They knew it was round, damn it | Hacker News Reader

They knew it was round, damn it

thonyc.wordpress.com

185 pointssupermatou78 comments

This isn't the only childish myth that refuses to die. The so-called Galileo affair and Copernicus' alleged fear and trembling over publishing "his" heliocentric theory are two notorious and by now classical examples. In both cases, the supposedly grand Manichean battle between Religion and Science was nothing but the fallout of the provincial squabbling of petty men. Copernicus -- who was a classically educated cleric -- was reluctant to publish De Revolutionibus on account of hostility from rival astronomers (and though the Church had no doctrinal interest in something as theologically irrelevant as which rock orbits which other rock, Paul III and Cardinal von Schoenberg did take interest in his work). Furthermore, Copernicus' original contribution was not the idea of a heliocentric "universe", but the mathematization he produced that "saved the appearances" accounted for in the geocentric model. The Galileo "affair", which stretched for some 30 years IIRC, culminated in house arrest in the papal apartments overlooking the papal gardens, a fate far better than that of many in the 15th century or the 21st century for that matter. Ultimately, his house arrest was largely the result of Galileo's habit of harassing people and making enemies, some of whom were clerics, and nothing to do with doctrine (the story goes that Galileo was arrested and forced to abjure the very same heliocentrism Paul III and others encouraged and found so fascinating under pain of death, but anyone free of prejudice and acquainted with the history knows this account to be comically stupid as it is presented). There are many more such fabrications and misconceptions.

At least some of these myths are known to have their origins in the 19th century and in the slanderous writings of fanatical Enlightenment and Protestant writers whose rabid hatred for Rome seems to have, in their minds, given them license to resort to libel or corrupted their thinking. The author credits two men in the article who certainly had an axe to grind.

Uh, no. You are the one reading too much revisionist history.

On the morning of June 22, 1633, Galileo, dressed in the white shirt of penitence, entered the large hall of the Inquisition building. He knelt and listened to his sentence: "Whereas you, Galileo, the son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine....." The reading continued for seventeen paragraphs...

"And, so that you will be more cautious in future, and an example for others to abstain from delinquencies of this sort, we order that the book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict. We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure."

"As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting, or taking off, the whole or part of the said penalties and penances."

"This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order and reserve by this or any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think of. So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce."

Seven of the ten cardinals signed the sentence.

Following the reading of the sentence, Galileo knelt to recite his abjuration:

"Desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this strong suspicion, reasonably conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me...."

"I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633."

"I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand."

You're both right. No one who studies Galileo disputes that he ran afoul of the Inquisition. The question is whether the specifics of his case justify framing it as part of an epic battle between science and religion (or reason and ignorance, or any other binary opposition really), and I think the parent comment is correct in suggesting that most historians today would answer "no" to that. Mario Biagioli's book Galileo Courtier is a really excellent work of history that I recommend to anyone interested in the details - it's more about the role of patronage in supporting Galileo's work, but gives a lot of insight into the systems of authority at the time, and Galileo's unique personality.

Be that as it may, but the fact remains that his sentencing explicitly stated that the heresy he was officially censored for was supporting an opinion as probable after it had been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.

There was also a third camp at the time: Jesuits.

Apparently Galileo met with Jesuit astronomers at the Vatican Observatory, and they suggested he might save both scientific evidence and theological correctness by adopting the Tychonic system, where the center of the universe is still the earth, but all the planets revolve around the sun, which revolves around the earth.

As it turns out, we now know that both the Copernican and the Tychonic are exactly equally wrong.

"As it turns out, we now know that both the Copernican and the Tychonic are exactly equally wrong. "

It seems to me that one is less wrong than the other. In particular one was a significantly better fit for the evidence available at that time.

edit: typo

I don't think they were exactly equally wrong. The Tychonic system doesn't quite predict stellar parallax, for example. I'd say it's the worse model of those two.

And it looks less pretty on pictures, too.

EDIT: Ironically, the lack of observable (at the time) parallax was reportedly used by Tycho Brahe to argue against heliocentrism, because "stars obviously can't be far enough to make prallax unobservable". Now, that's clearly wrong.

