Review of M. A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs

Abstract

In the preface of Defending Copernicus and Galileo, Finocchiaro (2010) carefully explains how the book differs from the other books he has written on Galileo so far. Regarding the subject matter, the new book partially overlaps with The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (1989) and Retrying Galileo, 1633–1992 (2005). The former covers the original trial in the years 1613–1633, coined the ‘first Galileo affair’, whereas the latter is an introductory survey of the controversy that succeeded the original trial, coined the ‘second Galileo affair’. Regarding the conceptual orientation of critical reasoning, the new book partially overlaps with Galileo and the Art of Reasoning (1980), and with Galileo on the World Systems (1997). Finally, regarding the aim, there is an analogy with Essential Galileo (2008), an anthology of the documents relating to the original trial and Galileo’s writings in physics, astronomy, methodology, and epistemology. While Essential Galileo is aimed at providing an integration for Galileo’s legacy, life and works, Defending Copernicus and Galileo is aimed at developing a synthesis for historical interpretations and philosophical evaluations of them (pp. x–xi). Summarizing the relations between Defending Copernicus and Galileo and Finocchiaro’s earlier work on Galileo, the book is aimed at presenting and defending a tentative interpretation and evaluation of the two Galileo affaires, drawing on the introductory surveys the author has carried out at an earlier stage of his extensive research on these affairs. The book is to be taken as a next stage in the realization of the author’s ultimate ambition to provide a ‘‘comprehensive, definitive, or final synthesis’’ (p. x), that he has already begun working on. The tentative interpretation and evaluation of the two Galileo affairs takes the form of a defense of what the author calls a ‘‘particular and yet overarching thesis: that today in the context of the Galileo affair and the controversies over the relationship between science and religion and between institutional authority and