(Note to reader, the first part of this article is of the same title. You can find it in my posts.)
Let’s take for example one of the most contentiously debated and infamous subjects in the world prior to it being proven. That subject is the heliocentric nature of our solar system.
Many will recall that in this situation, Galileo was spouting off about the fact that the sun was at the center of this solar system and not the Earth. Galileo is always cast in the light of the hero of course. The Pope, Church and even the most common, unlearned men of the time were espousing that the Earth was not only the center of the solar system, but the very center of the universe, about which all the rest of the heavens revolved. The Pope is always casts as the villain in this story.
His motivations are said to be that since the Church officially embraced the same Earth centric models as Aristotle, there was no way on God’s Green Earth that they could be wrong. After all, God would have told the Pope if it were otherwise. Historians then say something about the Pope having a bug in his bonnet about being the “Mouthpiece for God” and leaving it at that. Basically, that it was a matter of pride. But in reality, the real reason the Pope got bent out of shape was far more base than that. This really was not about religious pride. Even the Church’s Astronomers had seen the planet’s do some funky things in the sky- and wondered what God was up to. They consulted the good book and low and behold- it says nothing about the Earth or the sun being the center of the universe, the galaxy or the solar system. It says nothing about the sun being the center either. The Church’s position of an Earth centric solar system came from Aristotle- not the Bible or God. God is silent on that matter. It simply was not important to him apparently. After all, he can’t include everything in the Bible, it would not be a bestseller then. It would just be far too long.
So along comes the genius that is Galileo… or should we better say Copernicus? Because Galileo deeply borrowed from Copernicus’s findings to help prove his viewpoint.
But as the story goes, Galileo bravely presents his evidence to the Church, specifically Pope Urban the 8th and the Church at large. The Church was really the only other body of learned men in existence at that time. Galileo’s (mostly Copernicus’s) observations show the planets do some very odd things, like occasionally moving backwards. The Church’s learned men validated these observations, but were unwilling to come out and say Galileo had the right model to fully determine that the solar system was heliocentric. This is because Galileo NEVER defined an experiment to PROVE his conclusion. Aristotle HAD. Until someone could answer Aristotle’s experiment, which proved the solar system Earth centric, nobody was buying what Galileo was saying. This was truly a new and radical ideal at the time and the scientific community held that they had Aristotle’s experiment that showed Earth centric was the best viewpoint and Aristotle had experimental data to prove it.
In other words, there was NO scientific evidence that could be run again and again to PROVE Galileo’s idea about the observed phenomenon. At this point, two percent of you are grinning, because intuition tells you where I am going with this. Forty-eight percent are claiming I am a nut and have already browsed on and the other forty-eight are seething with anger that the perceived literal birth moment of modern science was not scientific. The other two percent saw the title and left at that point.
However, Galileo was never discouraged from arguing his ideas up to this point!
But I think we should review what science is again, lest we get lost.
So I offer the following definition, before we continue.
All science is composed of the following steps, taken in order.
Step One: Observe phenomenon.
Step Two: Render a hypothesis about said phenomenon.
Step Three: Design an experiment to prove the hypothesis.
Step Four: Run the experiment.
Step Five: Examine the data for proof of the hypothesis.
Step Six: Adjust hypothesis to fit observed data.
Step Seven: Repeat steps one through seven until the observed phenomenon, the hypothesis and the experimental data all match repeatedly.
And we should include an eighth step, be willing to consider new data gathered from experimentally provable means, forever leaving open that our observations and data are incomplete.
Aristotle had proposed an experiment involving star parallax to prove that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Because the stars were tremendously far away and nobody came close to guessing how far, Aristotle’s parallax observation appears to favor an Earth centric view. In other words, the scientific community had something they could test with Aristotle’s experiment- and every time it came back that Earth was the center of the solar system. Even just by simple observation, Earth centric view is hugely obvious and heliocentric is counterintuitive. With both Aristotle’s experiment and common sense, everybody accepted Earth centric. Copernicus had very gently hinted that heliocentric might be correct, but he, JUST LIKE EVERY SCIENTIST NOW was afraid of his fellow Scientist’s opinions. Peer pressure was as rife back then as it is now.
