the book as i said is called galileo and the science deniers.s is a fresh biography of galileo, but at the same time with an eye on the science denial today which unfortunately we have quite a bit of so the idea is to study from this fascinating person who lived in the 17th century to see what lessons we can learn from that or what extent he already fought some battles that we have to find again today. so, you know when people hear i wrote a book about galileo, the natural question is how come i decided to write this book although there are already quite a few biographies on galileo. there were several reasons for this and they were all important at some level. one is that i am an astrophysicist and galileo is considered by many to be one of the founders of modern astronomy. i was always completely fascinated by this person and was familiar with him but not all the details and i wanted to write about him. the second thing is searching through the literature, i discovered very few if any of the existing biographies were written by researchers in

galileo was a complex personality. he had a very complex personality. don't want anybody to get the impression that he was the nicest person, he could be nice and supportive to members of his own family but when it came when people who objected to him in science or otherwise, he had an extraordinarily sharp tongue and even sharper -- and he was really very strong, his sarcasm was almost unparallel, he wrote in a very witty way, in one case he mocked somebody who told the story about the ancient colonials cooking eggs, and he said that is an interesting story but we also have snakes and swamp people who can world the eggs and yet they don't cook. so what is it that we lack that the babylonians have and he said the only thing that we seem to lack is being babylonian, and must be that the eggs are cooking because there babylonians. so this type of thing i want to convey this personality of galileo, not the nicest person, a genius, the freedom extremely important to him, at the same time a lot of self-righteousness and he was very feisty even when he was wr

book about galileo given their already quite a few biographies of galileo.re several reasons. they were all important at some level. one is that i am an astrophysicist. galileo was considered by many as modern astronomy and astrophysics. i was completely fascinated by this person. and of course was familiar with him but not with all the details. and i wanted to write about him. the second thing is searching through the literature i discovered that actually very few if any of the existing biographies were weakened by active researchers of astro physics they're written by science historians, or science writers and so on. and so i thought maybe i could bring a certain new perspective to his discovery especially to put them in the context of what we know today. the other thing is that these scholarly written biographies of galileo, some of which are fantastic, are usually very, very detailed. they're not appropriate for regular reader who wants to read something simpler. so i decided to write a somewhat shorter book. but tried nevertheless to stay as accurate as

write a book about galileo given there are quite a few biographies of galileo . you know, there are several reasons for this and they were all important. one is that i'm an astrophysicist. galileo is considered by many to be one of the founders of modern astrology. i was always fascinated by this person and of course, was familiar with him but did not know all the details and i wanted to write about them. the second thing is that searching through the literature , i discovered that actually very few if any of the existing biographies were conducted by active researchers in the field of astrophysicists . mostly they were by science historians, science writers and so on so i thought maybe i can bring a new perspective to his discoveries and especially to put them in the context of what we know today . the other thing is that the scholarly biographies of galileo, some of which are fantastic usually are very detailed and they are not so appropriate actually for just the regular reader who wants to read something simpler so i decided to write asomewhat shorter book ,

the most recent of which is called "galileo: and the science deniers."in baltimore and and i currently and in baltimore at my home. as you can see i imagine -- i am in front of shells with books. actual at something that looks like that in every room in the house. so it almost doesn't matter where i am. so the book as a saint is called "galileo: and the science deniers" -- as i say -- this is a fresh biography of galileo but at the same time with an eye on science denial today which unfortunately we have quite a bit of. so the idea is to study from these fascinating person who lived during the 17th century, but to see what lessons we can learn from that or, you know, to what extent he in some sense already -- font some battles that we have to fight again today. when people here that i wrote a book about galileo, natural question is how come i decided to write a book about alla mail, given that the already quite a few markets of galileo? there were several reasons for this. they were all-important. one is i'm an astrophysicist. galileo is considered by ma

galileo sn't afrd of n ideas. rld isound ♪ the♪ ectly theontrary the samfolks sa the n isircling ♪ ear is at t center ♪ b i saye orbi arou the sun♪ ♪ 'cae i am acientist ♪ a a hypothes invent - ♪e're n afraid o♪ ♪e know wcan't de them ♪ theest things ce fromew ideas♪ ♪ if fos would ly trthem ♪ all: some peopleun ♪ b we likeo embracthem ♪ old ias got tgo soew ones can reple them ♪ i not afrd ofew ideas♪ i know i cat deny tm ♪ if folks woulonly try them♪ ♪ don'te scaredf neideas ♪ ♪xplore tm to theetter ♪ don the world c be mucbetter ♪ [allheering] - yeah! oo. than for letti me n throh my galeo story, u guys. - itas greatsean. - [lghs] yea i kindaas galeo therfor a mite. - huh. excid? ah, excid! ok. hey, y guys? woulyou even hp me bring our italset to sool? [inhaleseeply] you meane get toe italia? all: y! sunspot?- [chis] all: ♪'m not aaid i know can't de them ♪ ♪he best thin come from n ♪f folks would ly y them don't bscared ofew ide ♪ ♪ expre them to theetter the wor can be muchetter♪ ♪hen 're not raid ♪ expre of