Tycho Brahe was wrong but on stronger scientific ground given the observations available, stellar parallax wasn't observed until around 1806 by Giuseppe Calandrelli and not definitively measured until 1838 by Friedrich Bessel.

Tycho Brahe was wrong but on stronger scientific ground given the observations available

Depends on how much weight you place on different lines of reasoning.

One of Galileo's key insights was that there's no fundamental difference between the terrestrial and the celestial. In contrast, the Aristotelian heavens are made of aether, in part to be able to account for the diurnal motion of far-distant planets and stars.

Everything goes around everything else, unless you want to bring back the aether. So they are both right - there are no special points except the one you choose as your FoR, you can choose earth-centric, heliocentric, pluto-centric, galactic-centre-centric, local-cluster-centric - none of them are wrong.

Except that the center of mass of Solar System lies within or very close to the Sun, so in most practical reference frames it looks pretty much spot on heliocentric. OTOH the only reasonable frame producing geocentric view is the Earth.

You can do the calculations from a different point, CoM makes things easier. It's only mathematically simple, not really objectively special except within a chosen context.

Nevertheless, the Galileo affair is indicative of a conflict between secular science and the church, as the latter claimed final say on the findings of the former.

From the final sentencing of Galileo:

We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo [...] have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine [...] that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture [...]

That's a bit of an anachronistic view, there really wasn't much secular science at the time, the vast majority of science was done under the patronage and support church officials (Catholic or Protestant).

Copernicus was a canon of the Catholic church. Kepler, a Lutheran, did his foundational work at Graz under Catholic patronage. Galileo did his work under the patronage of cardinals and popes.

There were exceptions, Tycho Brahe had noble and royal sponsors but it was as much for his alchemical and astrological studies as it was for his astronomy.

Secular not in the sense of patronage, but secular in the sense of independence from theological considerations. Think Fr. Lemaître telling Pope Pius XII to refrain from making proclamations about the Big Bang validating Catholic creationist doctrine.

It turned out Columbus was wrong and everyone else was right. The Earth was simply too large to sail around the other way.

The only thing that kept Columbus' expedition from certain doom was bumping into a continent that was unknown to most of Europe, despite some Norse having settled there in earlier centuries.

Imagine if the Americas hadn't existed. He would likely have died in the middle of a huge ocean.

Both sides were wrong. An earth of a larger size doesn't imply a lack of land, just the lack of assurance.

Columbus was wrong. While the grandparent posits a hypothetical where there was no land in between, that's not what Columbus critics suggested -- they suggested that the known size of the Earth was such that a more economical route to the Indies from Europe sailing West was not a reasonable thing to expect.

They were correct, and Columbus -- who insisted that he had reached the (East, now, because of the confusion he caused) Indies -- was wrong.

It was still a gamble where the outcome was entirely unexpected. They were both wrong about their expectations: finding the indes, or finding nothing and running out of resources.

True, but one could say that the critics of Columbus based their opinion on reason and knowledge: world is too big to find India that way, and you can't know that there's land in between.

Columbus wasn't looking for America. He had miscalculated the circumference of the earth and thought he could sail west to India. The Portuguese laughed him out of the country because of this. Note that the Caribbean was called the West Indes for this reason -- Columbus thought he had hit India.

Sure. But the bet on finding something paid off when others would not have made the journey. The outcome was something nobody expected. They were both wrong.

For someone to be wrong, they have to have made a some statement that turned out to be incorrect. The people that disagreed with Columbus' calculations said that the earth was larger than Columbus gave it credit for. This was not an incorrect statement.

Columbus didn't bet on finding 'something', he bet on finding India.

Imagine what his crew would have said if he'd told them he was betting on finding 'something'.

Earth was simply too large to sail around the other way.

Yet ... 27 years after Columbus' first voyage, the Magellan expedition started it's circumnavigation sailing west proving it was possible.

There are plenty of islands in the Ocean to load up on food and water. Magellen, in fact, stopped at several islands.

It was too large for the ships Columbus took, provisioned as Columbus provisioned them. And everyone who ridiculed him knew that.

Magellan went out with a larger fleet and two years' provisions laid in.

2 years' provisions

Magellan Voyage took 3 years.

