Galileo S Logical Treatises

Hard as it is to believe, what is possibly Galileo's most important Latin manuscript was not transcribed for the National Edition of his works and so has remained hidden from scholars for centuries. In this volume William A. Wallace translates the logical treatises contained in that manuscript and makes them intelligible to the modern reader. He prefaces his translation with a lengthy introduction describing the contents of the manuscript, the sources from which it derives, its dating, and how it relates to Galileo's other Pisan writings. The translation is accompanied by extensive notes and commentary; these explain the text and tie it to the fuller exposition of Galileo's logical methodology in the author's companion volume, Galileo's Logic of Discovery and Proof. The result is a research tool that is indispensable for anyone intent on understanding Galileo's logic as described in that volume and the documentary evidence on which it is based.

This volume is presented as a companion study to my translation of Galileo's MS 27, Galileo's Logical Treatises, which contains Galileo's appropriated questions on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics - a work only recently transcribed from the Latin autograph. Its purpose is to acquaint an English-reading audience with the teaching in those treatises. This is basically a sixteenth-century logic of discovery and of proof about which little is known in the present day, yet one that arguably guided the most significant research program of the seventeenth century. Despite its historical and systematic importance, the teaching is difficult to explain to the modern reader. Part of the problem stems from the fragmentary nature of the manuscript in which it is preserved, part from the contents of the teaching itself, which requires a considerable propadeutic for its comprehension. A word of explanation is thus required to set out the structure of the volume and to detail the editorial decisions that underlie its organization. Two major manuscript studies have advanced the cause of scholarship on Galileo within the past two decades. The first relates to Galileo's experimental activity at Padua prior to his discoveries with the telescope that led to the publication of his Sidereus nuncius in 1610. Much of this activity has been uncovered by Stillman Drake in analyses of manuscript fragments associated with the composition of Galileo's Two New Sciences, fragments now bound in a codex identified as MS 72 in the collection of Galileiana at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence.

The work of Galileo has long been important not only as a foundation of modern physics but also as a model - and perhaps the paradigmatic model - of scientific method, and therefore as a leading example of scientific rationality. However, as we know, the matter is not so simple. The range of Galileo readings is so varied that one may be led to the conclusion that it is a case of chacun a son Galileo; that here, as with the Bible, or Plato or Kant or Freud or Finnegan's Wake, the texts themselves underdetermine just what moral is to be pointed. But if there is no canonical reading, how can the texts be taken as evidence or example of a canonical view of scientific rationality, as in Galileo? Or is it the case, instead, that we decide a priori what the norms of rationality are and then pick through texts to fmd those which satisfy these norms? Specifically, how and on what grounds are we to accept or reject scientific theories, or scientific reasoning? If we are to do this on the basis of historical analysis of how, in fact, theories came to be accepted or rejected, how shall we distinguish 'is' from 'ought'? What follows (if anything does) from such analysis or reconstruction about how theories ought to be accepted or rejected? Maurice Finocchiaro's study of Galileo brings an important and original approach to the question of scientific rationality by way of a systematic read

For more than 30 years, historians have rejected what they call the ‘warfare thesis’ – the idea that there is an inevitable conflict between religion and science – insisting that scientists and believers can live in harmony. This book disagrees. Taking as its starting point the most famous of all such conflicts, the Galileo affair, it argues that religious and scientific communities exhibit very different attitudes to knowledge. Scripturally based religions not only claim a source of knowledge distinct from human reason. They are also bound by tradition, insist upon the certainty of their beliefs, and are resistant to radical criticism in ways in which the sciences are not. If traditionally minded believers perceive a clash between what their faith tells them and the findings of modern science, they may well do what the Church authorities did in Galileo’s time. They may attempt to close down the science, insisting that the authority of God’s word trumps that of any ‘merely human’ knowledge. Those of us who value science must take care to ensure this does not happen.

The unifying theme in this second volume of essays by William A. Wallace to be published in the Variorum series is signaled in the title of the opening paper: 'Domingo de Soto and the Iberian roots of Galileo's science'. The seven essays in the first part provide textual studies of Soto's early formulations of the laws of falling bodies, the context in which they were developed in the 16th century, and the ways in which they were transmitted in Spain and Portugal to the early 17th century, mainly by Jesuit scholars. The following essays focus on the young Galileo and his work at Pisa and Padua, leading to his discovery of the law of uniform acceleration in free fall. Textual evidence is presented for an indirect influence of Soto's work on Galileo, mediated by Jesuits who were teaching at Padua in the first decade of the 17th century.

Recent years have seen scholars in a wide range of disciplines re-evaluate the history of the Society of Jesus. In 1997, a group of scholars convened a major international conference to discuss the world of the Jesuits between 1540 and 1773 (the year of its suppression by papal edict). This meeting led to the creation of the first volume in this series, The Jesuits, which examined the worldwide Jesuit undertaking in such fields as music, art, architecture, devotional writing, mathematics, physics, astronomy, natural history, public performance, and education, with special attention to the Jesuits' interaction with non-European cultures. This second volume, following a second conference in 2002, continues in a similar path as its predecessor, complementing the regional coverage with contributions on the Flemish and Iberian provinces, on the missions in Japan, and in post-Suppression Russia and the United States. The performing arts, like theatre and music, are broadly treated, and, in addition to continued attention to painting and architecture, the volume contains essays on a range of objets d'art, including statuary, reliquaries, and alter pieces - as well as on gardens, mechanical clocks, and related automata. Other themes include finances, natural theology, censorship within the Jesuit order, and the Society's relationship to women. Perhaps most important, the volume gives particular attention to the eighteenth century, the 'age of disasters' for the Jesuits - the negative papal ruling on Chinese Rites, the destruction the of Paraguay Reductions, and the suppressions of the order that began in Portugal and that culminated in the general Suppression of 1773. With contributions from distinguished scholars from a dozen different countries, The Jesuits, II continues in the illustrious tradition of its predecessor to make an important contribution to religious memory.

This book questions the traditional "grand narratives" of science and religion in the seventeenth-century. The known contradictions between the documents of Galileo's "trials" are reread as expressions of the contradictory nature of the Counter Reformation Church. Looking back at the formative years of Tridentine Catholicism demystifies its monolithic and coercive tendencies. Being torn between different cultural orientationsNthe Dominicans' and the Jesuits'Nthe Church was unable to crystallize a coherent attitude towards Galileo's science.