You could ask the submitter to show a quick video recording of the new feature being used. Or if its a bugfix, show the failure scenario and then the fixed non-buggy scenario. If they can't be bothered to show a basic before/after demo of whatever they are working on, then you probably don't want to work with them and accept their code changes anyway.
For heliocentrism the article "The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown and Down-and-Dirty Mud-Wrassle" by Michael F. Flynn from the Jan/Feb 2013 issue of Analog is pretty good. Here's a scan online [1].
The Church's position at the time was that God made the universe, and if empirical evidence from observing that universe clearly showed that it did not work the way the Church thought the Bible said it worked, then the Church must have misinterpreted the Bible.
Galileo's problems came from a combination of several factors, none of which stem from proposing a non-geocentric universe.
1. Galileo's heliocentric theory wasn't actually better at explaining observations than geocentric theories were. Galileo, like the Church believed in an intelligently designed universe created by an all-powerful God. He believed that such a God would choose laws of physics that were beautiful and elegant.
Where his heliocentric approach would require something non-beautiful or inelegant to fit observation he dismissed the observations as optical illusions or observational error.
It's commonly believed that the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus rule out geocentric theories, but that is not quite correct. They rule out the Ptolemaic system which was the leading geocentric theory, but they do not rule out the Tychonic geocentric system.
2. He had a very big ego.
3. He was an asshole. He was very intolerant and rude to his rivals and to those he considered to be his inferiors. And thanks to that big ego "inferiors" included pretty much everyone else.
4. He was a celebrity who was regularly invited to hang out with the rich and powerful.
5. He had an atrocious sense of politics. He either failed to realize or ignored that some of the people he was an asshole towards had the wealth and power to make his life miserable if he didn't stop being an asshole toward them.
Another good introduction is "Worldviews" by Richard DeWitt. It's a introductory book on the philosophy of science but a big part of it discusses this.
Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History - https://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1599474999 is a good overview with lots of references for further research.
Try here for a purely academic overview (no religious Catholic websites or other "biased" commentators for this), that was also very recent. There are plenty of other sources, but this was just what I found first that was academic in scope.
I would also recommend reading about Nicolas Copernicus (geocentrism before Galileo), as well as Georges Lemaître (Catholic Priest who had idea for Big Bang), and Gregor Mendel (before Evolution, experiments with Genetics).
Example:
"In Spain, new cosmological discoveries and ideas were discussed at both the universities and at the Casa and Consejo. For example, Jerónimo Muñoz (ca. 1520–1591), who taught astronomy and mathematics at the universities of Valencia and Salamanca, was one of the many European scientists to observe and write about the supernova of 1572. For Muñoz, the supernova challenged the Aristotelian notion that change was impossible in the celestial realm. In some of his unpublished work and letters to other European astronomers like Tycho Brahe (1546–1601), he espoused an understanding of the relationship between the celestial and terrestrial realms drawn from Stoic philosophers. He denied the existence of celestial orbs and instead asserted that the planets moved through the heavens like birds through the air or fish through the water. He also discussed Nicolaus Copernicus’ (1473–1543) heliocentric system with his students, although he did not endorse it (Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 57). In fact, as Victor Navarro-Brotóns has shown, “the work of Copernicus circulated freely in sixteenth-century Spain, where its technical and empirical aspects were greatly admired and used” (Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 63). In 1561, the statutes of the University of Salamanca specified that in the second year of the astronomy course the professor must teach either “the Almagest of Ptolemy, or its Epitome by Regiomontanus, or Geber, or Copernicus,” and that the students could vote on which text they wanted (Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 55). In 1594, these statutes were amended and the teaching of Copernicus was made mandatory, no longer subject to the vote of the students (Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 59). The 1594, statutes were reproduced with no change in 1625, despite the prohibition of Copernicus’ work by the Roman Inquisition in 1616 (Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 60). In fact, De revolutionibus was “never placed on any Spanish Inquisitorial index” (Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 63), which does not mean Spanish astronomers were free to adopt heliocentrism but does indicate that it was possible to teach and discuss Copernicus in Spanish universities. As Navarro-Brotóns notes, only one Spanish scholar, Diego de Zúñiga (1536–1597), is known to have actually endorsed the Copernican system. Others used the Prutenic tables, which were calculated using Copernicus’ mathematical models, and other parameters drawn from De revolutionibus, in much the same way that Copernicus was taught at the University of Wittenberg (Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 59; Westman 1975). Finally, interest in Copernicus spread outside universities, because the Prutenic tables and other technical aspects of Copernicus’ work had applications in navigation. For example, Juan Cedillo Diaz (ca. 1560–1625), who studied at Salamanca and became chief cosmographer at the Consejo de Indias and professor at the Mathematical Academy in Seville in 1611, made a free Spanish translation of the first three books of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus sometime between 1620 and 1625 (Granada and Crespo 2019; Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 63; Esteban Piñeiro and Gómez Crespo 1991)."
There is always going to be some negative externality to anything humans do. No free lunch in any endeavor. You can find new uses for waste products or reprocess it to something less harmful.
The "water crisis" in California is an entirely political problem.
