Scan barcode
zmb's review
5.0
Galileo is brilliant and surprisingly clear in his exposition of the Copernican system against the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic. The dialogue form suits the discussion well - Salviati makes some impressive deduction, Sagredo exclaims how impressive it is and adds his own thoughts, and Simplicio quotes Aristotle. That's a bit harsh to Simplicio - Galileo goes out of his way to introduce a ton of objections to his/Salviati's theories, which are duly refuted by Salviati. Sagredo also brings a nice practical viewpoint who is quick to think up experiments, while Salviati does the more abstract philosophising.
The reasonings, both philosophical and geometrical, are incisive, and if Galileo missed on a few things (circular versus Kepler's elliptical motion, the tides) he was right about far more and eloquently and insightfully so.
The reasonings, both philosophical and geometrical, are incisive, and if Galileo missed on a few things (circular versus Kepler's elliptical motion, the tides) he was right about far more and eloquently and insightfully so.
yaboybbq's review
4.0
Reading Galileo's seminal work was a very interesting experience - this is an excellent exploration of the ideas that form the foundation of today's modern scientific understanding. Salviati, (The character presenting Galileo's world system) is constantly hinting at ideas that won't be formally developed for centuries, and it's fascinating.
The dialogue format does come off as a little strange compared to what one may expect from modern popsci writing. The characters tend to ramble a bit, particularly Simplicio (Presenting the churches world view), who at one point in the dialogue states "I forgot what I was going to say" which is... an odd line, for a character in a written, fictional dialogue.
I understand the church was upset when Galileo released this book. Was this really because they were so opposed to his ideas, or just because the character represented them was the sort of conversationalist to stop and admit that he lost his train of thought?
Kidding aside, the book was very thought provoking, and I would recommend even today
The dialogue format does come off as a little strange compared to what one may expect from modern popsci writing. The characters tend to ramble a bit, particularly Simplicio (Presenting the churches world view), who at one point in the dialogue states "I forgot what I was going to say" which is... an odd line, for a character in a written, fictional dialogue.
I understand the church was upset when Galileo released this book. Was this really because they were so opposed to his ideas, or just because the character represented them was the sort of conversationalist to stop and admit that he lost his train of thought?
Kidding aside, the book was very thought provoking, and I would recommend even today
david_rhee's review against another edition
3.0
Two New Sciences is definitely a unique physical treatise in that it is written as a Platonic style dialogue. As the title suggests, the dialogue serves to highlight a shift in thought and the format does prove suitable to allow ideas and opinions to clash freely. Simplicio is the clear-cut Aristotelian of the group. Sagredo and Salviati seem like mouthpieces for conflicting ideas with which Galileo himself had to reckon to arrive at his conclusions which are given in the text written by the "Academician." Another good thing about the dialogue style is that the reader can elect to follow closely or to remain a little aloof and just listen in. I chose the latter for the majority part and this reading experience reminded me of my high school and college years where I mostly found myself merely present at conversations without being really involved in them. -pause- *brief but painful flashbacks which abruptly dissipate* ...Whoa, sorry...anyways... While this fate isn't exactly enviable in real-life social settings, the approach works well for this book.
Those who do choose to follow along, I admire you. The Euclidean style of working with ratios and line segments rather than quantifying values with numbers dominates the many proofs. Again, I think it's more helpful as a work which displays the "history of ideas" at play and in transition. Time-honored opinions are bolstered or dismantled by experimental reasoning. While it may be thought a criticism to be labeled an "intermediate" work for the science of Newton, there is truly no shame in that at all. One can't have ends without process.
Those who do choose to follow along, I admire you. The Euclidean style of working with ratios and line segments rather than quantifying values with numbers dominates the many proofs. Again, I think it's more helpful as a work which displays the "history of ideas" at play and in transition. Time-honored opinions are bolstered or dismantled by experimental reasoning. While it may be thought a criticism to be labeled an "intermediate" work for the science of Newton, there is truly no shame in that at all. One can't have ends without process.
watoozi's review against another edition
3.0
I’m working my way through The Great Books of Western Literature and I must say this is my favorite math book so far. I appreciated the story-form and ‘breaks’ that the dialogue provided.
And let’s just say it. I am Simplicio.
Lots of gems in here.
“In digressions we reach new truths.”
“There is no better tool than geometry to sharpen the wit and strengthen the mind.”
“Infinity and indivisibility are incomprehensible. Now imagine combining the two.”
The man was a genius, modest, and FUNNY.
And let’s just say it. I am Simplicio.
Lots of gems in here.
“In digressions we reach new truths.”
“There is no better tool than geometry to sharpen the wit and strengthen the mind.”
“Infinity and indivisibility are incomprehensible. Now imagine combining the two.”
The man was a genius, modest, and FUNNY.
braydin's review against another edition
4.0
This is a great book to start with for those interested in the scientific classics. Written as a dialogue and in the vernacular rather than Latin, Dialogues is a much more accessible read than the Copernicus text I started with. There is still a bit of geometry that may be off putting to some readers, but even those without a science background should be able to follow the discussion if they have an interest.
More...