Speaker 1: Isn't it true you have a science degree from Yale
Speaker 1: Bachelor of Arts degree? Is it a political science degree? Science?
Speaker 1: So how do you get a Bachelor of Arts in
Speaker 1: a science Well, it's liberal arts education and degree. It's
Speaker 1: a bachelor Okay, so it's not really science. So I
Speaker 1: think it's somewhat appropriate that somebody with a pseudoscience degree
Speaker 1: is here pushing pseudoscience in front of our committee today.
Speaker 1: You have seen what we thought was unseeable. We have
Speaker 1: seen and taking a picture of a black hole. I
Speaker 1: wanted to specifically talk about the aerodynamics Akaino source and
Speaker 1: the lies that these paleontologists have been feeding you for
Speaker 1: your entire lives. He says he genetically edited human embryos
Speaker 1: not just for research, but for implantation, leading to the
Speaker 1: world's first births of genetically alter humans baby girls born
Speaker 1: in China from embryos designed to be resistant to HIV.
Speaker 1: In a minute, Oh hi there, Welcome to twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: a time when quadruped robots can open doors. Researchers are
Speaker 1: working on printing body parts. Burgers not made out of
Speaker 1: meat tastes just like meat, and some people believe NASA's
Speaker 1: use of composite images proves that Earth is not round.
Speaker 1: I'm Eve Steph Code, and this is unpopular a podcast
Speaker 1: about the people in history who did not let the
Speaker 1: threat of persecution keep them from speaking truth to power
Speaker 1: more often than I probably should. I wonder how my
Speaker 1: ancestors would react to modern technology. I mean, I am
Speaker 1: at in someone who only knew oil lamps, pressing buttons
Speaker 1: on a PlayStation, making simulated people move on a gigantic screen,
Speaker 1: or my great great great great grandmother, who likely once
Speaker 1: were shackles around her ankles watching me use a smartphone
Speaker 1: to call a lift to pick me up, just me,
Speaker 1: no restrictions. I know that not everyone in the world
Speaker 1: has the privilege of accessing such technology, and I know
Speaker 1: that this kind of situation has been the gag and
Speaker 1: many a poorly executed comedy. I just think the reason
Speaker 1: I think about this so much is so I remember
Speaker 1: not to take how far humankind has advanced for granted,
Speaker 1: and so I hold onto that youthful awe that can
Speaker 1: dissipate so easily in a world that can be super
Speaker 1: harsh at times. Nobody snapped their fingers and created my microwave.
Speaker 1: I'm grateful for the years of research, experimentation, and design
Speaker 1: people put in to create a multitude of technologies that
Speaker 1: allow me to warm my leftovers up in less than
Speaker 1: three minutes. I realize how much science cushions my comfortable life,
Speaker 1: and I pay my respects by daydreaming about raising my
Speaker 1: forebears from a did to come revel in all with me.
Speaker 1: I know people way back in the day couldn't fathom
Speaker 1: something like social media or robot vacuums unless they were
Speaker 1: like nostro damis or something. It's hard to see past
Speaker 1: the current situation. It's impossible to know what knowledge science
Speaker 1: will bring us in the future, and thanks to our hubris,
Speaker 1: it's not easy to imagine that something we believed to
Speaker 1: be utterly and undeniably true about the world could be
Speaker 1: completely wrong. Being wrong after you thought you had it
Speaker 1: all figured out is like dropping your ice cream cone
Speaker 1: on the hot summer day before you even got one
Speaker 1: lick in, or buying a pair of pants you thought
Speaker 1: hat pockets, only to find out they were fake pockets.
Speaker 1: Cognitive dissonance kicks in when our beliefs are challenged. We
Speaker 1: want to be right. We need to be right to
Speaker 1: reduce the discomfort of that dissonance. Suppose an individual believes
Speaker 1: something with his whole heart. Suppose further that he has
Speaker 1: a commitment to this belief and he has taken irrevocable
Speaker 1: actions because of it. Finally, supposed that he has presented
Speaker 1: with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence that his belief is wrong.
Speaker 1: What will happen. The individual will frequently emerge not only unshaken,
Speaker 1: but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs
Speaker 1: than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new
Speaker 1: fervor for convincing and converting other people to his view.
