Galileo=True Old School Baller

Let me start by saying I feel like Galileo was one of those hard core geniuses who knew he was right but had to put his findings in ways that were hard to argue with in a way to sound logical and not just arrogant. That being said, I want to say that I think Galileo did know how big his observations were. He knew that they were important even if small. They began to break down the old Copernicus way of thought with just the simplest of observations--observations that would not, however, be possible without his ingenious telescope. For instance, the moon's changing appearance is due to illumination from the sun, a simple observation but an observation nonetheless. The way to make a scientific discovery is never with bells and whistles and radical ideas because most of the time, one will be written off as loony. I don't think exactly Galileo was subtle by any means (why should he have been?) but at least he worked his way into saying "Hey, guys, the sun's the center," with smaller observations as different pieces of information.

I cannot say that I have personally observed any of these things that he notes, neither our moon nor Jupiter and its moons. I once looked through a telescope long ago at a wedding reception but not since and regret to say that I have never even taken an astronomy course. I'm not sure how far back that puts me in terms of everyone else's experience, but I'll do my best to keep up, I guess. As for my perspective, I, for the most part, take Galileo's observations as truths (keeping in mind that I as well read the footnotes that corrected his few errors). Observing for myself what he saw would only serve as reinforcement or verification.

Now, poetry is very much my Achilles heel and probably my least favorite form of writing, so I will try to do my best with our pal Lucretius. This poem was long and drawn out and at times didn't seem to relate at all to Galileo or the church or even astronomy, however I will admit that my ineptitude with poetry perhaps might contribute to this deduction. I will note what it appears everyone else has noted in their blogs (as it seems the most relevant, although I swear I saw it in the text as well) the lines about the "Bodiless and Invisible," as it seems most relevant to our class. I'm an aficionado of making sound arguments based on comparisons and analogies and that he relates the planets and what we cannot see to tiny particles, organs and microscopic objects too small for the eyes. In essence, he writes that it's senseless to talk down hypotheses regarding the existence of objects (planets) just because you can't see them. What he says about human nature relates to the idea that the same piece of information can be taken in different ways and some people may just flat out refuse to see it.

At this point, I feel like a total shmuck because the common cold is at its peak with me right now and the various liquids pouring from my face and eyes restrict me from doing anything involving having to read or even have my eyes open. I hope I do better next time... Jeepers.