A Watermark, and 'Spidey Sense,' Unmask a Forged Galileo Treasure (nytimes.com) 40
One of the University of Michigan Library's most prized possessions, which appeared to be a Galileo manuscript, is now thought to be the work of a 20th-century forger. From a report: Galileo Galilei was peering through a new telescope in 1610 when he noticed something strange: several bright objects flickering around the planet Jupiter that seemed to change positions nightly. His discovery, of moons orbiting Jupiter, was a major crack in the notion, widely held since antiquity, that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth. The finding, which was condemned by the Catholic Church, helped prove the theory of a sun-centered solar system. For decades the University of Michigan Library has prized a manuscript related to the discovery, describing it as "one of the great treasures" in its collection. At the top is the draft of a letter signed by Galileo describing the new telescope, and on the bottom are sketches plotting the positions of the moons around Jupiter -- "the first observational data that showed objects orbiting a body other than the earth," the library described it.
At least it would be if it were authentic. After Nick Wilding, a historian at Georgia State University, uncovered evidence suggesting the manuscript was a fake, the library investigated and determined that he was right: The university said Wednesday it had concluded that its treasured manuscript "is in fact a 20th-century forgery." "It was pretty gut-wrenching when we first learned our Galileo was not actually a Galileo," Donna L. Hayward, the interim dean of the university's libraries, said in an interview. But since the purpose of any library is to expand knowledge, she said, the university had decided to be forthright about its findings and publicly announce the forgery. "To sweep it under the rug is counter to what we stand for."
At least it would be if it were authentic. After Nick Wilding, a historian at Georgia State University, uncovered evidence suggesting the manuscript was a fake, the library investigated and determined that he was right: The university said Wednesday it had concluded that its treasured manuscript "is in fact a 20th-century forgery." "It was pretty gut-wrenching when we first learned our Galileo was not actually a Galileo," Donna L. Hayward, the interim dean of the university's libraries, said in an interview. But since the purpose of any library is to expand knowledge, she said, the university had decided to be forthright about its findings and publicly announce the forgery. "To sweep it under the rug is counter to what we stand for."
Why was this even brought up? (Score:3)
But since the purpose of any library is to expand knowledge, she said, the university had decided to be forthright about its findings and publicly announce the forgery. "To sweep it under the rug is counter to what we stand for."
was this even ever considered?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why was this even brought up? (Score:5, Insightful)
But since the purpose of any library is to expand knowledge, she said, the university had decided to be forthright about its findings and publicly announce the forgery. "To sweep it under the rug is counter to what we stand for."
was this even ever considered?
You could just quietly remove it from the collection and still be kinda ethical. Announcing it is much better, if embarrassing. Scholars who used the manuscript can revise their work as necessary.
Re:Why was this even brought up? (Score:5, Interesting)
Scholars who used the manuscript can revise their work as necessary.
Except this almost never happens.
Look at the recent dementia research that was just undone because of the discovery of faked data. There is 20 years of subsequent research that was built on top of that study, and it should all be invalidated and retracted. But it won't, because too much is at stake in terms of research grants, tenure, the "publish or perish" mentality, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong but be gentle I'm typing this from memory...
60 Minutes had a piece decades ago about The Rembrandt Project. Where experts were painstakingly trying to narrow down whether the glut of paintings by Rembrandt were actually done by him or his students. To date they had already discredited a lot of paintings as being those of his pupils. One expert interviewed said they couldn't get access to several paintings because the owners were afraid they'd end up being "fakes".
Re: (Score:2)
TFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Link to the original article, please.
It would be very interesting to know how they figured out it was a forgery. That's the technical aspect to the news. That should be the reason it's on Slashdot at all.
Re:TFA? (Score:5, Informative)
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Look on the bright side. Their insurance premium just came down.
To sweep it under the rug (Score:2)
If someone at the University of Michigan Library even hinted that this could be a possible course of action, that person should be terminated. Why would anyone even bring this idea?
