I really find it entertaining that all naive science supporters believe this myth about Galileo. The real story is very different, he wasn't prosecuted, he was put in house arrest, not for daring to science, but because he publically mocked his friend the pope. Anyway, it's a really interesting time to take a deep dive in.
As usual, the people posting smug dismissals to HN claiming to find it entertaining that someone might disagree with them, and to themselves know "the real story", are not well versed in the subject. While of course in some sense the real reason for any interpersonal conflict can never be disagreement over a question of facts, Galileo was in fact prosecuted, and the overt justification for his prosecution was, as my unfortunate interlocutor puts it, "daring to science." Quoting the introduction to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair:
> The Galileo affair (Italian: il processo a Galileo Galilei) began around 1610 and culminated with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. Galileo was prosecuted for his support of heliocentrism, the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the centre of the universe. ...
> Galileo's discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth.
> In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy" sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642. At that point, heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas after the trial.
The rest of the article provides an even more thoroughgoing rejection of the confused ideas in the comment to which I am regrettably replying; the atom of truth in it is that, 16 years after first being prosecuted, he included the new Pope's own counterarguments in his book along with a rebuttal, which displeased the Pope, who had previously favored Galileo.
