My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?
Interpretation
Galileo criticizes those who refuse to embrace new knowledge despite having the means to do so.
In this quote, Galileo Galilei reflects on the stubbornness of learned individuals who, despite having access to groundbreaking tools such as the telescope, refuse to explore new perspectives or ideas. He questions whether one should find humor or sorrow in such ignorance, highlighting the tension between knowledge, curiosity, and willful blindness. This serves as a broader commentary on human nature and the resistance to change or innovation.
In practice
In a speech about scientific advancement, one might refer to Galileo's quote to emphasize the importance of exploring new ideas.
It has always seemed to me extreme presumptuousness on the part of those who want to make human ability the measure of what nature can and knows how to do, since, when one comes down to it, there is not one effect in nature, no matter how small, that even the most speculative minds can fully understand.
We must say that there are as many squares as there are numbers.
Science proceeds more by what it has learned to ignore than what it takes into account.
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do.
Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed.
That sculpture is more admirable than painting for the reason that it contains relief and painting does not is completely false. ... Rather, how much more admirable the painting must be considered, if having no relief at all, it appears to have as much as sculpture!
Economists (and others) who are satisfied with nature-free equations develop a dangerous hubris about the potency of our species
The atom can't be seen, yet its existence can be proved. And it is simple to prove that it can't ever be seen. It has to be studied by indirect evidence - and the technical difficulty has been compared to asking a man who has never seen a piano to describe a piano from the sound it would make falling downstairs in the dark.
The image of Stephen Hawking - who has died aged 76 - in his motorised wheelchair, with head contorted slightly to one side and hands crossed over to work the controls, caught the public imagination as a true symbol of the triumph of mind over matter.
The last thing that man will understand in nature is the performance of his brain.
I'm proud of the fact that I thought of the solar wind. It was an exercise in pursuing curiosity, which is the main motivation for studying physics from a personal standpoint.
This is a basic problem, to feed 6.6 billion people. Without fertilizer, forget it. The game is over.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.