So armed with simple observations, Aristotle’s experiment and total “scientific consensus,” every Scientist knew the Earth was at the center of the solar system. They further observed that the stars were fixed and never moved. Therefore they concluded that the Earth was not only the center of the solar system, but the center of the universe. It was rather like a snow globe as seen from the inside to them. The planets, sun and moon whiz about the sky in their courses just like snowflakes in a snow globe. But the stars are painted on the inside of the glass and don’t move. (They did understand that the Earth was spinning, giving the illusion that stars moved.) If the stars were moving independent of the Earth’s spin, we should see a parallax shift, according to Aristotle. This observation and easily done experiment were nails in the coffin that Galileo had no answer for. (As it turned out, parallax shift in stars can be measured now- but their instruments were not sensitive enough at the time to record it.)
Scientist of the time had Aristotle’s experiment to prove their point, plus all the observational data to boot.
And that’s exactly what Galileo did not have!
Let me explain.
First, Galileo observed the fact that planets appear to sometimes run backwards. Second, he rendered a hypothesis as to why this happens. His hypothesis was that the solar system revolves around the sun. But it is his next step that renders Galileo unscientific. Galileo then mathematically solved a puzzle that fit with his model of a heliocentric solar system and would perfectly explain the odd motion of the planets. In essence, he made an appeal to the authority of geometry that the Earth itself was revolving around the sun- and so were the other planets. This then would sometimes make it appear as if the planets occasionally run backwards when observed from Earth- and one hundred percent explainable by his math.
Now it was at this point that Galileo left science and appealed to two other things that are not scientific. Why? Because he had to. He could not somehow rise above the solar system and point down and say, “SEE?!?” He could not experimentally remove the sun from the system, thereby to watch all the planets suddenly careen off in straight lines. That would be the only truly scientific way to experimentally prove a heliocentric solar system. (This is exactly what would happen if the sun were removed magically by the way. Circular motion becomes straight line motion as soon as the strings of gravity are removed.) That would have been a true experiment with known parameters and reproducible results. (Woe to those living in said experimental solar systems!) He realized wholly that science can only tell us about a thing we can perform the seven step process upon called, oddly enough, science. There was no way for Galileo to do that- and no way for us to do it either. Science only brought him to observe that there were unaccounted for phenomenon that could not be explained using an Earth centric model of the solar system. He used geometry (math) to prove his hypothesis that his observations perfectly fit with the math of a heliocentric solar system.
Since Galileo did not use the entire process of science, his idea that the Earth revolves around the sun is not scientifically proven- and it never will be. Indeed many, indeed most things that people tout as scientific and scientifically proven are not truly in and of science. That’s because there is a basic problem in the scientific method that can’t be gotten around.
That of control.
If you want to prove something scientifically, you must control the variables in your experiment. How could Galileo exert control over the very thing that keeps him alive? That being the solar system. How could he magically remove the sun and watch the planets go streaming off in straight lines? He could not. We cannot. We can only look at Galileo’s evidence- planets appear to move backwards sometimes. We can reproduce his observation- yes, sometimes planets appear to move backwards. But at that point the only thing holding together Galileo’s finding was his math. He explained that odd backwards motion with mathematics. But at the time, everybody had the truly authoritative argument of Aristotle, backed by his experiment and backed by nearly all of the observations- save this odd backwards motion seen in the planets sometimes.
So there were really good reasons not to buy into heliocentric solar systems.
So here we have an idea that did not fit with all the observable data, did not fit with the scientific experimental data and had no authority save Galileo behind it! Which would you conclude was correct? Why, Earth centric of course. And you would be very safe in that too- which is what everybody at the time did. Yeah, there are some wonky things observed in the planet’s motions we can’t account for. That will likely be revealed why as our knowledge increases. But for Galileo, your model does not rise to the challenge of the experiments and observations against it.
