The common understanding of Galileo's encounter with the Inquisition involves Galileo fighting for scientific truth while the Roman Catholic Church, through the Inquisition, is fighting a doomed rearguard action against scientific knowledge and in defense of outdated religious dogma. At least, that is the popular perception of events - but it is a perception that Wade Rowland wants to change.

In this recent book Galileo's Mistake, Rowland argues that much of the conflict was Galileo's fault. While one can certainly find fault in Galileo's "political" handling of the situation, Rowland goes further:

Mr. Rowland puckishly argues that science is no more reliable than religion in describing the universe. Scientific observations, while commonly thought to be based on empirical reality, he writes, are actually "filtered through layers of subjective impression"; scientific "facts" about nature are not "pre-existing truths" but "human constructs." That is why there are revolutions in science in which one set of assumptions is overthrown and replaced by another.

This critique of science combines two perspective: constructivism, which argues that scientific "truths" are really "social constructs" scientists, and postmodernism, which argues that no system of understanding the world is more objective, reliable, or authoritative than any other. Usually such critiques come from the Left and not from conservative, religious critiques; this would make Rowland's argument interesting on at least that level.

It does not, however, overcome the many flaws that are part of those critiques. Rowland has managed to employ scientific discoveries in writing his book - a curious "social construct," since it worked. I suspect that when Rowland is ill, he seeks a doctor rather than a priest. I wonder why, if science is not more reliable than religion? On a practical level, people making these critiques don't really believe them themselves.

Read More:

• Profiles in Courage: Galileo
• Christianity and Violence: Inquisition