*I was reading some Galileo Galilei recently, since I was surprised to learn that his contemporaries considered him a good prose stylist.
*It turned out that Galileo liked to couch his pop-science work in the form of snappy dialogues. These stand-in characters he invents are just alarmingly bright. They verge on sarcasm, really, and are constantly back patting each other about how stupid and benighted normal people are, compared to them.
*It's not entirely clear why and how Galileo gets allowed to project so much confrontational attitude in his learned writings. This is, after all, the 1630s. There's no such thing as a free press, and it's not clear what readership Galileo thinks he is serving here. "Scientists" don't yet exist as a distinct class of people.
*Clearly there's some elite, hip in-group that Galileo thinks is going to appreciate his combo of snide remarks and difficult geometrical proofs complete with woodcut diagrams. They are not scientists, but they are definitely a social elite of some kind, and they're going to appreciate him, learn from his text, and protect him from the consequences of writing it.
*I'm not sure who this proto-science clique is, though. They're certainly not any general educated readership. They're not the Church, and they're not a Court of a State. They're some combination of "academicians" from the "academies" – (which are sort of universities, but mostly just fancy debating groups at this period) – and also people called "first rate men," who are basically technicians. These "first rate men" are engineers, instrument makers, artisans, military contractors, and builders of expensive machines. Galileo (famed for his telescopes) clearly spends a lot of time with these mechanical artisans. He's trying to figure out how their first-rate machines work by explaining them with geometry. They seem to tolerate his presence because they respect him as an analytical and theoretical technical trouble-shooter.
*Mathematicians and Aristotelian philosophers also get a major look-in for Galileo. Every once in a while, some other player's learned book gets name-checked by Galileo, too. I get the impression that these colleagues are probably rather uneasy about that compliment.
*There are no equations per se in Galileo's dialogues. There are sums, rather crude attempts to tack numbers onto phenomena. Also there is no "physics," because natural law hasn't been invented yet. There's a lively awareness of physical issues, though, such as the speed of light and infinity. These high-concepts are commonly handled in quite a science-fictional manner, in which the discussants frankly confess that their minds are blown, that it's amazing, thrilling, incredible and so forth.
*Their frank glee in tackling and conquering tech puzzles is surprisingly intense. The talkers in Galileo's dialogues are not cool, objective, dispassionate or "scientific" at all. No, they go after their investigations with an almost erotic intensity, as if struggling with the cube-square law was the greatest and subtlest pleasure that any adult man could experience.
*Also, although it seems a baroque and bizarre sensibility to us – because it isn't science, it isn't stand-up comedy, it's not a textbook, it's not a political manifesto, it's a set of learned "dialogues" that isn't really anything we can name any more – Galileo's writing is supremely confident and assertive. Because experiments exist. They work, they can reveal truth. It's all about proof and truth and reality, related as clearly as possible, and the people in this book are talking exclusively about that subject of the real, and anybody else who talks of any other thing is talking rubbish.
*************************
FIRST DAY
INTERLOCUTORS: SALVIATI, SAGREDO AND SIMPLICIO
SALV. The constant activity which you Venetians display in your famous arsenal suggests to the studious mind a large field for investigation, especially that part of the work which involves mechanics; for in this department all types of instruments and machines are constantly being constructed by many artisans, among whom there must be some who, partly by inherited experience and partly by their own observations, have become highly expert and clever in explanation.
SAGR. You are quite right. Indeed, I myself, being curious by nature, frequently visit this place for the mere pleasure of observing the work of those who, on account of their superiority over other artisans, we call "first rank men." Conference with them has often helped me in the investigation of certain effects including not only those which are striking, but also those which are recondite and almost incredible. At times also I have been put to confusion and driven to despair of ever explaining something for which I could not account, but which my senses told me to be true. And notwithstanding the fact that what the old man told us a little while ago is proverbial and commonly accepted, yet it seemed to me altogether false, like many another saying which is current among the ignorant; for I think they introduce these expressions in order to give the appearance of knowing something about matters which they do not understand.
(…)
SAGR. My brain already reels. My mind, like a cloud momentarily illuminated by a lightning-flash, is for an instant filled with an unusual light, which now beckons to me and which now suddenly mingles and obscures strange, crude ideas.
(…)
Please observe, gentlemen, how facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty. Who does not know that a horse falling from a height of three or four cubits will break his bones, while a dog falling from the same height or a cat from a height of eight or ten cubits will suffer no injury? Equally harmless would be the fall of a grasshopper from a tower or the fall of an ant from the distance of the moon.
(…)
SAGR. Will you not then, Salviati, remove these difficulties and clear away these obscurities if possible: for I imagine that this problem of resistance opens up a field of beautiful and useful ideas; and if you are pleased to make this the subject of to-day's discourse you will place Simplicio and me under many obligations.
SALV. I am at your service if only I can call to mind what I learned from our Academician who had thought much upon this subject and according to his custom had demonstrated everything by geometrical methods so that one might fairly call this a new science. For, although some of his conclusions had been reached by others, first of all by Aristotle, these are not the most beautiful and, what is more important, they had not been proven in a rigid manner from fundamental principles. Now, since I wish to convince you by demonstrative reasoning rather than to persuade you by mere probabilities, I shall suppose that you are familiar with present-day mechanics so far as it is needed in our discussion.
(…)
While experiment convinces me of the correctness of this conclusion, my mind is not entirely satisfied as to the cause to which this effect is to be attributed. For the separation of the plates precedes the formation of the vacuum which is produced as a consequence of this separation; and since it appears to me that, in the order of nature, the cause must precede the effect, even though it appears to follow in point of time, and since every positive effect must have a positive cause, I do not see how the adhesion of two plates and their resistance to separation – actual facts – can be referred to a vacuum as cause when this vacuum is yet to follow. According to the infallible maxim of the Philosopher, the non-existent can produce no effect.
(…)
Let me tell you something which has just occurred to me and which I do not offer as an absolute fact, but rather as a passing thought, still immature and calling for more careful consideration. You may take of it what you like; and judge the rest as you see fit.
(…)
SAGR. Pray let us enjoy the advantages and privileges which come from conversation between friends, especially upon subjects freely chosen and not forced upon us, a matter vastly different from dealing with dead books which give rise to many doubts but remove none. Share with us, therefore, the thoughts which our discussion has suggested to you; for since we are free from urgent business there will be abundant time to pursue the topics already mentioned; and in particular the objections raised by Simplicio ought not in any wise to be neglected.
(…)
So that the infinite number of points located in the line OB will, if the motion be as explained above, describe circles of every size, some smaller than the pupil of the eye of a flea, others larger than the celestial equator.
(…)
SAGR. But of what kind and how great must we consider this speed of light to be? Is it instantaneous or momentary or does it like other motions require time? Can we not decide this by experiment?
SIMP. I am all at sea and find difficulties in following either path, especially this new one; because according to this theory an ounce of gold might be rarefied and expanded until its size would exceed that of the earth, while the earth, in turn, might be condensed and reduced until it would become smaller than a walnut, something which I do not believe; nor do I believe that you believe it. The arguments and demonstrations which you have advanced are mathematical, abstract, and far removed from concrete matter; and I do not believe that when applied to the physical and natural world these laws will hold.