Speaker 1: Psychologist Leon Festinger, Henry W. Reikan, and Stanley Shackter wrote
Speaker 1: that in the book When Prophecy Fails, this sentiment can
Speaker 1: be applied to so so any things that are happening
Speaker 1: in the world right now. Science denialism not the least
Speaker 1: of them. Conviction is one hell of a drug. We're
Speaker 1: more likely to believe information that confirms the beliefs we
Speaker 1: already hold, and we reject information that contradicts our beliefs.
Speaker 1: We feel first, and we reason later, and often that
Speaker 1: reasoning is just affront for rationalizing our beliefs. We may
Speaker 1: be intelligent beings capable of things no other creature has
Speaker 1: been before, unique among known life forms. But we are
Speaker 1: not immune to irrational thoughts and being unable to swallow
Speaker 1: our pride. These are the flaws in our grand design.
Speaker 1: Galileo Galilei was up against when he rejected the officially
Speaker 1: held belief that the Sun revolved around Earth and Earth
Speaker 1: was the center of the universe. Instead, he said Earth
Speaker 1: revolved around the Sun. He wasn't the first person to
Speaker 1: support the heliocentric model. Aristarchus of Samos was the first
Speaker 1: to suggest that Earth rotates on an axis and revolves
Speaker 1: around the Sun in the BC years, and in the
Speaker 1: publication six Books concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs,
Speaker 1: Nikolaus Copernicus proposed that the planets revolved around the Sun,
Speaker 1: which is at the center of the universe. But even
Speaker 1: though scientists knew Earth was not at the center of
Speaker 1: the universe, the Catholic Church would have none of it
Speaker 1: when Galilea was vocal about helio centrism in the seventeenth century.
Speaker 1: Galileo is one of the most well known and celebrated
Speaker 1: scientists ever, and his run in with the Church is
Speaker 1: a mythicized affair that many people have encountered in some
Speaker 1: form or another. It's worth looking back at the heliocentrism
Speaker 1: contry or see. Not so we can laugh at how
Speaker 1: ignorant the church was, but so we can consider how
Speaker 1: we react to information that opposes are deeply held beliefs,
Speaker 1: and what it means to be the kind of person
Speaker 1: who's willing to question those beliefs. Galileo was literally confined
Speaker 1: for his dissent, a kind of poetic illustration of the
Speaker 1: ways we can be closed minded in self limiting. Galileo
Speaker 1: story is a reminder that sometimes we have to make
Speaker 1: enemies in our pursuit of truth. After the break, we'll
Speaker 1: meet the man who helped advance the scientific revolution. M.
Speaker 1: Galileo was born on February fifteenth, fifteen sixty four in Pisa, Italy.
Speaker 1: His mom was Julia Almonati, and his father a musician
Speaker 1: named Vincenzo Galilei. After Galileo and his family moved to
Speaker 1: Florence in the early fifteen seventies, Galileo began to study
Speaker 1: for the priesthood and considered joining the Order, but he
Speaker 1: switched paths, deciding to study medicine. At the University of Pisa.
Speaker 1: It was his father's wish that he studied medicine, but
Speaker 1: he soon fell in love with math, and he once
Speaker 1: again changed courses and began to study philosophy and mathematics.
Speaker 1: In fifteen eighty nine he became the chair of mathematics
Speaker 1: at the University of Pisa, but by fifteen ninety two
Speaker 1: he had fallen out of favor with his colleagues for
Speaker 1: supporting the Archamedian approach to motion rather than Aristotle's notions.
Speaker 1: That meant he believed the speed of falling bodies is
Speaker 1: proportional to their density, rather than their weight, as Aristotle proposed.
Speaker 1: Of course, this would not be Galileo's last foray into
Speaker 1: the land of objection and subsequent rejection. In two he
Speaker 1: was appointed mathematician at the University of Padua, where he
Speaker 1: stayed until fifteen ten. While at Padua, Galileo did experiments
Speaker 1: on the speed of falling objects, gave lectures on geometry
Speaker 1: and astronomy, invented a device for raising water, invented a
Speaker 1: mathematical instrument called a sector, experimented with the pendulum, and
Speaker 1: discovered the parabolic path of projectiles. It was also during
Speaker 1: this time when Galileo found out about the invention of
Speaker 1: the telescope, began making his own improvements on the device
Speaker 1: and started observing the skies. Through these increasingly powerful telescope hopes,
Speaker 1: Galileo saw that the surface of the Moon was rough
Speaker 1: and had mountains and valleys. He observed Jupiter's four largest moons.
