MV1 MV1Style/Clarity. Clarification needed. Ambiguous referent. It’s not clear what “his” refers to. Here is a helpful link: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm and here is another: http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/engl/egh/common_sentences.php#pronoun_reference_agreement
MV2Organization. Introduction. Remember, every essay should begin with an introduction that (1) establishes the background and rationale behind the discussion, (2) explains the author’s purpose or position in presenting the discussion (“thesis”), and (3) previews the main points that will be addressed in the body of the discussion. In general, the introduction should orient your reader to the ideas and positions you will be presenting. Here is a helpful link: http://www.crlsresearchguide.org/17_Writing_Introduction.asp and here is another: http://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/pages/beginning-academic-essay
MV3Organization. Paragraph development. Topic sentence. Remember, your paragraph should begin with a topic sentence that orients the reader to the specific topic you will address in the rest of the paragraph. The topic should be tightly focused and clearly connected to your thesis and systematically developed or supported in the rest of the paragraph. In this case, your topic sentence is too general to focus and organize the ideas in this paragraph. As a result, your paragraph wanders without clear direction.
In this case, your first sentence seems to promise a discussion about the “drastic changes” signified by the letter, but I don’t see that topic developed in this paragraph.
Here is a helpful link: http://write-site.athabascau.ca/documentation/writing-effective-paragraphs.pdf . And here is another: http://arts.uottawa.ca/writingcentre/en/hypergrammar/writing-paragraphs
MV4Style/Clarity. Delayed verb. When the main verb comes very late in the sentence, it can be hard for the reader to follow the idea. In such cases, it is often better to restructure the sentence to shorten the subject and move the verb closer to the start. For example, instead of saying “In the following discussion, two unusual cases related to the exploration of old-growth forests in the central parts of North America by a team of experts and conservationists from around the world will be examined…”, you could say something like “The following discussion will examine two unusual cases…”
MV5Style. Word choice. Wordiness. This can be tightened up with a more precise choice of words. Here is a helpful link: http://web.uvic.ca/~gkblank/wordiness.html
MV6Content/Clarity. Questionable phrasing. I’m not sure what this means. Consider clarifying/rephrasing.
MV7Grammar. Preposition error. This is probably not the preposition you want here. Consider “on”. Here is a helpful link: http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/prepositions
MV8Grammar. Relative pronoun error. Non-restrictive clauses should be preceded by a comma and use the relative pronoun “which”. Restrictive clauses use “that” (and omit the comma). Here is a helpful link: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/
MV9Grammar/Style. Questionable phrasing. Here and elsewhere, you need to tighten up your phrasing to avoid grammatical and stylistic problems.
MV10Organization. Paragraph development. Wrap-up sentence. How does this sentence tie up the topic you presented in this paragraph? Remember, the last sentence should draw the topic to a close and transition to the next paragraph; it shouldn’t be used to introduce a new claim. Here is a helpful link: http://www.ehow.com/info_12087268_good-wrap-up-paragraph.html
MV11Organization. Paragraph development. As a rule, brief, one-, two- or three-sentence paragraphs can be a sign of organizational troubles – ideas that don’t have a clear home. When you see these kinds of paragraphs, ask yourself how they contribute to the discussion and whether the topic has been sufficiently developed in the body of the paragraph. That will help you find the best place to put your ideas and ensure that they are properly organized and developed. Here is a helpful link: http://write-site.athabascau.ca/documentation/writing-effective-paragraphs.pdf
MV12Content/Clarity. Questionable phrasing. I’m not sure what this means.
MV13See my earlier comments for further guidance and links to resources on the need to tighten up your phrasing. My advice would be to use shorter sentences, which you have better control over.
This is a repeated issue, so I will stop commenting on it. But it is something that ought to be addressed here and elsewhere.
MV14Content. Argumentation. According to whom? Be sure to cite the sources for all your claims or offer evidence of your own to support your assertions.
MV16Grammar/Style. Questionable conjunction. I’m not sure how this phrase fits (grammatically) with the rest of the sentence.
MV18Organization. Paragraph development. Topic sentence. The absence of a sufficiently focused topic/controlling idea means this paragraph runs far longer than it should and lacks clear direction. Remember, your paragraph should begin with a topic sentence that orients the reader to the issue you will address in the rest of the paragraph. The topic should be clearly connected to your thesis and systematically developed or supported in the rest of the paragraph. When the paragraph begins to run too long or in too many directions, you should try to narrow the scope of the current topic and address the other issues in separate paragraphs. Here is a helpful link: http://write-site.athabascau.ca/documentation/writing-effective-paragraphs.pdf . And here is another: http://arts.uottawa.ca/writingcentre/en/hypergrammar/writing-paragraphs
MV19Grammar. Subject-verb agreement. The subject and the verb have to agree in number – a singular subject requires the singular form of the verb; a plural subject requires the plural form of the verb. In this case, the subject is “Church”, which is singular, so it requires the singular form of the verb (“was”). Here is a helpful link: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/sv_agr.htm and here is another: http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/engl/egh/common_sentences.php#subject_verb_agreement_errors
MV20Grammar/Style. Word form. You probably want to use the gerund (“providing”) here. Here is a helpful link: http://www.englishpage.com/gerunds/part_1.htm
Typos appear to be an issue throughout the paper, so I will stop commenting on them.