Now here is the thing!
If you agreed that the solar system was Earth centric, you would have been scientifically correct!
Yet we now know that Galileo was right. He’s seen as a darling Braveheart standing up against ignorance and religious bigotry for truth justice and the American, err the Scientific way.
Science was wrong. Math was right.
Yet by today’s standards, if you want to destroy your opponent and thereby prove your point, all you must do is appeal to the authority called Science by saying the magic words. “I am a Scientist and I find your opinion to be un-scientific.”
That’s it, no looking at the evidence, no discussion, nothing. It’s the modern equivalent of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil- and anything that upsets your applecart is evil. Say your magic words of “unscientific” and POOF! Problem solved.
Well obviously, if you look at it that way, you are doing EXACTLY what the Pope did to Galileo. The Pope set himself up and Aristotle, and every other learned man at the time as authorities- and he made a damn good case of it too. Galileo could not and never did answer Aristotle’s observational problem. Pope Urban the 8th then pronounced Galileo to be wrong. “Cased closed, remove him from my sight. If he continues, we brand him as a heretic and burn him at the stake.”
And just as obviously, neither you nor Galileo can prove the fact that the solar system is heliocentric. Because that conclusion is not based solely on the scientific process. It is based on observation, and then a theory and then mathematics, logic and reason. Yet somehow when Scientist are faced with something they do not personally like, say Intelligent Design theory, they merely say the magic words and dismiss any and all evidence, including a good bit of experimentally repeatable evidence, as “unscientific pseudo-science.”
Now before we leave Galileo, let’s set the record straight, shall we? Pope Urban the 8th and Galileo were actually good friends when Urban became the Pope. Urban was actually interested in Galileo’s new evidence. Evidence that was logical, but not scientific. A Philosopher and a Scientist were the same thing back then. You had to be because science was a tool of Philosophy at the time- not a religion like it is to many now. Therefore, the learned community gave weight to logical arguments such as Galileo’s math. Pope Urban greatly encouraged his friend to layout the arguments in a paper on the subject, so that other learned men could look at it from all sides. He trusted Galileo to do this.
But Galileo apparently had an ego problem. He felt he was right and did not want to lay out the arguments politely. He instead insulted the Pope and every other learned man of the day. In short, he said this.
“Mr. Simpleton, stupid as he is, thinks the solar system is centered around the Earth. Mr. Simpleton gives the following evidence, blah, blah, blah…”
He then goes on to say that “Mr. Cool Guy knows Mr. Simpleton is wrong because Mr. Cool Guy knows math. Blah, blah, blah.”
Now how well did that go over do you think?
Galileo of course proved nothing with that argument, save that he could be a First Class Jackass and belittle and ignore really good evidence that stood against him. One could say that he did it because at this time there was a really big schism in the Church known as Protestantism. Luther, the father of Protestantism, had already said he agreed with the Catholic Church and the subject was closed. So Galileo really had nowhere to turn but to his friend and the other learned men of the Catholic Church. Now there is no direct record of this, but it appears that Galileo was trying to play both ends against the middle. He wanted this to become a wedge between Catholics and Protestants.
And that’s exactly what Galileo’s snide remarks about the Pope and all the other learned men of the time being “Mr. Simpleton’s” did. Suddenly, Galileo became a rock star among the Protestant Church. His supposedly vaunted search for the truth was really an ego tantrum where he was calling the other side idiots. Remind you of anybody?
Let me give you a more recent example of using the scientific model to explain my point that Scientist use experimentally obtained data as well as logic, reason and a host of other disciplines to PROVE TRUTH.
