Week 4--Science's Stories

I personally like the story that the earth goes around the sun because it makes the most logical sense and that is the idea that we as humans have lived with for the past 400 years.  If a new astronomer were to tell us that Galileo was wrong and that the sun really does revovle around the earth, people would be terrified because we are always scared of not knowing and of change.  I also like the idea that the earth goes around the sun because it makes the most astronomical sense.  The only other way to describe this phenomena was by epicylces, but Galileo knew better than to beleive epicyles.  Lastly I also beleive that Galileo's statement that the earth goes around the sun is true because it has been proved; over and over and over again.  If it were wrong, someone who have stood up a long time ago and changed it.  

There were certain parts of the book that made me think and were very interesting and one of them was when Galileo told a man to lok through his telescope and challenge him to deny what he saw.  Yet the man still did not fully beleive him even though the proof was right there in front of him.  Another thing that I found interesting that I didn't know about Galileo was that he actually stole the idea of the telescope.  I thought that he had actually come up with the idea, but really he only came up with the idea to point it towards the sky.  After reading this part of the story, Galileo seemed like a theif and a bit pathetic in a sense because he had to steal that idea in order to make him self money and it was off that idea that was someone elses that made him into an even better astronomer, because now he could see the sky in a whole new way.

My fellow summariser is far more organized than I am and has managed to get this summary onto the forum before me. Most of what she has said is what I too had written down- but there were a couple of points that were discussed during our tuesday and thursday sessions that I will add.

On Tuesday, as Danielle said, we discussed the pros and cons of literary analysis. The debate was a lively one but many seemed to agree on the fact that in order to enjoy a piece of writing the reader had to impart both her own meaning to the text and find meaning that was already there.

It was also decided that there was a distinct difference between analysing literature for ones self and for others and that one would enhance the emotional understanding of the experience but the other might ruin it.

Thursdays class, as Danielle mentioned, initially revolved around our responses to the play 'Galileo'. Most students appreciated the fact that the play showed a more 'human' portrayal of the great scientist. The class then began to discuss the role of the church in the play- and indeed the role of any body which restricts free thought.

Some students believed that the church still had a great deal of control today- although in a more subtle way- through the relgious and conservative nature of the government. This affects what students are taught in schools and what kinds of scientific research are allowed and not allowed to happen. This of course led to the discussion on Paedophelia- wether all kinds of scientific observation should be possible.

Professor Grobstein ended our class with a few questions for us to ponder- what causes stories to change? Why is a story better or worse than another story? Is everything we do and everything we believe in simply a variation of one story?  

Tuesday's class discussion revolved around our fairytale analysis assignments that were due that day.  Members of the class took turns sharing opinions and difficulties that each had had with completing the aforementioned assignment.  After more discussion, the class and Prof. Grobstein concluded that there were four categories associated with the assignment:

1.  People who discovered new things about their fairytale through their own analysis

2.  People who chose not to "mess with" the original idea by over analyzing

3.  People who knew from the beginning what elements they included within the story and were going to analyze

4.  people digging for depth that wasn't actually there -  a.k.a. Made some stuff up

The discussion ran on for the entire span of the class, and we talked about pros/cons of literary analysis and whether true meaning from the text was to be derived from the reader's imagination or from the author's original intent.  In conclusion, Prof. Grobstein remarked that "writing is a way to discover new ways of thinking for yourself."

On Thursday we discussed our forum responses about Galileo.  There were many who remarked on the human side of Galileo portrayed by the play.  Others talked about the notion of theories actually being stories, which in turn led to a huge discussion about the nature of the universe itself.  later on, the discussion veered on to the subject of restriction in certain studies.  Pedophilia was used as an interesting (and disturbing) example and the class was somewhat divided over whether one could truly study any subject without crossing some boundary.  As the class ended, Prof. Grobstein left us with a few topics to think about.  First, Why do stories change?  Second, what were Galileo's motivations in making his discoveries.  Lastly, the idea of a story, within a story, within a story. 

I find the story fascinating in the way that it infuses these historical characters with unique personalities (like a historical fiction). Who knows whether or not these people really said these same sort of things in the same way that the book describes them?- It's believable from the reader's standpoint, and that's enough. I don't even know if the author is trying to say "here is what these people were like" as much as "here is the story, here is a type of person that may have done this, that, etc./reacted in this way"

BTW, for my class: the terms are "exegesis and isogesis" and they mean

exegesis: to lead meaning out from the text

isogesis: to read into/put meaning into the text

(they are most commonly used to describe the interpretations of religious works, etc, but I think they are still applicable and useful in our various discussions of story telling/reading)

The story I found most interesting was the story I was expecting and how it differed from the story that Brecht actually told. The beginning of the play portrays Galileo as a vivacious, insatiably curious scientist and teacher; he had positive attributes by today's standards. Thus, I thought the play would present Galileo as a hero, bravely facing the powerful, corrupt church in the name of science. However, as the play progressed, it revealed more of his "ickiness": he sold someone else's invention to make money, and he sacrificed his daughter's happiness and marriage when he thought it was safe for him to begin talking about astronomy again. Ultimately, he gives in to the church because he values his own comfort over his work's potential revolutionary consequences. I think Andrea represents my views well: he kept trying to make Galileo a hero character when he wasn't in Scene 13. I believe that this story functions as a commentary on society's inclination toward hero-izing certain historical figures and glossing over thier less desireable traits. This in turn reminds me of the fairytales we just finished studying, as this polarization mirrors the simplification in the characters in fairytales.

