Proving his Point

The dialogue of Galileo seemed to be entirely constructed to illustrate the point that he is trying to make in the rebuttal that we read over the weekend. However, that writing in the book is somewhat convoluted and very difficult to just pick up and read. It seems as though Galileo felt the same way and constructed this dialogue to explain his point, the objections to his point, and his explanation for those objections. The dialogue simply serves as a refined and more craftily created explanation of his theory in a method that can be easily read and interpreted. I feel Galileo does succeed in his effort to provide an articulate scientific argument through his creation of a narrative, as he is able to control the battle field. He is also able to appear more humble in his discovery and not as opinionated, as he claims when he states it as impossible for him to know exactly how the world works and simply ignorant to assume he does, but he can get closer. This also serves as a message to those who turned to God for all of their and explanations, seeming to cut off their argument. He also makes a grand statement about those hopelessly devoted to any scientist or philosopher, using Aristotle in this case, to state that anyone who follows a doctrine so blindly that they don't believe their own senses is a complete fool. He believes that if Aristotle had the evidence Galileo had, he would revise his books completely. It is subtleties like this that make Galileo's dialogue effective. He almost approaches the situation with a calmness shown by Socrates and does not insult or belittle his opponent's philosophy, but gradully brings about new evidence or points out flaws to prove his own point.