For instance, synthetic cortisone used in many common medicines today, was not too long ago impossible to produce in viable quantities using natural means. It was further considered impossible that it could be made synthetically, until an amazing scientist proved he was able to isolate it from more common substances- and therefore synthetically purify it for medical use. Prior to that, the medical world saw that the need for cortisone was terribly important, because it could cure or alleviate dreadfully crippling diseases. But natural cortisone was difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities to make a difference in people’s lives.
This Scientist had spent no small effort looking for a way to produce synthetic cortisone from more common elements, thereby drastically lowering the cost of cortisone. He proved his method could mass produce synthetic cortisone by setting up a CONTROLLED experiment. He did this by taking a known sample of natural cortisone and a sample of his supposed synthetic cortisone and placing them side by side. Each was in an identical beaker, with identical fluids and identical thermometers. Each of the beakers was then very slowly and identically heated. At the known temperature point that natural cortisone liquefied and moved into solution, so did the synthetic version. Being as this experiment was repeatable, and was repeated by others, the medical world hailed his discovery of synthetic cortisone as a Godsend. People with atrocious maladies could now receive synthetically mass produced cortisone to cure or at least alleviate their diseases. And they would not mistakenly take something ineffective or worse yet a poison, due to the fact that the experiment on synthetic cortisone could be run on each batch to prove it was possible to prove the synthetically obtained medicine was one hundred percent cortisone. In other words, one can assuredly say the discovery of synthetic cortisone was scientifically proven to be chemically identical to natural cortisone. And that experiment is repeated and proved likely on a daily basis, all over the world where cortisone is made in medical factories.
But one cannot say this about Galileo.
Galileo had observed the phenomenon that planets sometimes appear to move backwards. Props to him there- and the Church’s Astronomers agreed with him on that. Second, he came up with the theory that this odd movement could be accounted for if the sun were the center of the solar system and not the Earth. Then at this point, he MUST veer from the scientific method and uses logic and math to prove that the solar system is heliocentric. Therefore, Galileo never scientifically proved that that the solar system is heliocentric. He did however have powerful logic to prove it. And this is the great charade so many in the scientific community now play. They have degrees and doctorates and all manner of papers that call them a Scientist, (read Authority or even Pope if you like,) yet a Scientist would and could only use the seven step scientific experimental process I mentioned earlier. How would that apply to a heliocentric solar system theory? Can the scientist remove himself and somehow grab the sun and take it away to another far-away place and observe the results? No he cannot. Therefore, he MUST use logical reason and mathematics to prove his or her point.
Therefore, nearly ALL Scientist, their discoveries and their proofs are not fully “scientific.” Here is another point that science cannot and never will prove scientifically- The Big Bang. All that background radiation discovered to be everywhere is the only thing science can say is true. It cannot tell us where that background radiation came from- because it happen seventy-bazillion years ago. Science cannot step out of time and space and then rewind the clock seventy-bazillion years to the point just before the Big Bang and then say, “Yup, no background radiation on the meters. Must be because of the Big Bang.” All they can do is prescribe a hypothesis and work backwards using logic. While I certainly believe that that the solar system is heliocentric and that an event known as the Big Bang started our universe a bazillion years ago, I believe them because they are logically proven. They will NEVER be scientifically proven. No one save God can scientifically prove the Big Bang.
Nearly every tool we use today from computers to cars, to you name it, has a component of faith in it, that faith having been logically and experientially obtained. When NASA launches a satellite to orbit Mars and examine it, they have faith that Mars will be where they predict it to be. They have faith in Galileo’s math that the sun is at the center of our solar system. They have faith in Newton’s laws of gravity to tell them how fast they must sling a satellite in order for it to wind up around Mars in a stable orbit. And they do that based upon their faith that the sun and entire solar system will be at a predicted point in space and time. Otherwise, they would be fools to launch a satellite and sort of “hope for the best” or “Well we know it’s gonna kinda be over that way.”