      It captures my imagination to think about the implications of the discovery that the universe does not revolve around the world of humans. It’s far out to think that we’re smaller than we think we are, and that our whole system of order is not really how God sees things. It was all a construct of our minds. This leads to questions of morality. In religion, people think that it is good to suffer and that they need to have some authority above them to tell them what to do. They feel they literally need this, or they will go astray. They feel that it is what God intended. But maybe not, in Galileo’s universe.

There were some stirring quotations by Galileo that fly in the face of our sense of security in knowledge, like when he was talking about the sailors who didn’t have “the advantages of a classical education but are not afraid to use their eyes. I tell you that our dockyards are stirring with that same high curiosity which was the true glory of ancient Greece.” (Brecht 69) It may be hard to see our world as this way now, but Galileo’s world shows how stuffy and unthinking people allow themselves to be. The old monk on page 73 is literally is collapsing under the weight of his religious beliefs that define him. And it’s also true when it comes to academia. In the play, they swore by the words of Aristotle, for example, just as they would the Bible; he was an Authority Figure. A classical education, in which you read books in order merely to gather knowledge, seems to me to be superficial. It’s kind of troubling to think that you think you are learning all this knowledge, but it is really just things other people have said; you are gathering ideas, but if you are separated from the textbook, you get disoriented and totally lost, because you can’t think for yourself, and you can’t apply it in everyday life; you have actually become conditioned not to think for yourself, and feel that you can’t. Whereas, if you use your senses like the sailors, you can learn things others with all their conditioned education will miss.    

my truth...our truths...my mind keeps drifting to how important it is for the individual to recognize and acknowledge her own truth for what it is at that moment...knowing my truth is fluid and changeable.

what is is important is that i seek to understand...not to fear what is deep within and to allow what i know to be shared with others, not fearing, accepting others and their truths, their understandings.

i found galileo fascinating. the newer vs. older story...once again, the truth is fluid. 

This was one of my favorite readings for this/possibly my favorite so far. I initially thought that I would learn about science when in fact I learned more about history. I did not know how close therelationship between scholars and the Catholic church was. Bellarmin describes science as "the legitimate and beloved daughter of the church." It was interesting to see how philosophers and mathematicians shyed away from any scientific breakthroughs that went against the Catholic church when they themselves were scholars. In addition, I learned about the divide and rivalry between regions in Italy for power. This tension began in the play when Matti told Galileo that he should work in Florence.

I also noticed how the curators and royalty were more focused on war machines than scientific inventions during this era. This explains why Italy was a a super power.

Back in my high school days, my World History teacher assigned a group of students to make a play on Galileo's trial and made them act out during class. Reading this book, Galileo, I was reminded of my World History class. It was good to read the actual play.

I liked the last conversation between Galileo and Andrea. When I first encountered Galileo's trial through my friends' acting, I thought Galileo's recantation was the end. So, I had been very disappointed at Galileo before I read this book. However, it was fascinating to hear a different ending in which Galileo hands over all his books and discoveries to Andrea to secretly spread out the truth. I very liked Galileo's professionalism in that scene. My view on Galileo as a chicken with no gut has been changed to a great scientist who abides by the Truth. I feel great!

The story that the Earth goes around the sun confuses me. I believe this story to be true, but what brought about the line of thought that the sun doesn't go around the Earth? For all I can tell, the sun does go around the Earth. I know that there are logical reasons that the sun doesn't rotate around the Earth, but the only ones I can think of all use modern technology. How would one prove this story without modern technology?

What really made me think the most was Galileo's character. He was so convinced that his story that the Earth goes around the sun was true that he stood against the church. When he was brought before the authorities, however, he broke. This kind of reminds me of the main character in the book 1984. Both the main character of that book and Galileo break and conform to "the man" quickly (or at least more quickly than I think that they should have). I wonder what the breaking of Galileo has to do with everything that was happening around the time it was written. Obviously there was a lot of stuff going on in that period, but why was Galileo, who clearly believed he was right, written to break so easily?

This play brings me back to a discussion I had with my mother over dinner one night. We were debating religion- which is always a dangerous topic. My mother is what I like to call a 'liberal bigot'. She really, really dislikes religion. After our discussion I could see why. She said that she will not believe in something unless there has been proof- she sees no reason in trying to understand the impossible because EVERYTHING has an explanation- we just haven't gotten all the answers yet.

In class yesterday Paul asked us why we believed in Galileo's new story- rather than the old one. I know why I do. Galileo's theory has been PROVED- more than once, more than twice, as much as any theory can be. It will always be impossible for us to know the whole truth but we should never be blinded by fiction and by faith. Faith in the impossible does not mean it will happen. It merely means that we loose sight of the countless truths that stare us in the face. Faith is manipulated by those in power because humans are amazing at self denial.

Many argue that scientific discovery ruins the random beauty of the human experience. However, just because there is no ghost in the machine does not mean that the machine is any less spectacular. Galileo may not have seen 'celestial bodies bathed in the light of god' but the glimpse of the universe he had was more incredible, more wonderful because it is REAL. Or at least as real as anything can be...(but thats a whole other philosophical dilemna).