Speaker 1: He observed how many more stars were visible with the
Speaker 1: telescope than without it. Armed with these discoveries, Galileo published
Speaker 1: Sidios Nunchus, or The Sidereal Messenger in English, a treatise
Speaker 1: based on his observations. In sixteen twelve, galileos treatise Discourse
Speaker 1: on Floating Bodies was published after he wanted debate against
Speaker 1: Aristotelian physicist Little Vico de le Columbe at a dinner
Speaker 1: the Grand Duke of Tuscany hosted. The treatise details galileos
Speaker 1: Archimedian views on floating bodies, as well as his telescopic
Speaker 1: observations of sun spots, the phases of Venus, the odd
Speaker 1: shape of Saturn, and the periods of Jupiter's satellites. The
Speaker 1: next year, the Academia de Lyncha bush Galileo's pamphlet Letters
Speaker 1: on Sun spots. Jesuit mathematician Christoph Shiner had said and
Speaker 1: his Three Letters on Solar Spots that sun spots were
Speaker 1: satellites of the Sun, maintaining Aristotle's views on the perfection
Speaker 1: of heavenly bodies. But Galileo fired back at Shiner, using
Speaker 1: his observations and full page copper plate engravings to show
Speaker 1: that sun spots do not revolve around the Sun, but
Speaker 1: are on or near the surface of the Sun. By
Speaker 1: supporting the idea that the Sun and heavens are corruptible,
Speaker 1: Galileo was once again rejecting Aristotle's cosmology. Other scientists and
Speaker 1: theologians were already advocating theories that opposed Aristotles, like Giordano Bruno,
Speaker 1: an Italian character who, among many other controversial views, rejected
Speaker 1: the idea that Earth is at the center of the
Speaker 1: universe and believed that the universe is infinite. He was
Speaker 1: burned at the stake in sixteen hundred after a heresy
Speaker 1: trial that was likely more related to his religious and
Speaker 1: philosophical beliefs than his astronomical ones. Anyway, by this point
Speaker 1: it was clear that Galileo favored Copernican theory. He had
Speaker 1: likely preferred it for decades, but Galileos mentioned of the
Speaker 1: Copernican system at the end of his last letter, is
Speaker 1: considered by many to be his first endorsement of the theory.
Speaker 1: Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish mathematician and astronomer. He proposed
Speaker 1: that the Sun was near the center of the universe,
Speaker 1: that Earth and the other planets orbited around the stationary Sun,
Speaker 1: that Earth turns on his own axis daily, and that
Speaker 1: Earth's motion explained other planets retrograde motion. His book detailing
Speaker 1: his theory on the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spears was
Speaker 1: published in fifteen forty three, and the Catholic Church banded
Speaker 1: it in sixteen sixteen, decades after copernicus Is death. Between
Speaker 1: that time, many people dismissed the theory on grounds of religion,
Speaker 1: prevailing notions on the physics of motion and shared disbelief,
Speaker 1: while others accepted heliocentrism, like German astronomer Johannes Kepler. Despite
Speaker 1: growing support for theories that the Sun was at the
Speaker 1: center of the Solar system, the Catholic Church maintains the
Speaker 1: view that Earth was static and at the center of
Speaker 1: the universe, based on interpretations of the Bible. To refute
Speaker 1: those troops was to go against the scripture, So Galileo
Speaker 1: tried to keep his support for Copernicanism on the downlow
Speaker 1: at first, but around six he started getting a lot
Speaker 1: more vocal about the theory. To no one's surprise, the
Speaker 1: Church did not respond well to Galileo's smart, but totally
Speaker 1: offensive in bold challenges. When we come back from the break,
Speaker 1: we'll see the lengths the Church went to to condemn Galileo,
Speaker 1: and we'll ask the question, how do we as individuals
Speaker 1: treat heretical and revolutionary thought. We do not know everything.
