ClipboardImage.png
(70.7KB, 1149x203) https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.06595
> 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.
If you have thought that the name "Galileo Galilei" was a dead giveaway that the guy was just a joke, turns out you were now: here's more than a hundred well-researched and often pretty entertaining pages to prove it. A dire warning why we shouldn't let non-mathematicians write the history of mathematics, and how useless philosophers are when they are faced with science.