MV22Mechanics. Punctuation. Hyphen use. Insert a hyphen when constructing a compound modifier. Here is a helpful link: http://www.grammarly.com/handbook/punctuation/hyphen/3/hyphen-with-compound-modifiers/
MV23Mechanics. Long quotes (defined as 40 words or more in APA and 4 lines of prose in MLA) need to be started on a new line, indented from the margin throughout, and not put in quotation marks. Here is a helpful link to the APA guide: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/02/ and here is a link to the MLA guide: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/03/
MV24Mechanics. Punctuation. Comma error. Do not insert a comma at the end of a quote.
MV25Style/Clarity. Clarification needed. Ambiguous referent. It’s not clear what “he” refers to.
This is a repeated issue, so I will stop commenting on it. But it is something that ought to be addressed here and elsewhere.
Here is a helpful link: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm and here is another: http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/engl/egh/common_sentences.php#pronoun_reference_agreement
MV26Grammar/Style. Pronoun use. When someone or something has already been introduced and is understood by the reader, you should use a pronoun. Here is a helpful link: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm
MV27Content/Clarity. Questionable phrasing. I’m not sure what this means. Consider clarifying/rephrasing.
MV28Style/clarity. Clarification needed. Jargon and technical terms should be unpackaged for the reader.
MV29Grammar/Style. Questionable conjunction. I’m not sure how this phrase fits into the sentence.
MV30See my earlier comments for further guidance and links to resources on subject-verb agreement. In this case, the (singular) subject is “translation”. This is a repeated issue, so I will stop commenting on it. But it is something that ought to be addressed here and elsewhere.
MV31Grammar/Style. Questionable phrasing. Avoid splicing a question onto the end of a declarative sentence. It is better to rephrase the question to make it indirect. For example, instead of saying “Another question I have is how did he do it?”, consider something like “Another question I have is how he did it.”
MV32Mechanics. Punctuation. Comma use. Use commas to separate non-essential material (like examples, asides, digressions, and elaborations) from the main clause. Be sure to put commas on both sides of the clause or phrase unless it comes at the end of the sentence. Here is a helpful link: http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Commas.html. And here is another: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/the-most-comma-mistakes/
MV33See my earlier comments for further guidance and links to resources on the need to restructure sentences to avoid splicing a question on to the end of a declarative sentence. This is a repeated issue, so I will stop commenting on it. But it is something that ought to be addressed here and elsewhere.
MV34Mechanics. Punctuation. Comma use. Insert a comma after introductory or transitional phrases. Here is a helpful link: http://writersrelief.com/blog/2008/06/how-to-use-commas-after-introductory-phrases/
MV35Just a final reminder that there are typos throughout this paper that need to be corrected.
MV36Grammar/Style. Questionable phrasing.
MV37Grammar/Style. Questionable phrasing.
MV38Grammar/Style. Pronoun use. Avoid using the generic “you” (or “your”) in formal writing. Here is a helpful link: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-generic-you.htm
MV39Grammar/Style. “Where is a pronoun of place, which doesn’t seem relevant when referring to “history”.
MV40Mechanics. APA. Formatting. APA does not require the use of ellipses (“…”) at the beginning or end of quotes unless they are necessary to avoid confusion. Here is a helpful link: http://www.unb.ca/fredericton/studentservices/_resources/pdfs/wss/apaquotations.pdf
MV41Grammar. Missing clause. The use of a conjunction like “with” subordinates the clause, requiring you to add another, independent, clause to complete the expression. Here is a helpful link: http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/subordinating_conjunctions.htm
In conclusion, the letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany from Galileo was a tribute to the conflict that he faced with the Church in regard to his discoveries and support of Copernicus’ theories and his plea to have her be open-minded to new ideas regarding the scientific forefront.
