iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 14/10/2026

2. There was no apology to Galileo historyforatheists.com/2025/03/gali... 3. The Roman Inquisition formally acknowledged heliocentrism in 1758 when they dropped the generic entry from the index. Informally, they had stopped pursuing the subject by the 1670s - when heliocentrism gained consensus.

historyforatheists.com

Did the Pope Apologise to Galileo? - History for Atheists

It is often claimed the Catholic Church only accepted heliocentrism in 1992 when the Pope apologised to Galileo. But is this true? %

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 14/10/2026

1. Medieval cosmology didn't have "us" or Earth at the centre of the universe - hell was. It was Copernicus who argued for the centre being a place of importance. This was important to him, as he placed the Sun, a hermetic symbol of God, at the centre, instead of hell. ...

100

Reposted by Michal J A Paszkiewicz

Tim O'Neill - History for Atheists @timoneill.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Consummatum est! Ten years in the planning and after over twenty years of reading and at least one year of writing, Galileo - History and Myth is complete. historyforatheists.com/2026/10/gali...

3182

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Well, for "corrupting the youth", but more honestly for his associations with the 30 tyrants.

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

... breaking his 1616 court order, cheating the censors, and implicating the Pope (who commissioned the Dialogue) in the action. He had humiliated everyone at court, and they punished him excessively due to the anger.

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

... The issues only started when he told Theologians how to do their job and reinterpreted scripture in his "Letter to Castelli". He was given an injunction in 1616 to not argue for heliocentrism as reality (but to hold as heliocentrism only). He was punished in 1633 for...

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Galileo was not punished for "daring to suggest other planets orbit the sun". The 1616 decision against him favoured the Tychonic model, in which all the planets except for the Earth orbited the Sun. Galileo's heliocentric "Letters on Sunspots" had been given an imprimatur in 1613....

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

I have that problem, and I'm not sure I'll ever be allowed to retire! ;)

010

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

I recommend Graney's "Setting aside all authority" on this.

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Well, we know from Galileo's letter to Ingoli that Ingoli was consulted - Galileo stated that he believed Ingoli's arguments were the most influential on the 1616 decision.

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

I mentioned to another person that astronomers were consulted for the 1616 decision. He stated that I was wrong, that there was no "independent astronomical panel". I had obviously not stated anything about independence, but I wondered if such a panel would even be feasible in whataboutery!

200

Reposted by Michal J A Paszkiewicz

Thony Christie @rmathematicus.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Book Review: thonyc.wordpress.com/2026/10/01/v...

0209

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

... More interesting was his statement in Astronomia Nova supporting Osiander's preface as a good idea to some extent... would this have caused a similar verdict in 1616 despite his advocacy for heliocentrism?

111

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Kepler would of course be an excellent choice, not in the least because he presented his arguments very fairly, and improved on the Ptolemaic, Tychonic, and Heliocentric models. His protestantism, and the fact he had been excommunicated by Lutherans a few years before wasn't enticing though...

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Good, educated choice! But would he really be "independent", as a geocentrist? Of course for 1633 he definitely wouldn't be considered independent, since Galileo blamed his trial on Grienberger ;)

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

If you were in charge of the Roman Inquisition in 1616, who would you put in an "independent panel" of astronomers to decide the status of Heliocentrism? 🧪🏛️📜🏰🔭

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Noone was executed for heliocentrism. Galileo got an imprimatur for his 1613 heliocentric "Letters on Sunspots". Legal issues with heliocentrism only started in 1616 after Galileo's "Letter to Castelli", where he told Theologians how to do their job, and he was the only one physically punished.

020

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

Copernicus was actually supported and urged to publish by Church leaders. It was only 70 years later, in the Galileo affair, when issues started.

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

The Galileo affair wasn't really "anti-science". There was certainly no freedom of speech, but the 1616 decision was based on consultation with astronomers, as Galileo himself attested in his letter to Ingoli. The scientific consensus at the time was for the Tychonic model.

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 20/09/2026

1. Galileo could never be legally called a heretic. 2. Galileo's charges were never retracted, nor was the 1992 speech particularly special in any way. historyforatheists.com/2025/03/gali...

historyforatheists.com

Did the Pope Apologise to Galileo? - History for Atheists

It is often claimed the Catholic Church only accepted heliocentrism in 1992 when the Pope apologised to Galileo. But is this true? %

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

Oh no, and then if you mention Galileo, you'll have to mention that the Pisa experiment wasn't real, and then you'll have to explain Riccioli and Grimaldi's experiment at the Asinelli tower, Viviani's answer, and all the other tower experiments....

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

Interesting, was unaware of this book, thank you

010

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

Galileo was never threatened with being burnt at the stake.

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 05/09/2026

Galileo's position was stronger - he argued in the letter to Castelli that when scripture was interpreted correctly, it supported heliocentrism best.

