; although they can still cause considerable misery. I'm afraid I cannot agree with the author's assertion that verification of truth is bad.
Rating:
Summary: Rowland's mistakes
Review: Galileo's Mistake is a disappointing book, but it's worth a read. Despite its title, it is only partially a historical look at the `Galileo affair,' much of it being a `dialogue' a la Galileo between the author, a nun, and a Simpliceo-like logical-positivist who ineptly defends science. Rowland starts ostensibly with an attack only on scientistic philosophy. But Rowland ends up using his arguments against scientistic philosophical positions to denigrate science as a whole. After noting the variety of philosophical positions held by scientists, he still paints science with the brush of a narrow swath of scientific positions. The crux of Rowland's argument is that science cannot get at the nature of truth, only model the truth of nature. He addresses arguments for the success of science by digressing to other issues: e.g., a discussion of the successful eradication of small pox is followed by a lament that international thanks were not given to God for such success. Rowland explicitly wants science to address teleology, meaning, values, and the supernatural, not responding to arguments that science has been successful insofar as it has eschewed doing so. He critiques Galileo's belief in universal natural laws vis a vis Pope Urban VIII's argument for God's omnipotence - and does not truly address the reality that Galileo's approach proved immensely more-fruitful in explaining the world. In effect, Galileo's implied error is to not have foreshadowed the scientific epistemology of the late Twentieth Century, nor chained himself to the `it's only a useful convention' sophistry of the Church hierarchy. Rowland thus convicts Galileo of a lack of recognition of the separate magisteria of science and of faith, something proclaimed by the Church (and by such scientists as Stephen J. Gould) 350 years later. Yet Rowland himself argues that science should stray from its own magisterial and address questions of meaning, value and the supernatural. Interestingly, he does not mention the arguments of Intelligent Design, which also insist that science must throw out its naturalistic methodology and admit of supernatural explanations. Perhaps Rowland finds ID vulgar compared to his own arguments. But the issue remains: were science to stray from explaining natural phenomena with reference to natural processes, it would immediately tread into the magisteria of faith, incurring the wrath of many; and it would lose its own universality that allows scientists of different religions and philosophies to practice a unitary science that eschews questions that it cannot answer through its naturalistic methods.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant must-read
Review: Galileo's Mistake is a wonderful blend of biography, history, science, and philosophy that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. Wade Rowland takes you back to one of the most important turning points in the evolution of Western culture, the trial of Galileo by the Inquisition.
In today's increasingly anti-religious social milieu, Rowland has the chutzpah to challenge conventional thought on the Galileo Affair, arguing that perhaps there was more to the conflict between Galileo and the Church than the Copernican theory. His brilliant book is a valuable contribution to the continuing debate on the relationship between science and religion, and one I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject matter, regardless of what your position might
be. A highly enjoyable-and stimulating-read!
Rating: 
Summary: Somewhat disappointing
Review: I find the basic thesis of the book reasonable: that Galileo's basic (political) problem was to take logical/mathematical reasoning too seriously, thereby forcing the Church to confront him rather than ignore him.
I did not find persuasive the author's attack on Galileo's philosphical position. He asserts that Galileo's position on the reliability of logical/mathematical/empircal reasoning would no longer be supported by modern scientists, post-Einstein and post-Heisenberg. I believe this is just wrong, and is typical of people whose understanding of quantum physics is limited to what they've read in popular books, but who have never (for example) had to do homework sets and calculations using it. It is true that physicists using quantum mechanics cannot take all of Galileo's framework literally, but it it is also true that you cannot understand quantum mechanics or relativity at all without understanding the Galilean framework as a solid starting point. No one can begin to understand it starting with the Ptolemaic framework, or really, with the conceptual cosmological framework of the Catholic Church at that time.
I found somewhat annoying Rowland's conceit of structuring his text as a dialogue, analogous to Galileo's own. It would be alright, except that his Simplicio doesn't understand enough physics to present an adequate case for the subject, and his Sagredo is a wine-sipping nun who pretends to expertise on the philosophical underpinnings of quantum mechanics, without displaying any knowledge of the subject. The author acting as interlocutor shows himself as a non-disinterested (i.e., unfair) referree.
