There is no side of the scientific method which involves using the coercive power of the state to put someone under house arrest and to muzzle their public statements merely for their ideas.
Not in the "pure" scientific method, but in practice, no such thing exists. There is always politics to consider, and Galileo considered wrong.
One might be inclined to believe that Louis XIV was acting as a benefactor when he invited Cassini to France, but in reality he was using it as yet another wedge against the papacy (along with other things such as the Declaration of the Clergy of France) in order to secure more power for himself in France.
Freedom of expression is all about the political climate you find yourself in, and the successful disruptor is he who takes this into account when planning his campaign.
Wow. I don't know what to make of this. Are you saying people should keep their heads down? That there's nothing wrong with oppression? Galileo's boldness probably accelerated the scientific revolution by decades if not more. The world owes him a giant favor.
I'm saying to be pragmatic, because it will get you a lot farther than would outright defiance. Too many idealists go down in flames because they're simply unwilling to see the broader picture containing people, power, and the relationships that drive them.
There is a time and place for defiance. Get it wrong, and your cause can be set back years, decades, perhaps even centuries.
Galileo's defiance and life under house arrest would have been but a footnote in history had king Louis not extended his invitation to Cassini, and that would not have happened had Louis not considered himself strong enough to defy Rome, and he would not have even cared to defy Rome had Rome not held such a stranglehold on the appointment of priests in Europe. So even though Galileo was foolhardy and naive, it turned out alright due to political circumstances that he never even considered. It was a massive risk to the future of science that Galileo didn't even consider, but had he taken a more temperate approach and bided his time for a better opportunity, none of this would even have been necessary. There are many more cases of idealists who were not so lucky.
This is not about how the world "ought to be", but rather the way things are (and, in fact, always have been).
