Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 1 of 198 (198772)
04-12-2005 5:42 PM


The main thrust of my inquiry is that the greater claims of many initial theories are often demonstrated to be inaccurate over time even though the smaller scale claims are often proven true and quite useful.
For example, in the Middle Ages, skilled craftsmen and alchemists dreamed of turning lead into gold -- and of mixing chemicals with fire to discover the secret elixer that would guarantee ever-lasting life. While most scientifically minded indivuals would now scoff at these ideas today, it was still nonetheless these very same psuedo-scientific impulses which would ultimately open the path for dedicated men such as Francis Bacon to wittled away the myths from the pseudo-science. This is to say, from these very same pseudo-sciences emerged the modern day scientific disciplines of modern chemistry and medicine.
Similarly, with the dawn of the Industrial Age, many researcher's dreams turned from alchemy and the elixer of life to that of perpetual motion. In fact, generations of inventors and machinists gave over their lives and their fortunes in their quest to build the perfect machine -- one that would run by itself, be totally self-contained, and thus live on forever. Again, while most scientifically minded indivuals would now scoff at this idea today, it was still nonetheless this very same psuedo-scientific impulse which would ultimately open the path for dedicated men such as James Clerk Maxwell to wittle away the myth from the pseudo-science. This is to say, from this very same pseudo-science emerged the modern day Laws of Thermodynamics of which we are all familiar with today.
After having reviewed the history of the development of science, and praying strenuously to understand it, it seems to me that Darwin's theory of evolution of life is on par with what Galieo's heliocentric theory of our solar system once was -- that the theory of evolution is still emerging from psuedo-science.
quote:
When Galileo presented his heliocentric theory, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our solar system. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet's motions. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Galileo was initially correct in determining that the sun was indeed the center of the solar system, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that the sun was the center of all the stars and indeed the entire universe -- and it took some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction could be clearly discerned.
In Galileo's theory, the smaller claim is true -- but the larger claim is not.
Similarly (in my opinion):
quote:
When Darwin presented his theory of evolution, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our biological life. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of speciation found within the various eco-systems. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Darwin was initially correct in determining that evolution was indeed the mechanism by which species could diversify, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that evoltuion was the mechanism which explained the speciation of the entire spectrum of life from primitive organisms -- and it will take some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction can be clearly discerned.
In Darwin's theory, the smaller claim is certainly true -- but the larger claim, however, may possibly not be so.
Based on the pattern noted above, do you feel that evolution is science, psuedo-science, or a science that is still slowly emerging from psuedo-science?
Regardless of your answer, I would be interested in knowing why you feel this way. I have many thoughts that I would like to share on this concept.
Released from PNT. --Admin
Edits: to correct spelling.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-12-2005 05:10 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-12-2005 05:13 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Sylas, posted 04-12-2005 6:26 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 04-12-2005 8:54 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 6 by jar, posted 04-12-2005 10:28 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 4:30 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 04-13-2005 3:31 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 04-14-2005 3:25 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 177 by WomanOfPurpose, posted 05-19-2005 3:05 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 2 of 198 (198784)
04-12-2005 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-12-2005 5:42 PM


