This essay presents a critical analysis of the relationship between Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican (1632), and his father Vincenzo’s Dialogue on Ancient and Modern Music (1581). The analysis is carried out with the awareness that Vincenzo systematically practiced the experimental method in the science of music and thus influenced Galileo, who applied it in the physics of falling bodies. Moreover, there are some conspicuous similarities between the two books—for example, their titles and their nuanced critiques of authority. However, there is no comparison between Galileo’s and Vincenzo’s books with regard to dramatic power, unified coherence, critical reasoning, and methodological self-reflection. Furthermore, whereas the son favors the moderns, the father favors the ancients; and whereas the son advocates an anti-clerical position, the father advocates a pro-clerical position. It follows that, unlike in the case of experimentation, in writing his Dialogue the son did not learn, and could not have learned, much from his father’s Dialogue.

中文翻译：

---

文森佐·伽利莱的音乐学与伽利略的科学：方法论的比较与对比

本文对伽利略关于托勒密和哥白尼两大世界体系的对话（1632 年）与其父亲文森佐的古今音乐对话（1581 年）之间的关系进行了批判性分析。分析是在意识到文森佐系统地实践了音乐科学中的实验方法并因此影响了伽利略的情况下进行的，伽利略将其应用于落体物理学。此外，这两本书之间有一些明显的相似之处——例如，它们的书名和对权威的细微批判。然而，伽利略的书和文森佐的书在戏剧力量、统一连贯性、批判性推理和方法论的自我反思方面没有可比性。再者，儿子偏爱现代人，父亲偏爱古人；儿子主张反神职人员的立场，而父亲则主张亲神职人员的立场。因此，与实验不同的是，儿子在写他的《对话》时并没有从他父亲的《对话》中学到很多，也不可能学到很多东西。