Hey may have left with 2 years' provisions, but as you said, he stopped at many islands along the way to restock his provisions.

Also it's a good thing he set out with the fleet he did, becaue only one of the ships, and a handful of the original crew, made it back.

Columbus' plan was equivalent to crossing the Atlantic and then the Pacific, with nothing in between.

That is a 24,000 km trip in a straight line (from Spain to the Moluccas, the Spice Islands) for which he was absolutely unprepared.

It's important to remember that the voyages weren't attempts to prove scientific theories, the Spanish wanted to establish new trade routes.

Wait. There are people who believe Columbus was the first person to establish as common knowledge that the world was round? Is this an American thing again?

I kid you not, it's taught in American elementary schools (at least it was to me, in the early-mid 2000s).

...Yeah. Thankfully my middle school general science textbook mentioned this shit's been known forever and the Greeks even estimated the circumference of the thing.

Well, not exactly forever, there was that whole Galileo vs Catholic Church thing.

Galileo v Church was about whether the Earth moved, not about the Earth being a sphere.

Hmm, looks like we're both wrong although you're less wrong than I am. Copernicus supported a heliocentric view and the Church didn't consider it a problem. Galileo was accused of biblical interpretation, positing that the bible isn't intended to be an authority on science, which then explodes into an anti-heliocentricism position by the Church at that time. Cute.

I'm gonna guess this confusion happens for the same reason as then: politics vs facts. This same thing happens where school boards what simplistic explanations for certain things they want deemphasized and politically biased yet detailed explanations for ones they want emphasized. Its annoying.

I have also read that Galileo was a rather aggressive fellow who made a hobby of antagonizing authority figures, and his persecution was less a matter of rigorous doctrine than of finding an excuse to make him shut up.

I don't have a source handy for that, so take it with a grain of salt, but it's an interesting take on the story.

A rule of thumb when studying history: if a side appears really stupid, or really evil, then you probably don't have all the facts.

like the Nazi's?

Godwin's law proved again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Well yes. Just like the USA isn't all people always doing evil things despite Abu Graib (sp?), special rendition, Guantanamo, ... Oscar Schindler was a Nazi too and some Allies committed atrocities just as some Nazis did.

He published essentially a comic book with a character that looked just like the pope named Ignoramus.

Compounding the error is the claim he discovered the Americas. He actually found the Caribbean islands. Which is kinda close, but not really the same.

But yay simplification that Columbus found America! At least that's what most teach the kids. My kid will know better.

How are the Caribbean islands not American?

They are not connected to continents.

True, but they're definitely in the same realm if you will. Just like Great Britain is part of Europe, and New Zealand is part of Australia. (Continentally-speaking!! Don't flame me, Kiwis).

Madagascar is Africa, Japan is Asia. I don't know what to categorize Iceland as, though.

  > New Zealand is part of Australia. (Continentally-
  > speaking!! Don't flame me, Kiwis)

I'm not a kiwi, but NZ is on a subduction zone so can't be part of an existing continent. PNG is probably more what you were thinking of re: AU.

You're right. I was thinking of Papua New Guinea. I seem to always imagine NZ as being much closer to AU than it really is. Thanks.

> I don't know what to categorize Iceland as, though.

The plate boundary of American and Eurasian continents -- Mid Atlantic Ridge -- runs through Iceland.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_Ridge

A tourism advertisement: http://www.visitreykjanes.is/en/moya/toy/index/place/bridge-...

(Haven't been there but I've been thinking that one day I should.)

Madagascar should be related to India, though. Separated 80mil years ago, if I remember correctly.

All continents have shifted in that timescale. Perhaps more relevant is the connection to Austronesia: the first human settlers arrived in Madagascar about 2000-2500 years ago on outrigger canoes from Borneo. Bantu people came later, around 1000 AD, so they are "colonists" somewhat in the same way as Europeans are in America, although they mixed with rather than replaced the Austronesian "first nations".

Third voyage: South America, fourth voyage: Central America.

I can confirm. I was taught this in middle school.

What's sad is the kids could figure out the roundness themselves, using just the technology of the ancients.

I wonder what other falsehoods are taught as fact.