Although Galileo never attacked the Church as a whole throughout his career, he instead attempted to converse with the Church that its authority that extended over its followers may be disrupted if his theories were proven correct. In retaliation to Galileo’s inference of loss of said authority, they reacted negatively and, as previously mentioned, attempted to defame Galileo’s name. In the letter that Galileo wrote to the Grand Duchess, Galileo is not forcing his ideas as truth onto her but rather imploring her to consider the possibility that his theories may be correct and attempt to be open-minded about the new information that he has gathered in his work. Galileo numerously states that he is a believer in God and in the Bible but finds fault in the interpretation that the Church puts forward. Though the Church outright denied any claims of Galileo’s theories to be true, Galileo didn’t provide an opportunity to allow the Church to observe Galileo’s theories for themselves as he would not allow them access to the technology of his telescope for fear of losing the support of the Medici Family in Florence but also his own intellectual property. This also brought forth another argument in the Church’s favor at that point in time that argued with the technology behind the telescope could be trusted as no one had access to study and understand the technology itself.
If one MV38 reads deeper into the letter, one can see a there is a comparison between Galileo and the early scholars/saints of the church’s history MV39 they were prosecuted for their, what was then considered radical, beliefs in Jesus which went against Jewish and Roman religions. We can see this comparison within the Bible itself in the new testament under Matthew 26:59 which states, “… MV40 now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that hey might put him to death.” This comparison that is fairly relevant to the Church’s belief system, perhaps Galileo was attempting MV41 to gain favor with religious followers to the extent of even remotely consider his theories as reality.
An extension of this argument goes into how the Bible cannot be interpreted literally. A paper written by Randall Firestone, argues that the Bible cannot be taken literally due misinterpretation of words within the bible because words are essentially symbols that are used by the writer to emit emotions and thoughts, but the reader won’t always experience the same understanding as the writer (Firestone, 2014). Firestone also argues that the translation of the scriptures in the Bible are not exactMV30 and there are numerous versions of the Bible, so which should be taken literally as opposed to the othersMV31 (Firestone, 2014). The oldest version of the Old Testament is in Hebrew and the next is in Greek and so on and each has their own account that differs from the others (Firestone, 2014). Firestone discusses the exception argument regarding that understanding that if all scripture in the Bible were taken literally such the ten commandments, MV32 then what would occur if one was broken in self-defense or in other dire circumstances? MV33 (Firestone, 2014). In essence,MV34 regarding the literal MV35 understanding of the Bible is a tool of the Church’s structural system to push forward where scriptures and passages are used in order to empower a system that has existed for more than 2000 years oldMV36 . By Galileo arguing the distortion of the Bible as a methodology to maintain control at the time has become a common understanding among today’s scholarsMV37 .
WMV18 ithin the letter itself, Galileo argues that the Church, who was against his research and theories, was MV19 focused on defamation of his name rather than to providing MV20 evidence that his theories were incorrect or their possible MV21 relation to the Bible’s already constituted MV22 explanation of the universe. In his letter, Galileo describes how members of the Church blatantly refused to even consider his theories a possibility and stated, “To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposesMV23 ,MV24 ” (Halsall, 1997). In relation to the defamation of Galileo’s name, Galileo MV25 accused the Church of distorting biblical scriptures as well as misinterpreting them in order to promote the Church’s MV26 agenda and belief system to a faultMV27 . Galileo draws a comparison between his current situation and the situation that Copernicus experienced with the same “exegetesMV28 ” that rejected Copernicus’ scientific theories without fully comprehending the facts and suggestions behind the theories similar to GalileoMV29 .
BMV11 efore the scientific discoveries and contributions made by Galileo in the astronomy and other fields, there was a general consensus that what was written in the Bible, such as the existence of heaven through the outwards appearance of spheres MV12 and stars, was what was seen in the night sky.MV13 With the telescope, Galileo looked deeper in the astronomy field and had a closer look at prevalent stars, and the sun as well as the moon. Galileo discovered that the sun and moon were not perfect spheres MV14 as well as the future discovery MV15 of Jupiter moons MV16 which raised the possibility MV17 of a geocentric universe (Edgerton, 2006).
The letter written by Galileo to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany in 1615 signified the drastic changesMV3 made in the scientific community as well as how the divide between religious doctrines and scientific doctrines continued to increaseMV4 . At the time of Galileo’s contributions to scientific fields, Europe was a very religious continent that had deep roots within the Catholic faith to the extent that the belief system of Catholicism provided an explanation as to the creation of the world and, to a certain extentMV5 , the understanding of human life and purpose. Academic philosophers similar to Galileo MV6 challenged this system with one based on MV7 scientific foundations which MV8 were met by a heavy force of false accusations, defamation and, retractions forced by the Church to uphold the religious structure MV9 of Europe at the time.MV10
Galileo Galilei is considered one of the heroes of modern science through his contributions to astronomy, physics and his inventions including the microscope (Machamer, 2017). Galileo’s most notorious claim to fame, though ironic, came from his trials with the Catholic Church and the constant battle between science and religion (Machamer, 2017). The conflict between Galileo and the Church was detailed in a letter that was written by Galileo MV1 to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany where he outlined his frustrations and conflict that had befallen him and this work.MV2