we started out in 1609 did that -- to go back to galileo. a lot of us cherish the idea that we were the only children of a creator that the entire universe revolves around us. and one by one what i call the great emotion of science, one by one well you know once the world had except did to the extent that we have the work of their earlier scientists copernicus who said the sun was at the center of the solar system, once we said okay we are not the center. we are at the center of a galaxy. we are at the center of the universe. no, no. well, we were created separately from the rest of all the other beings around this planet. we are god's only children. well, we aren't so deeply related to each other and to all of the life that we share. we have more in common genetically you and me with a sunflower then we are likely to have with that being from any other world in the cosmos. so i cherish what carl sagan said. if a person disagrees with you let them live. you will not find another in 100 billion galaxies. so this is some of the values of scien

we started out in 1609, to go back to galileo., a lot of us cherish the idea that we were the only children of creator that the entire universe revolved around us. an one by one, what i call great demotions of sit come one by one, well, once the world had accepted, to the extent that we have, the work of the earlier scientis copernicus who said that the sun was at the center of the solar system, once we said okay, we're nott the center of the solar system but we are at the center of the galaxy. we are the center of the universe. no, no, no. not any of those. well, weere created separately from the rest of the all of the ling beings on this planet. we are gods only children. well, no. it turns out thate are so deeply related to each other and to all of the life that we share this planet with, that we have more i common genetically, you and me, with the sunflower than we're likely to have with and being from any other world in the cosmos. and so i cherish what carl sagan said, if a person disagrees with you, let him live. you will n

they are not the darwin's or galileo.not the household names, but instead they are unsung heroes who lived so bravely, so dramatically, and who made it possible for us to venture to the stars. i have never known anyone who was able to integrate both a very rigorous evidence-based, mathematical knowledge of physics and chemistry and biology that was comprehensive. that very rigorous skepticism with an imagination and sense of wonder and joy. you know, it's always been, the founding myth of how our civilization is that if you partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, you will be ruined and miserable and doomed, and it's a criminal thing to do. whereas i feel that in the story of genesis, when we do partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that's when we become our human cells. it's the most natural thing for us. this is what we are really good at. and so you can't do it just with skepticism. you know, i'm not the first person to say this. einstein, carl, many people have set this way before me, but you can't, you

. >> juan: well, so, galileo. because i am misunderstood in my time.ed to be right. there we are. >> dana: you're saying no? >> jesse: if he is galileo, then i am einstein. [laughter] >> juan: it is thanksgiving dinner. we just might do it. >> dana: i have no idea. >> jesse: i would put you as mary pickford. [laughter] >> dana: i just like the accent. >> greg: an actress from the 1920s, mary pickford. somebody is going yes. >> dana: i think it was a little bit more like i don't know, some small person. >> emily: thumbelina. >> dana: yes, that would be a historical figure. it feels like we have things going together already. another facebook question, now this is a good one. who was your childhood hero, jesse? >> jesse: it was michael jackson. >> dana: hero? >> jesse: michael jackson, ronald reagan, and mike tyson. >> dana: that is a very elective group. >> jesse: and randall cunningham. there you go. >> dana: do you have one? >> jesse: what is so funny? >> greg: nothing. 16 things i could say, but none of them -- michael jackson. okay, so all of my her

some things to us the people are hampered by and i respect that we started out in 16 oh nine back to galileowe cherish the idea we were the only children of a creator that the universe revolved around us. and one by one that once the world had accepted to the extent that we have the work of the earlier scientist copernicus who said the sun was at the center of the solar system, once we said we are not at the center of the solar system, but the center of the galaxy, then the universe. no no no. will we were created separately from the rest of all the other beings of the plan that we are god's only children. well that we are deeply related to each other and all those that we share this planet with. that we have more in common to that degree then a sunflower then we are likely to have with the being from any area in the cosmos. i cherish what carl sagan said if a person to guess one - - disagrees with you let them live you will not find another in a hundred billion galaxies. so this is part of science so when i look at that and i looked at it countless times since carl showed it to me back in t

