Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2102.06595

Galileo, Ignoramus: Mathematics versus Philosophy in the Scientific Revolution

Viktor Blåsjö
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

I offer a revisionist interpretation of Galileo's role in the history of science. My overarching thesis is that Galileo lacked technical ability in mathematics, and that this can be seen as directly explaining numerous aspects of his life's work. I suggest that it is precisely because he was bad at mathematics that Galileo was keen on experiment and empiricism, and eagerly adopted the telescope. His reliance on these hands-on modes of research was not a pioneering contribution to scientific method, but a last resort of a mind ill equipped to make a contribution on mathematical grounds. Likewise, it is precisely because he was bad at mathematics that Galileo expounded at length about basic principles of scientific method. "Those who can't do, teach." The vision of science articulated by Galileo was less original than is commonly assumed. It had long been taken for granted by mathematicians, who, however, did not stop to pontificate about such things in philosophical prose because they were too busy doing advanced scientific work.

Explore related subjects

math.HOphysics.hist-ph

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Viktor Blåsjö. 2021-02-12. Galileo, Ignoramus: Mathematics versus Philosophy in the Scientific Revolution. https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.06595

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Perspectives on the unit distance problem

This is a survey on an old open problem in combinatorics called the unit distance problem, and the field of mathematics around it, called incidence geometry. What do we know about the problem? Why is it difficult? How does it connect with other parts of math?

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

A Categorical Approach to Euclidean Ratios and Proportions

A categorial approach to the non-metric geometry in Books V and VI of Euclid's \textit{Elements} is presented. Specifically, we introduce a diagrammatic syntax that can be overlaid immediately on his diagrams, thus bridging intuitive presentation with fidelity to Euclid's arguments. This syntax makes complicated definitions like V.5, and indeed the arguments throughout books V and VI, including arguments about similar figures, intuitively clear. We show in an appendix that this syntax can be used to solve a puzzle regarding ancient mathematics. Finally, we offer evidence that this approach to Euclidean diagrams is rooted in the Aristotelian tradition itself, and that a similar syntax was utilized, in antiquity, for related questions of numeric and proportions. Thus the syntax is plausibly faithful to Euclid's own thought-world, and not an outside-imposition.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

Some Early Results by Tutte Regarding the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture in 1948

OpenAI recently announced a proof of the Cycle Double Cover (CDC) Conjecture. Most media reports have characterized it as a 50-year-old open problem. In reality, according to a 1987 letter from Tutte to Fleischner, the Cycle Double Cover Problem has been open for at least 80 years. Two early results regarding the CDC conjecture were established in one of Tutte's 1949 publications.

math.HO↗