What stands out in my mind is some educational film (early 90s?) where Columbus sees a butterfly land on an orange, and it reminds him of a ship on a round Earth.

It's a baffling myth that has been lazily propagated for a very long time. Would be interesting to figure out where it came from.

> Greeks even estimated the circumference of the thing.

That's not a problem, the story was that the Greeks knew but those European barbarians didn't believe them until Columbus claimed that he reached India.

A decent teacher might be expected to consult a resource like is provided here:

http://www.nea.org/tools/lessons/columbus-day-grades-k-5.htm

The resource aimed at 6-7 year olds confronts the world flat issue head on.

So I think it is certainly some sort of folk myth in USA that people in the middle ages believed the world was flat, but it isn't so dire (it's used to teach reasoning skills!).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism strikes again.

Absolutely. When I was in USA high school in 1997, this was taught, discussed, and believed.

A large number of adults in US today take it for an indisputable fact.

[I cannot claim how it's taught in schools nowadays, so perhaps there's hope for the next generations :]

Not only. As a kid I don't recall discussing earth shape prior the Colombus chapter. With lots, lots of cute stories on how he believed what no one else did. Only very recently I read that many people; including religious figures did talk and think that the earth was round, with a hint that it wasn't just put to 'good use' before columbus.

European here.

Not American. Even in the glorious bastion of everything that is progressive, Scandinavia, this is taught. It is ridiculous, but I didn't know this to be a myth until in my 20s.

What's really amazing is how calumny works: the bigger the better.

It's very likely nobody, since men walked the earth, who gave it a moment's thought ever believed the earth to be flat; it's absolutely certain nobody in Europe or the Middle East post Aristotle ever believed it either (as many comments already point out).

And yet, a myth invented in the 19th century to make fun of "medieval times" and the Catholic Church is still around today, and needs to be constantly refuted.

I think it works because it flatters us, making us feel sooo superior to those ancient characters that must have been sooo stupid and smug. Well, in this case at least, we're the smugs and the stupids.

> It's very likely nobody, since men walked the earth, who gave it a moment's thought ever believed the earth to be flat

Ahem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

I blame Stan Freberg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Freberg_Presents_the_Unit...

Ah, Washington Irving. One of the greatest minds of his time; what he didn't know, he made up on the spot.

Now try convincing http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ :)

Arguing with genuinely stupid people just makes me frustrated and depressed. It's far far easier to just ignore them.

It is extremely difficult to tell apart genuine stupidity from advanced trolling.

Indeed. I'm as certain as one can be that the flat earth movement is half stupid and half troll (at least on Internet message boards). I sincerely hope that my unscientific estimate is not erring in favor of the right hand side there.

I've always just assumed that it was just "trolling", like being a follower of the FSM - noodles all round.

Of course they knew it was round. Under the belief that the Earth isn't round, land discovered by sailing west would have been taken for granted to be a new discovery, and not India, which lies to the east. Its inhabitants wouldn't have been dubbed Indians.

Whether they are called Indians or not has nothing to do with the myth that Europeans thought the Earth was flat.

The myth says "Columbus thought the Earth was round, while everyone else thought it was flat". Even if that myth was true, they would still be called Indians, because Columbus named them that.

I'm pretty sure there were many Europeans who thought the Earth was flat. And given the quality of the Columbus' crew, some among them as well. The idea that it must be all or none is ridiculous. How many people today still reject Evolution?

The point is that we're still being taught that the reason Columbus sailed westward was to prove that the earth was round, which was certainly not the case. I have lost count of the times the 'we used to think the world was flat' argument has been used in discussions I have partaken in. Though it does have a valid point (we know more now than we used to) it is also misused, especially when it comes to discussions on science and religion. It is quite ironic when the defenders of science in that perceived battle perpetuate this myth.

Well, "the reason" is certainly wrong. But I think it is easy to understand the error. When Columbus thought he reached the Indies, it was the final difinitive proof that the world was indeed circumnavigable and thus round.

A thorough rant if I ever read one.

God != Religion;

Religions are ~2000 years old;

Humans are ~200,000 years old;

Earth is ~4,000,000,000 years old;

Religion was born when first con-man met the first fool;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_history

> Religions are ~2000 years old

Ehm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com