[Serious] Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.

[brewer]

Granted, it's not simple. If he had published all his theories and observations as theory or thought experiments, with no reference to how this affected Bible interpretation, he probably would have avoided trouble. Pope Urban had been a friend and supporter and was willing to listen to reason, until Galileo's public challenges made this impolitic. From our modern point of view of course he should not have had to worry about politics -- science should be pure! -- but every era has its authorities which it is not wise to provoke. 

Let's put it this way: he could have done his science if he had done so in a more diplomatic way. This might have entailed more disclaimers or pretending that he was just thinking out loud. I agree that scientists shouldn't have to be skilled at diplomacy, but to get an audience and a hearing, they have to know the ropes, then and now. A modern scientist who insulted the people who employ and fund him might find himself out of a job fairly fast. Modern science depends on for-profit journals and funding from corporations and the Pentagon. These people may be better gatekeepers than the Vatican, but they show that science is not and never has been pure.

If Galileo had not named the proponent of the older view 'Simplicio' and linked it to the views of the people alive at the time and in power, he may well have been received better.

So your saying when the church/religion might be involved a person should speak in partial truths to not get in trouble. Got it.