000

Reposted by Michal J A Paszkiewicz

Kathleen Crowther @sacrobosco.bsky.social · 05/03/2026

Excited to share my latest project, due out early next year: The Book Everyone Read | Princeton University Press press.princeton.edu/books/hardco...

press.princeton.edu

The Book Everyone Read

How an all-but-forgotten medieval astronomy book ushered in the modern age of science

1143

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

Well, I look forward to hearing what your secular study concludes, after you have read Ungureanu's book. Until then ttfn

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

Not really. My view is based on a secular study of science history. If you want to learn how the conflict thesis was invented & how you ended up believing it despite it being historical garbage, this is well known & presented in James Ungureanu's "Science, Religion, and the Protestant Tradition".

Cover page for Ungureanu's "Science, Religion, and the Protestant Tradition: retracing the origins of conflict". This book documents how the conflict thesis (that the Churcb opposed science) was invented, and how it spread.

110

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

Not at all. You seem to be more interested in inventing your own history than studying it.

110

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

... in the light of known science. This was very clearly the standard in Augustine, and in Aquinas. In the Galileo affair, Galileo was calling on precedent of Augustine. The issue was that heliocentrism wasn't yet proved, and ergo the precedent wasn't considered applicable.

110

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

No, I'm not trying to be funny. I'm trying to be historically accurate. The medieval and early modern Christian view was that you could learn about God from two books - the book of scripture, and the book of nature. If science was in conflict with scripture, scripture was to be reinterpreted...

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

Not at all. It proves they didn't believe in free speech or free press. Not that they were opposed to science. This was at a time when free speech and free press weren't argued for, by anyone. Free speech arose as a concept later, because of the continued repressions.

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

No, they weren't. 1. Cardano wasn't executed at all. He was however condemned, but for divinatory astrology, hard determinism, and rejection of miracles. 2. Servetus was burnt by Calvinists for anti-Trinitarianism amd rejection of infant Baptism.

010

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

The 1620 censor wasn't enforced, and only vaguely enacted within the Papal States and virtually nowhere outside.

Survey of all surviving copies of De Revolutionibus, their locations and censorship statuses in 1620, from Owen Gingerich's survey, img from "The Book Nobody Read".

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

No, the index had a variety of types of entry. In this case "until correction" meant precisely that - a correction was to be issued. The 1616 decision was based on the latest research of the time. Galileo acknowledged that astronomers were consulted in his letter to Ingoli.

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

... it was only when he reinterpreted scripture in his Letter to Castelli, trying to tell Theologians how to do their job, that the Inquisition started caring (and only after Foscarini did the same).

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

The issue was rather that the Inquisition was too keen to stop reinterpretation of scripture (as a counter-reformation measure), and in this case they were considering that an unproved hypothesis shouldn't be eligible for reinterpration. Galileo had been given an Imprimatur for a heliocentric work.

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

1. No, it wasn't banned. The 1616 entry made it clear it was to be edited. It was more similar to journal retractions today. 2. They were not anti-science. The 1616 ruling was based on consultation with astronomers. the scientific consensus & evidence at the time was for the Tychonic model.

200

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

Noone was burnt *for doing science*, but yes, some scientists were burnt for Theological dissent.

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

"The Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other,& probably all, institutions." -JL Heilbron,The Sun In the Church

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

De Revolutionibus wasn't banned, it was censored. It was placed on the index in 1616 "until correction", with the correction issued in 1620. This required a handful of sentences to be modified to make it clear heliocentrism was a hypothesis.

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

... hermetic symbol of God, without demoting the Sun (and ergo a symbol of God) to a place of destruction. I highly recommend Danielson and Graney's "a Universe of Earths" which goes into more details on this.

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

That's not what the medieval view was. For them, hell was at the centre, and Earth in the dregs of the universe. Perfection was in the heavens. It was actually Copernicus who persuaded the world that the centre was an important place, an idea he needed in order to place the Sun, for him a ...

100

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 26/08/2026

I recommend spending some time outdoors just looking at the night sky through the year. It will take you all of just spotting Jupiter once to be able to recognise it going forward. The medievals cared far more about the stars then us, and primarily learnt through verbal communication.

000

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 26/08/2026

And no, yoy didn't need to read or write to recognise Jupiter. In the 15th century, there was less light pollution, fewer night lights, and more people spent time looking at the night sky, and caring about astrology. Recognising Jupiter is easy. The bright one, that isn't the morning/evening star.

010

Michal J A Paszkiewicz @michalyoudoing.bsky.social · 26/08/2026

Why are you still talking about the 15th century? Education was not limited to "the nobility or the church". And even that is daft, as "the church" included a variety of free public schooling options, and didn't care about class. You could also get educated through guilds and apprenticeships.

110