Speaker 1: We are always learning more about ourselves and the universe,
Speaker 1: always adding layers of information to our knowledge base. Because
Speaker 1: we are imperfect and not omniscient, we are constantly getting
Speaker 1: things wrong, assuming or concluding their right, then course correcting
Speaker 1: later when we find our error. But even though we
Speaker 1: know we're fallible and will make mistakes, we still have
Speaker 1: a hard time letting go of the old and embracing
Speaker 1: the new when we have mental and emotional hang ups
Speaker 1: on a subject. For example, evolving knowledge about gender identity
Speaker 1: and the complexities of biological sex is something people all
Speaker 1: over the world are struggling to come to terms with
Speaker 1: the vaccines cause autism debate is hot despite the fact
Speaker 1: that current research shows there is no link between the two,
Speaker 1: and there are many climate change skeptics, even though the
Speaker 1: scientific consensus is that human activities is one of the
Speaker 1: biggest drivers of global warming and that it will affect
Speaker 1: the globe in major ways in the coming centuries. Scientific
Speaker 1: inquiry and knowledge have progressed a lot since Galileo's days,
Speaker 1: so I know it seems like denying scientific evidence nowadays
Speaker 1: is something only a fool would do, But I'd argue
Speaker 1: that this reaction can make sense when we consider the
Speaker 1: ever changing nature of human knowledge. Having to adjust to
Speaker 1: radical new thought can turn out to be just too
Speaker 1: much for our stability, craving myoptic natures. Plus, people have
Speaker 1: little trust in the individuals and organizations providing the science,
Speaker 1: a distrust that's often wrapped up in politics and years
Speaker 1: of some sort of institutional mistreatment. I am not defending
Speaker 1: uninformed science denial. I am defending the usefulness of questioning things,
Speaker 1: even when it makes us look silly, feel uncomfortable, or
Speaker 1: garner hate. That questioning just isn't equal across the board.
Speaker 1: If we'd listened to everyone who had unorthodox views and charisma,
Speaker 1: we'd be in pretty bad shape. Skepticism is nourishing in moderation,
Speaker 1: not when it is abused and rooted and thoughtless faceless rejection.
Speaker 1: We're intelligent. We can be nuanced enough to resort neither
Speaker 1: to instant dismissal nor approval of logically sound unorthodox thought.
Speaker 1: In six thirteen, Galileo wrote a letter to his student
Speaker 1: Benedetto Castelli about the contradictions between Copernican theory and Biblical passages.
Speaker 1: A couple of years later, a Dominican friar named Nicolo
Speaker 1: Laurini filed a complaint with the Inquisition regarding Galileo's Copernican views,
Speaker 1: sending it along with an inaccurate copy of the letter.
Speaker 1: The Inquisition was an institution in the Catholic Church whose
Speaker 1: job it was to eradicate heresies. Galileo ended up going
Speaker 1: to Rome to defend his views in reputation, but in
Speaker 1: sixteen fifteen, carmen Lite friar Bolo Antonio Foscarini published a
Speaker 1: book in which he argued that Copernican theory is compatible
Speaker 1: with Holy scripture. The next year, a committee of Inquisition
Speaker 1: consultants declared Copernican theory heretical. Boscarini's book and other Copernican
Speaker 1: texts were banned or suspended until corrected. Cardinal Bellarman, who
Speaker 1: had warned Foscarini to treat Copernican theory as just a hypothesis,
Speaker 1: all so told Galileo not to hold, defend, or discuss
Speaker 1: the theory. But by sixty four Pope Urban the seventh
Speaker 1: had given Galileo permission to write a book about the
Speaker 1: theories of the universe, but the Pope said Galileo could
Speaker 1: only treat Copernican theory as a mathematical proposition. The book,
Speaker 1: Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems Ptolemaic and Copernican,
Speaker 1: was structured as a discussion between two men, and printing
Speaker 1: was completed in sixteen thirty two, but the Pope convened
Speaker 1: a special commission to examine the book, and the commission
Speaker 1: found that Galileo had not treated the theory hypothetically. Galileo
Speaker 1: was called to Rome in sixteen thirty three to go
Speaker 1: in front of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. He
Speaker 1: was charged with teaching and defending the Copernican theory that