we were part of a satellite project with the european union called galileo, but because we are leavingslightly macho, ridiculous way, we just said we would have our own. we've come across this company which filed bankruptcy in march, and we decided to put a load of taxpayer money into it. what makes it even stranger is that the senior civil servant for business advised against this, but they've still gone ahead with it. it's not entirely clear whether this but will come up, and it's a huge gamble with our money. what are we going to benefit from doing it? so it is very, very curious. madeleine, in 15 seconds, your views on investing this amount of money? it's a very bit to make it risky bet, and i very much thought initially this was a terrible idea, but there's two things that give me hope. firstly, they are investing $500 million alongside the government. you know you have a dud when it's not attracting any private investors at all, in this company is at least putting up some of the money and has delivered some satellites. so it's not a complete bulk from the blue, but i share many o

world health organization for an emergency license for the vaccine sputnik v was developed by the galileo institute in moscow advanced stage 3 trials with 55000 volunteers are still underway if russia gets w.h.o. approval it will speed up the availability of the job globally and despite skepticism about the vaccine in the west including claims that corners were cut to russia into production moscow says it has confidence in the drug this comes as russia sees a spike in 1000 infections with over 18000 new cases registered in the past 24 hours and the total number of cases exceeding 1600000 the country remains among the worst hit in the world together with the us india and brazil. covert tightening its grip both in russia and worldwide r.t. has heard from a leading evolutionary biologist who has conducted extensive studies into the virus he explains how it mutates and how outbreaks can be dealt with you can catch the full interview on our website but here's a quick preview. i think it's a blessing that coronaviruses evolve more slowly than other r.n.a. viruses but still it's a very quick pro

developed by the galileo research center here in moscow this might facing some skepticism amid claims that corners were cut to rushed into production it's currently undergoing advanced stage 3 trials involving participants from around the world. the president of the italian russian chamber of commerce is among the volunteers he believes politics should not stand in the way of countries receiving the faxing. it's. been 3 days since i took the vaccine i feel perfectly fine i've been feeling perfectly well since the very 1st day i took it and there's a psychological difference i feel calmer when you read the press and see how big a problem the pandemic is and you see how much harm it has brought to the health of people to businesses only then do you realize how vital sciences and how important it is to look for solutions together in italy we're still using methods from 116 like lock down and there aren't any other options that's fine but i'd like to think that in the last 100 years new methods have emerged vaccines for instance can save many lives and politics shouldn't prevent the sprea

in the 19th century following that wife had the common origin and by natural selection and that galileo's argument with a more conventional view that the earth is the center of the universe. there have always been these forces for reasons of their own with that religious or political dogma have not wanted to listen to scientists. it wasn't just the religious authorities but other biologist equally concerned to have that facts about inheritance wrong. so if we expect to proclaim what the evidence shows it with liquid science is really like then we can see the solution there is plenty of material to disagree with what ultimately turns out to be controversial throughout history. >>elated to that questio question, does the element of irrationality need scientists to buy into the claims of pseudoscience? >> the disagreements that i'm talking about the irrationality is subtle that many scientists recognize what a point to when i juxtapose on the one to say it is important but on the other hand you agree to play by rules that completely ignore it but that's not pointed out as we see that achieve

had a common origin, not created separately by god but molded by natural selection going back to galileo's argument, a more conventional view by the catholic church that the sun, i keep getting this wrong, the earth is the center of the universe, so there has always been powerful forces that for reasons of their own had to do with prevailing religious dogma, not wanted to listen to scientists and it has been possible for them not to listen because science is full of this kind of disagreement and dissent. it wasn't just religious authorities looked down on darwin. it was a biologists equally concerned with empirical evidence, so if you expect science to proclaim what the evidence shows, we look at what science is really like, plenty of material, any kind of motor, what turns out to be the right way of looking at things. >> related to that another audience question, does irrationality lead nonscientists to buy into claims of pseudoscience? >> the disagreement i am talking about is more important. the irrationality i am pointing to is a subtle thing. many scientists would recognize the elemen

common origin and not created separately by god but rather natural selection, going back further, galileo's argument with more conventional view spoused by the catholic church, why do i keep getting this wrong, the earth and center of the universe. there's always been powerful forces reasons of their own, sometimes they have to do with religious dogma or political dogma have not wanted to listen to scientists and it's been possible for them not to listen precisely because science is full of disagreements and it wasn't just the religious authorities who looked down, it was various other biologists equally concerned with empirical evidence which thought he had the facts, for example, about inheritance wrong. the plan is if we expect science to be speaking, to be prolaming what the evidence shows, then -- then -- we look at what science is really like, there's material people would have any motive to -- to disagree with what ultimately turns out to be the right way of looking at things. science has been controversial throughoutodern history >> kind of related to that question, another audience