Yet in many cases those same Scientist claim that Intelligent Design Theory or anything else they don’t want to deal with, is pseudo-scientific. That’s a new and most fun word for unscientific. Yet they themselves use the very same tools and practice just as much faith to make predictions about where Mars will be when their satellite gets there.
Do you see the hypocrisy?
Scientist are just like the rest of humanity. We are all driven by bias. Bias is indeed a healthy thing, otherwise you end up believing a flying spaghetti monster created the universe and you are ready to kill anybody with a different opinion- because the Pope of Spaghetti told you to.
This then places many modern Scientist in a position that most greatly dislike. For when one appeals to logic in order to discover or prove something, one is uncomfortably close to those that are called Philosophers. And worse yet, those that are called “religious.”
If you are honest, you will likely admit to what I say. Science went from a means to investigate some of the physical world around you to a complete philosophy in and of itself and now has reached the level of a religion. Science has its Priest, its Cardinals and its Pope. (If you are Catholic, no offense. Just using you as a convenient metaphor that most people understand.)
These “Catholic offices” if you will, correspond with various societal and governmental agencies, like the Chair of such and so university or a Professorships at MIT, as well as heads of a government department concerned with science- and the list goes on. And these authorities are not supposed to be biased, indeed claim that the very idea of bias is an anathema to them. This is because they are “Scientist.” Yet we do feel that the Pope was most certainly biased in the matter of Galileo and the argument over a heliocentric solar system, don’t we? But if you will but admit that a Scientist is every bit as human as the Pope and automatically comes with bias based on all sorts of things, including their formal education, then you begin to see that their points are not scientific. They can’t be, just like Galileo’s heliocentric solar system was not scientific. In fact, the opposing view was scientific! It was only scientifically disproven many centuries later when it finally became possible to see star parallax- exactly what Aristotle said we should see in a heliocentric solar system. So with the tools of the time and with the tools of hundreds of years, nobody could prove Galileo right. The fact that he was right dawned slowly, as more and more observations were made and the math was better and better understood. It was in fact not religion at all that put Galileo on trial for hearsay.
Instead it was two titanic egos that did. And a good friendship was lost because of it- and who knows how much scientific progress. All because Galileo refused to work with the system that was actually friendly to his viewpoint. His gigantic ego just could not wait and work with others to prove his point. He wanted everybody to admit right now that he was right. And when they had logical, reasonable reservations, Galileo made fun of them.
Hmmmmmmmmm, maybe Galileo is the perfect poster boy for modern day Scientist after all…
Third and final part tomorrow...
Nice.. upvoted and re-steemed
Excellent post.
I don't happen to "believe" in the Big Bang Myself.
As far as I know the 'Electric Universe" hypothesis is equally valid.
I don't 'belive in belive'.
Good post none the less.
Hello Everitt,
Second part of the post is up, should you wish to learn where I am going with this.
I am very curious though about your statement of not believing believing...
Could explain what you mean when you say, "I don't 'believe in believe'" Or is that a nod towards my sometimes atrocious spelling? Guilty as charged there! Lol.
Thank you for reading the post and you kind words. I do hope to hear back from you!
And I am going to look up the "Electric Universe." Never heard that myself.
Tech Jeff
"believe" in common parlance is kinda like "I believe in magic". in other words there is no proof, no facts, nothing other that desire.
Do you BELIEVE?....
naw. I have confidence that such and such may or may not work based upon prior experience..but I don't BELIEVE anything.
Ditto faith.
It's a shorthand I use.
The electric Universe is called Pseudoscience by some. I've talked to 'real scientists" about it and they tend to get angry. Gee...wonder why that is? Personally I think it's kinda cool. It has, perhaps, part of some of the answers. Not all. I'm sure it's flat wrong in some particulars.
I don't "believe" in the Big Bang or Black Holes either.
If you hear hoofbeats in the night...what is it likely to be...Zebra's or Mules?
um...I don't know where you live...so that might not make any sense..
Anyway...Occam's razor and all that.
Steem on.