You make an interesting point.
My main quibble is with terminology. You say...
he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that evoltuion was the mechanism which explained the speciation of the entire spectrum of life from primitive organisms
But "evolution" was not the mechanism proposed by Darwin. Darwin proposed "natural selection" as the mechanism. "Evolution" is a catch all phrase for change in heritable characteristics in populations over time. The "mechanisms" by which change arises and persists and accumulates are numerous, and natural selection remains a central aspect but not the whole story.
Of course, selection requires variation to work upon, and Darwin also proposed a notion of "gemmules", with blending inheritance and scope for inheritance of some acquired characteristics; a notion also associated with Lamark. There is a good discussion by John Wilkins at the Heredity section of a FAQ on Darwin's precursors and influences.
Darwin's views on the source of variation were indeed quite wrong. His identification of "natural selection" as a crucial mechanism remains solid. His thoughts on variation have been replaced by modern genetics.
The other quibble is with the sweeping use of the term "pseudoscience". We don't normally call a research program "pseudoscience" just because it gets things wrong. Galileo was not a "pseudoscientist" for failing to figure out all modern cosmology. He was a scientist, making important progress which others continue to refine.
Identifiying "pseudoscience" is a problem for philosophy of science, and it is not easy. There have been attempts to give formal definitions which can make a sharp distinction between science and pseudoscience; but it is widely felt that this is not really a sharp distinction at all.
But at least we can say this. Pseudoscience is about how you pursue questions and hypotheses; not about whether you are correct; and on this basis Galileo's work on astronomy and Darwin's work in biology were not pseudoscience, even though their original notions have been substantially refined and altered.
On the other hand, some folks have such a startling lack of integrity and blythe mishandlings of available information that they are not doing "science" by any stretch of the imagination. Creationism and "Intelligent Design" as proposed by Dembski and others are a case in point.
But there are arguably other maverick theorists who are critical of conventional evolutionary biology without being so obviously incompetant. The issues are generally on mechanisms; with notions that may involve information from mRNA modulating the DNA sequence (rather than exclusively a one way transcription), or notions of chaotic or disipative structures being crucial, or notions of genetic information crossing lineages, and so on.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 5:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2005 7:16 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 16 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-13-2005 6:40 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 198 (198790)
04-12-2005 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Sylas
04-12-2005 6:26 PM


a quibble from a quibbler
quote:
...Darwin also proposed a notion of "gemmules"....
Actually, I think someone else proposed this theory first, and Darwin was reporting it. Having read both Origin of the Species and Descent of Man, I was left with the distinct impression that Darwin was reluctant to accept this idea but had no better alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Sylas, posted 04-12-2005 6:26 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 04-12-2005 8:28 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 198 (198798)
04-12-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
04-12-2005 7:16 PM


Re: a quibble from a quibbler
Could you have meant his cousin Galton?
Darwin reporting in NATURE
If it was not Galton, you thought of, I would be interested in the info.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-12-2005 07:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2005 7:16 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 198 (198803)
04-12-2005 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-12-2005 5:42 PM


my vote
still coming into its own! Why you ask?
because, no one across the board significantly has followed up on Woodger's "axiomatic method in biology" and c/e is likely on my guess masking the TENSION between Wright and Fisher that Mayr was unable to mediate and Gould simply went beyond. Simon Levin bowed out of a new axiomatics based on Hilbert's project within coincidence geometry as being too philosophical but when I proposed it in 87 in terms of alpha and beta keratin it was not metaphysical enough!! I didnt know how easy it would/did have become to understand the new background of science (quantum mechanics). Oh, well.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-12-2005 08:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 5:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 198 (198811)
04-12-2005 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-12-2005 5:42 PM


I think the minor points will be revised and modified continuously as new information is gathered, but on the bigger question, "Is evolution (ie: the TOE) the mechanism that accounts for all speciation found", I'd say it was an unqualified yes.
There is a possiblity of some other explanation coming to light but I think the likelyhood small and decreasing daily.
Definitely Science.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 5:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 4:37 AM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 198 (198853)
04-13-2005 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-12-2005 5:42 PM


I second Sylas's interesting point comment, but would quibble a bit more.
The researches you discussed were not really pseudo-scientific. Generally we judge science by comparing it to modern scientific methodology. While we would view anyone pursuing a subject today as they did back then "pseudo-science", that was actually the science of the day.
I guess this is to say science was being practiced while scientific methodology was still under construction. Thus there should be a bit of sympathy for what they were doing, and that is besides the fact that they were starting with "black boxes" of phenomenon.
With our knowledge of chemistry it might be ludicrous to think of changing lead to gold by mixing some substances together, but back then they certainly knew you could get different substances by mixing to other substances together, or heating them in some way, so it all made sense... even from a scientific view.
In Chicago the Adler planterium even has a small exhibit dedicated to showing that terracentric theory was pretty darn scientific (even to today's standards) and Galileo's theories had reason to be rejected until later evidence was acquired.
It really is about how you approach evidence and knowledge, and for example not throwing out knowledge (or the ability to gain knowledge) just because it might result in something you don't like. This is an epistemological problem both evos and creos share (though evos seem to like to ignore it amongst themselves).
In this case Darwin and Galileo were using science, though did not have enough data at the time to have the greater certainty we have now about their general theories. That did not make them pseudo-scientific, nor their theories. They were scientists working on cutting edges.
The difference between Galileo and Darwin is that we have more evidence to put his work into perspective and make the claim you found in the quote. We don't have that perspective with Darwin, except to the extent that Sylas detailed.
To suggest that the ToE will fall is a bit pseudo-scientific. That it could is one thing, that it will and people should view the ToE that way is something else.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 5:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 04-13-2005 12:03 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 48 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-16-2005 8:46 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 8 of 198 (198854)
04-13-2005 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
04-12-2005 10:28 PM