galileo's argument was a more conventional view by the catholic church. i keep getting this wrong. the earth is the center of the universe, there have always been powerful forces that for reasons of their own,, they have to do with preventing religious arguments and has not wanted to listen to scientists. and it's been possible for them not to listen to science because good science is full of disagreements and dissent. it wasn't just their religious authority to look down on values, it was other biologists with empirical evidence who just had their backs intelligence wrong. so there's plenty of, if you expect science to the seeking religiously, proclaiming what the evidence shows, then we look at what science is really like, there's plenty of material innately disillusioned, there's plenty of material for any kind of motive to disagree with what ultimately turns out to be the right way of looking at things. i think one way to be controversial throughout modern science. >> related to that question, another audience question here. the elements of irrationality mean how scientists div

the haul included first editions by galileo and sir isaac newton.among the many young people who've received support are those at the candle child bereavement service at st christopher's hospice in south london. eleanor lost her mum to cancer when she was just three years old and she still attends group sessions there. being able to share those experiences with other people who are going through the same thing — especially at my age now — it's really nice to know that you're not the only one. especially when, for me at school, like, i'm surrounded by people who have two parents, or have... at least, two pa rents that are still alive — maybe not together, but alive. let's take a look at the travel situation now... first a look at the tube — all lines running as expected. just the ongoing closure of the waterloo & city line. this is the a2 which is down to one lane coming in to central london at the danson interchange for roadworks — it has been causing long delays at deptford bridge — there's a burst water main near the george & dragon. now the weath

galileo's argument with a more conventional view for the catholic church that the sun -- why do i keep thiswrong? that the earth is the center of the universe . there has always been powerful forces that for reasons of their own, they have to do with prevailing religious dogma or political dogma have not wanted to listen to scientists. and it's been possible for them not to listen to science because science is full of this kind of disagreement. it wasn't just that religious authority, it was very various other biologists citing empirical evidence like the facts about inheritance wrong. so if we expect scientists to be simply proclaiming whatthe evidence shows , then when we look at what science is like, there's plenty of material we can see the solution there's plenty of material of any kind of emergence to disagree with what ultimately found out to be the right way. i think one part that's been controversial throughout its history. >> related to that question another audience question here, does the element of irrationality mean nonscientists divide into the claims of pseudoscience? >

a long time ago, scientists that said that the world was round, galileo -- they were horrifically persecuted. i am not in favor of abortion for embryonic stem cells, but if an embryonic stem cell is just simply something that is discharged from healthy females every month -- if i am correct on that logic, why the hell are we still suppressing it in lieu of the current crisis? host: back to the question of stem cell research. guest: it has not been a focus of my reporting, and i don't think i have seen direct criticism yet from any religious groups about that research process or some of the underlying foundation facts that led to these vaccines. but it is something i'm watching as far as if there are religious objections, and if that could lead to a substantial proportion of the country deciding not to get a vaccine for religious purposes. that would be something very interesting to watch going forward. tampa,ives is in florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm in the medical field. just discussing with a few of the physicians last week, in regards to the flu vaccine. the

those results as i said in the next few hours definitely have them live here on al-jazeera and to galileo with the latest from miami florida andy thank you. and speaking of states that may flip will be called anyway just over an hour ago joe biden was the clear and the winner in wisconsin taking the state from donald trump let's go to tasha go name she joins us now from madison in wisconsin so how much of a surprise is this result at pascha. well this was always expected to be a very tight race but for the democrats this is really a story of a come back party in 2016 president trump was the 1st republican presidential candidate to win wisconsin's 10 electoral votes in more than 30 years he won the state by about 23000 votes now it appears he lost the state by about 20000 votes so as the absentee ballots came in overnight in konoha milwaukee and green bay the democratic party chairman here in the state said that there was no clear path for trump to win he says that voters who didn't like being suppressed rose up organizers worked magic despite trump personally leaning in a trunk campaign m

a long time ago, scientists that said that the world was round, galileo -- they were horrifically persecutedi am not in favor of abortion for embryonic stem cells, but if an embryonic stem cell is just simply something that is discharged from healthy females every month -- if i am correct on that logic, why the hell are we still suppressing it in lieu of the current crisis? host: back to the question of stem cell research. guest: it has not been a focus of my reporting, and i don't think i have seen direct criticism yet from any religious groups about that research process or some of the underlying foundation facts that led to these vaccines. but it is something i'm watching as far as if there are religious objections, and if that could lead to a substantial proportion of the country deciding not to get a vaccine for religious purposes. that would be something very interesting to watch going forward. tampa,ives is in florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm in the medical field. just discussing with a few of the physicians last week, in regards to the flu vaccine. the on