原文

In his own lifetime Galileo was the centre of violent controversy; but the scientific dust has long since settled, and today we can see even his famous clash with the Inquisition in something like its proper perspective. But, in contrast, it is only in modern times that Galileo has become a problem child for historians of science.

The old view of Galileo was delightfully uncomplicated. He was, above all, a man who experimented: who despised the prejudices and book learning of the Aristotelians, who put his questions to nature instead of to the ancients, and who drew his conclusions fearlessly. He had been the first to turn a telescope to the sky, and he had seen there evidence enough to overthrow Aristotle and Ptolemy together. He was the man who climbed the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropped various weights from the top, who rolled balls down inclined planes, and then generalized the results of his many experiments into the famous law of free fall.

But a closer study of the evidence, supported by a deeper sense of the period, and particularly by a new consciousness of the philosophical undercurrents in the scientific revolution, has profoundly modified this view of Galileo. Today, although the old Galileo lives on in many popular writings, among historians of science a new and more sophisticated picture has emerged. At the same time our sympathy fro Galileo's opponents ahs grown somewhat. His telescopic observations are justly immortal; they aroused great interest at the time, they had important theoretical consequences, and they provided a striking demonstration of the potentialities hidden in instruments and apparatus. But can we blame those who looked and failed to see what Galileo saw, if we remember that to use a telescope at the limit of its powers calls for long experience and intimate familiarity with one's instrument? Was the philosopher who refused to look through Galileo's telescope more culpable than those who alleged that the spiral nebulae observed with Lord Rosse's great telescope in the eighteen-forties were scratches left by the grinder? We can perhaps forgive those who said the moons of Jupiter were produced by Galileo's spyglass if we recall that in his day, as for centuries before, curved glass was the popular contrivance for producing not truth but illusion, untruth; and if a single curved glass would distort nature, how much more would a pair of them?

--MICHAEL HOSKIN Galileo Reborn from The Listener--

译文

在伽利略生前，他是激烈争论的中心；但是，科学界的尘埃早已平息，今天我们甚至能以较为正确的视角来看待他与宗教裁判所的著名冲突。然而，相比之下，只有在现代，伽利略才成为科学史家的问题人物。

The old view of Galileo was delightfully uncomplicated. He was, above all, a man who experimented: who despised the prejudices and book learning of the Aristotelians, who put his questions to nature instead of to the ancients, and who drew his conclusions fearlessly. He had been the first to turn a telescope to the sky, and he had seen there evidence enough to overthrow Aristotle and Ptolemy together. He was the man who climbed the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropped various weights from the top, who rolled balls down inclined planes, and then generalized the results of his many experiments into the famous law of free fall.

但是，通过更仔细的研究证据，结合对那个时代的更深刻理解，特别是对科学革命中哲学暗流的新的认识，这种对伽利略的看法已发生了深刻的变化。今天，虽然旧有的伽利略形象在许多通俗著作中依然存在，但在科学史家中间，却出现了一个更新颖、更复杂的图景。同时，我们对伽利略反对者的同情也增加了几分。

他的望远镜观察成果当之无愧地永垂不朽；它们在当时引起了极大兴趣，具有重要的理论意义，并生动地展示了仪器和设备中潜藏的潜力。但是，如果我们记住，使用望远镜达到其极限能力需要长期的经验和对仪器的亲密熟悉，那么我们能责备那些看过却没看到伽利略所见的人吗？那个拒绝通过伽利略的望远镜观察的哲学家，比那些声称在十九世纪四十年代用罗西勋爵（Lord Rosse）的大望远镜观察到的螺旋星云是磨镜留下的划痕的人更应受责备吗？如果我们回想，在伽利略的时代，以及之前的几个世纪，曲面玻璃是一种流行的装置，用于产生非真理而是幻觉、谬误；如果一个曲面玻璃就能扭曲自然，那么两个又会如何？我们或许可以原谅那些说木星卫星是伽利略的望远镜制造出来的人。

--MICHAEL HOSKIN Galileo Reborn from The Listener--