Re:To sweep it under the rug (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not think it was implied that "sweeping it under the rug" meant ignoring evidence. The university could just as easily quietly remove the document from their inventory and never mention it again.
Never let a good crisis go to waste... the university is just making lemonade from a bad situation.
Re: To sweep it under the rug (Score:2)
My take: the representative was saying what course of action they must take: total transparency. "Sweeping it under the rug" was just stated as the counterfactual, not actually considered,
The first clue (Score:3)
The first clue that brought up suspicions was the fact it was written on A4 copy paper
Re: (Score:2)
Nice Spidey Sense you've got there.
Re: (Score:2)
The first clue that brought up suspicions was the fact it was written on A4 copy paper
Some researchers also considered the handwritten comment saying "If this doesn't get me an article in Nature I don't know what will" to be fairly peculiar.
Re: (Score:2)
The Comic Sans font was another clue.
What a refreshing attitude (Score:2)
From the summary
"It was pretty gut-wrenching when we first learned our Galileo was not actually a Galileo," Donna L. Hayward, the interim dean of the university's libraries, said in an interview. But since the purpose of any library is to expand knowledge, she said, the university had decided to be forthright about its findings and publicly announce the forgery. "To sweep it under the rug is counter to what we stand for."
What a wonderfully refreshing attitude.
Is the misleading swipe at Catholics necessary? (Score:2, Interesting)
I know this is the popular narrative but it's wildly misleading. The vast majority of academics of the time, who had all built careers on the Ptolemaic system, also condemned the discovery; the church merely went along with them. His trial was instigated by academics who disagreed with him. The popular idea is that priests refused to put their eye to Galileo
Re: (Score:3)
But if he hadn't written that "triologue" barely hiding the defamatory representation of the Pope, it probably wouldn't have happened.
Re:Is the misleading swipe at Catholics necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
<blockquote>The finding, which was condemned by the Catholic Church, helped prove the theory of a sun-centered solar system.</blockquote> I know this is the popular narrative but it's wildly misleading. The vast majority of academics of the time, who had all built careers on the Ptolemaic system, also condemned the discovery;
Not really.
The academics of the time outside of church-controlled Italy all agreed with Galileo.
(And, for that matter the "vast majority of academics of the time" did not have the power of the inquisition to try and condemn people for heresy.)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
If he didn't want to be condemned for heresy and put under house arrest, not insulting the pope in writing and distributing it to all and sundry would have been a really good idea. But he was an asshole and so he did. What's more, because he was such an asshole about other people's work, e.g. comets,, none of his fellow scientists were willing to back him up or give character references at his trial. Motherfucker went to the church and demanded his teachings be immediately taught as dogmatic church truth, t
Re: Is the misleading swipe at Catholics necessary (Score:2)
Awww, poor butthurt babies modding me troll because they fail to understand that the current treatment of speech was very much not the case in Galileo's time and everyone then new damn well that insulting the wrong person could get you in a shitload of trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
If he didn't want to be condemned for heresy and put under house arrest, not insulting the pope in writing and distributing it to all and sundry would have been a really good idea.
Most likely true, I expect.
But that does not contradict the fact that the statement quoted was in fact completely correct:
"The finding, which was condemned by the Catholic Church, helped prove the theory of a sun-centered solar system."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In 1992, three hundred and fifty years later, the Catholic Church admitted they were wrong and apologized.
If you want to learn something, try the wikipedia
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the foggiest idea where you get your ideas.
Oh, wait, you said where you get your ideas: you get them from reddit.
Right.
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck religion. It was designed as a means of control and had done nothing but hold back science and humanity. Not to mention our catholic majority supreme court and their decisions based on voter base and religion.
I do hope the name of the forger (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was, I'll do a fandango.
Seven??? (Score:1)
He needed to forge better porn. The bastard was extra horny.
"confusion of the forger" (Score:3)
Non pay walled link (Score:3)
https://www.newser.com/story/3... [newser.com]
Re: (Score:2)