Yep, I was confident that Galileo in 1633 could not possibly have seen Venus during inferior conjunction; I was wrong because of Venus' light-bending atmosphere. He could have seen Venus in inferior conjunction, although I do not know whether (a) it would have fit with his understanding; (b) whether it would have been visible to Galileo reliably enough. So I must modify what I wrote:

LB′: In comparison, my guess is that Galileo saw Venus disappear and deduced that it had passed in front of the Sun.

There, I have no longer made a claim which has yet to be supported with a shred of evidence. Now, what are you going to do with the following claim:

RM: As far as science goes:Galileo observing the Phases of Venus is important because he saw with his own eyes that Venus was passing in front of and behind the Sun, i.e. orbiting it. You can try it yourself, with a ball and a lightbulb.

? Will you present evidence that Galileo observed Venus in inferior conjunction (since he never saw it in transit) and identified it as such?

 
P.S. I never claimed Toulmin's view was the new received view; you wanted me to demonstrate it. There is no double standard at play. You are always welcome to make a big deal out of whether or not Toulmin's view is now well-accepted, such that if you're wrong, your unevidenced views on that and related matters are given less weight in the conversation. Then, it will be worth it for me to do the legwork to see whether Toulmin's view is now well-accepted.

LB: The bigger problem is when you draw conclusions which are flatly contradictory with things I have said.

RM: But you can do this to Galileo.

I'm sorry, you'll have to be more specific. What conclusions have I drawn about what Galileo said, which are flatly contradictory with what Galileo said? You might also point me to where Galileo saw—not inferred, but saw—Venus pass in front of the Sun. If we're talking about accurately reporting on what Galileo did or did not say, did or did not imply, and did or did not see, surely both of us should adhere to the same standard?

So you have a database that lets you find details of a squabble you had a year ago, but cannot recall what you said a few days ago?

You're comparing my having a "database" "text file" with my having a nigh-perfect memory of a massive amount of discussion? Again, this is the first time you've demonstrated a superior recall of what I've said, amidst many misinterpretations (some number of which were apparently intentional). I'll be worried if your memory improves; as it is I'm ok not being a perfect human being.

It is your assertion that "Galileo saw Venus disappear" - you provide the proof. And explain why it would matter, or whether Venus being occulted by the Sun would also matter. And when you claim Galileo predicted the phases of Venus.

Ah, but of course when it is you being expected to do it, then it becomes "Yeah, if I put the effort in. Why should I?" and "why would I go to the extra work?" And, interestingly "You could make me do a lot of work that way." Now, why would you leap to that conclusion? Projecting?

Indeed this was your best example of me refusing to admit an alleged error.

If you had quickly admitted that no, Galileo did not "see" Venus pass in front of the Sun but instead saw it disappear, we could have quickly moved on.

The bigger problem is when you draw conclusions which are flatly contradictory with things I have said.

But you can do this to Galileo. QED.

This is the first time I recall you saying I said something when I
didn't remember doing so, only to find out that I really did say it.

So you have a database that lets you find details of a squabble you had a year ago, but cannot recall what you said a few days ago? I think your treatment of Galileo applies here.

So you won't answer whether Galileo actually saw an inferior conjunction and identified it as much?

What is a family going to do with a single, polished bronze mirror? I was imagining that one would need a lot more than that in order to get the superiority you allege [ancient!] solar would have over the heavy plough. Was I incorrect?

Venus having an atmosphere is the least of your problems. Read the article you cite and you'll see I clarify that merely seeing Venus as a crescent was proof that it was then nearer to us than (in front of) the Sun, having been gibbous and so further away than (behind) the Sun earlier that year.

It is your assertion that Galileo would have been unable to observe Venus at inferior conjunction that year - or presumably any other year between then and his condemnation. So you should prove it, instead of yet again demanding that I do something you say is too much effort for you to do. Are you admitting that you cannot do this?

You also have yet to answer whether an occultation, when Venus passes out of sight behind the disc of the Sun, would also allegedly mean that he had not observed Venus orbiting the Sun.

You know what, I can't be bothered to get you to admit you're wrong. Again. Venus was about 8 degrees elongation at inferior conjunction that year. So visible with the naked eye, so certainly distinguishable with a telescope.

A bronze mirror is far easier to make and maintain than a heavy wheeled mouldboard plough and associated plough horse to look after. Military technology being adapted to peacetime use is old news.

Sorry, I find it hard to believe that there would be enough metal and skill to work it into reflecting panels, enough time, energy, and materials to keep it polished, and enough skill and resources to build orientating mechanisms, all in the first millennium AD, for more than the elite of society.

It's much easier for me to believe in a BC solar death ray than BC solar heating for the masses. The military often gets neat gadgets and can pay a lot to construct and maintain them.

You are right, I made an error (Venus has an atmosphere), an error which may be 100% irrelevant to the matter. Now please answer my question: Did Galileo in fact observe Venus in inferior conjunction and identify it as such? Yes, or no? You claimed "He did see Venus pass in front of the Sun."