Speaker 1: the Sun is at the center of the universe and
Speaker 1: the Earth moves, which had been deemed heretical. In his
Speaker 1: first appearance before the inquisition, Galileo refused to confess to
Speaker 1: any wrongdoing, since the inquisitors didn't have much of the
Speaker 1: case against him without a confession, Galileo basically took a
Speaker 1: plea bargain for a lesser sentence in exchange for admitting
Speaker 1: he had given the heliocentric model defender a stronger case
Speaker 1: in his book, but he claimed he didn't do so
Speaker 1: because he believed the theory. Rather, he did so to
Speaker 1: show off his debating chops. Galileo was never under a
Speaker 1: threat of execution or tortured, likely because of his poor
Speaker 1: physical condition. Instead, Galileo was declared vehement Lee suspect of
Speaker 1: heresy on June twenty three. After his sentence was fred,
Speaker 1: he had to recite and sign an abjuration which said,
Speaker 1: in part, I have been judged vehement Lee suspect of heresy,
Speaker 1: that is, of having held and believed that the Sun
Speaker 1: is the center of the universe and immovable, and that
Speaker 1: the Earth is not at the center of same, and
Speaker 1: that it does move. Wishing, however, to remove from the
Speaker 1: minds of your eminences and all faithful Christians. This vehement
Speaker 1: suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere
Speaker 1: heart and unfeigned faith. I curse and detest the said
Speaker 1: errors and heresies, and generally all in every error, heresy,
Speaker 1: and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. In the end,
Speaker 1: Galileo's book Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems was
Speaker 1: banned and he was sentenced to three years of weekly
Speaker 1: penitential prayer and imprisonment. At the discretion of church inquisitors,
Speaker 1: his sentence was commuted to house arrest, and in late
Speaker 1: sixty three he returned to his villa and Art three
Speaker 1: near Florence, where he spent the rest of his life.
Speaker 1: People objected to his arrest, and some attempted to free him,
Speaker 1: but to no avail. During this time, Galileo finished his
Speaker 1: last book, Discourses on the Two New Sciences. He kept
Speaker 1: working until his death in sixteen forty two. The Dialogue
Speaker 1: concerning the two Chief role systems Ptolemaic and Copernican remained
Speaker 1: on the Vatican's Index of Forbidden books until eighteen thirty five.
Speaker 1: In eighteen twenty two, the College of Cardinals said that
Speaker 1: the publication of works treating of the motion of the
Speaker 1: Earth and the stability of the Sun in accordance with
Speaker 1: the opinion of modern astronomers is permitted. In nineteen seventy nine,
Speaker 1: Pope John Paul the Second said that Galileo had suffered
Speaker 1: injustices at the hands of the Church, and in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety two the pope admitted that theological advisors had made
Speaker 1: heirs in Galileo's case, but he did not apologize for
Speaker 1: the church's treatment of Galileo until two thousand. People in
Speaker 1: the Church were not the only ones to denounce Galileo.
Speaker 1: Other scientists in lay people discredited his cosmological views and
Speaker 1: deemed him dishonorable. The Galileo affair has been researched and
Speaker 1: theorized to death. Yes, Galileo made a ton of major
Speaker 1: contributions to science and took risks, and his name lives
Speaker 1: on for that reason. But the enduring fascination with the
Speaker 1: controversy surrounding his defense of heliocentrism shows how much we
Speaker 1: care about people who push the envelope to try to
Speaker 1: make society better and smarter, especially when it has to
Speaker 1: do with flashy space theories. We make a lot of
Speaker 1: mistakes before we get the clarity of hindsight. We don't
Speaker 1: need to trust everybody, but we can try not to
Speaker 1: burn rebels at the stake before we even give them
Speaker 1: a chance to speak. We'll be back next week with
Speaker 1: another episode of Unpopular m. H our producer is Andrew Howard,
Speaker 1: Holly Fry and Christopher Hasiotis are our executive producers. If
Speaker 1: you're not already subscribed, you can make sure you never
Speaker 1: miss an episode by subscribing to the show on Apple Podcast,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 1: We'll be back next week with another episode of Unpopular
Speaker 1: m