To me, this book seems rather sad: the equivalent, in the history of physics, of books on "creation science", that attempt to keep a place for religion by looking for holes in current scientific theory, rather than seeing that the religious/spiritual enterprise is a whole other thing than the scientific enterprise. Rather than fighting over battles that have been lost (and, despite the fact that Galileo was censured, the Church lost big-time on this one, which is why the current Pope has amended the situation by admitting the error), it would be wiser to learn which are the issues of real import. For all his lack of political tact, I think Galileo had it right on this one: The Church should not concern itself with matters that are susceptible of empirical investigation, because eventually the Church will lose on such matters.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyed Galileo's Mistake, and Rowland's Spirit of the Web
Review: I first ran across the author, Wade Rowland, while I was taking an undergrad course in communications at Rutgers. His book, Spirit of the Web, was on the reading list and is a real gem, full of sharp insights and thoughtful social
comment, all in all a great introduction to the history of communication technologies. The big bonus was that it was so readable. Galileo's Mistake picks up on some of the themes in Spirit of the Web (and I understand, his
other book, Ockham's Razor which I haven't yet read) and goes into them in depth. The book is really about the problem of hegemonic science--the kind of science that insists that only scientific knowledge is valid knowledge and that all else is a waste of time or worse. Rowland identifies this philosophically with "naive realism" or positivism, which was Galileo's Mistake. Positivism was discredited philosophically by the eighteenth century, and by scientists themselves in the twentieth century, with relativity and quantum physics. Rowland's point is that we live by our mythologies and the Galileo myth is foundational in Western culture. He wants to show how it's wrong and even dangerous and needs correction. Given the heavy-duty nature of the content, it is remarkably easy to read, because it's set up as a kind of travel narrative involving three chatty characters who like to talk about metaphysics. If only all philosophy books were like this!
Rating:
Summary: Re: the review of this book by David Wilkins
Review: I just finished reading Galileo's Mistake this week - and thoroughly enjoyed it - and thought I'd post a review. Before doing so, I read the other amazon reviews, and I must say I really disagree with a recently posted review by David Wilkins. If Rowland did not place Ptolemy's equant correctly (I have no idea; it certainly is not important to his argument), David Wilkins is completely off base as to the author's overall philosophical position. It is not "good old fashioned skepticism", but something a lot more sophisticated. It goes by a number of names, antirealism and idealism being the most common. It does not deny the existence of real entities in the universe, but it does insist that 'ultimate' reality is beyond the grasp of human reason. Rowland, it seems to
be, presents this position about as clearly and cogently as is possible in a work aimed at lay readers. I would agree with Rowland that the anti-realist position represents the majority opinion among thoughtful mathematicians and physicists these days (not to mention philosophers of science like Rowland), thanks to Heisenberg and Gödel among the scientists, and Hume and Kant on the philosophical side. I am no historian - my area is technology and IT - but as far as I can see Rowland also argues very cogently that this was essentially the Church's epistemilogical stance in its conflict with Galielo. Galileo, for his part, was clearly advocating the position of naive realism or empiricism, which was thoroughly discredited both philosophically and scientifically by the early twentieth century. It seems to me that in the end Rowland is making a rather obvious point that current scientific ideology is determined to overlook -- that is that there are limits to scientific knowledge, and that metaphysical (or religious) knowledge can be helpful (crucial, in fact) in filling out a more complete
picture of the world we live in. How we think about the world determines how we live in it, and to the extent that Rowland's powerful book helps shatter the myth of scientific infallibility and omniscience, it does a great service. I highly recommend it to anyone with an open mind.
Rating:
Summary: Unbiased historical book - is no apologist for the church
Review: I learned of Galileo's Mistake when I heard a radio interview a few months ago with the author Wade Rowland. He's also written books on telecommunication technology and the internet (Spirit of the Web) and does literary travel writing. After reading Galileo's Mistake, I purchased his earlier book on traveling in France called Ockham's Razor, which I've just started reading and am thoroughly enjoying. I've been puzzled by some of the assumptions that a few reviewers have about his latest book Galileo's Mistake. Some reviewers - presumably the ones who haven't actually read the book - assume that he is a Catholic and his book is slanted for the Church's position. This isn't the case at all, in the radio interview, Rowland said he's not a Catholic, he's not anti-science, he's a journalist who writes about a range of topics including science. He's also teaches a number of courses at several universities (I think one was Ryerson, can't remember the other one) on journalism ethics, and on science techy topics like artificial intelligence, artificial life, and cyberspace's impact on society. Rowland's book is in no sense an apology for the Catholic Church, nor could any careful reader make that assessment. Having read the book, I can say that Rowland simply tries to set the record straight, based on the documentation and on current understanding of the issues at stake in the confrontation. And he does it in a very easy-to-read, entertaining style given the not so light topic.
| 