"Is evolution (ie: the TOE) the mechanism that accounts for all speciation found", I'd say it was an unqualified yes.
Sometimes I just can't believe you. What if he answers that he can't view it that way, because it could result in missing the truth?
That is a logical possibility as soon as one accepts modern scientific methodology. We have sacrificed the potential of knowing the "truth" (that is the metaphysical reality of nature), for being able to construct accurate models we can work with and not waste time on potentially false theories.
You just got done telling me in another thread that the ability to discern practical knowledge based on criteria is impossible, or can be made practically irrelevant, due to overriding metaphysical moral needs. Is this true for the poster, or not?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 04-12-2005 10:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 04-13-2005 9:09 AM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 198 (198909)
04-13-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
04-13-2005 4:37 AM


Totally OT and not for this thread.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 4:37 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 9:47 AM jar has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5809 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 198 (198919)
04-13-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
04-13-2005 9:09 AM


Actually it's not. The OP is asking about if evolution is science, pseudo-science, etc...
Those definitions are based entirely on philosophical arguments regarding metaphysics and epistemology. As I pointed out in my direct response to the poster, even if today (according to modern scientific methods) we would consider alchemy a "pseudo-science" at the time it really was valid science. Both the rules and the dataset were much different and so the pursuit and how it was conducted was valid science.
If you have read any of Dembski's books he openly discusses loosening the rules of modern scientific methods, such that we return to a much more free science which does not rule out certain metaphysical realities from investigation. He is arguing that the current trade off of strict rules to determine knowledge and "certainty" are too tight because it can lead to something dire which is missing the real truth.
He has a valid point. That is possible and for someone with a moral viewpoint that the ultimate "truth" must be the focus of science, then our current methods can definitely be viewed as too strict.
You can see hints of this within many of their articles and testimony when they say that science is about seeking "truth", and that is why evo cannot be viewed as more certain than ID. With the lessening of criteria (which they argue for) that is pretty much accurate.
That is why I have repeatedly (and so far this has not been objected to) pointed out that what much of this debate centers on is rules of knowledge. It is not simply whether evo has more evidence than creo, but what counts as evidence in the first place.
That is absolutely relatable to what was just being argued in the other thread. You don't have to discuss the subject of the other thread to deal with the same epistemological issue here.
If he feels that he can redefine the rules by which we gauge certainty within science, such that evo and creo are equal with regards evidence, or that darwin is some form of psedu-science, based on a priori moral beliefs which direct epistemological needs, you have got to have a concrete answer.
Your current, consistent one will have to be to retract your statement about certainty regarding the ToE.
You may not like the implications, but this is factual and consistent with the topic of this thread. That I relate it to what you said in another thread, to draw out what your real position is, has been a practice at EvC for quite a long time and I don't remember it getting bashed before.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 04-13-2005 9:09 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 04-13-2005 12:24 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 198 (198954)
04-13-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Silent H
04-13-2005 4:30 AM


right,
and so we dont seem to know yet in the sense that chemistry does wit elements if there are anysuch things as "fundamental forms" that are universally id'd such that if we mix any two reproductively we can NEVER get a third descriptive category. It is in this sense I mean to say that our understanding of biological change continues. I had thought often that this is only a matter of better use of math but seeing how the issue in quantum mechanics as to what can commute and what can not etc it is possible that the forms that can commute during reproduction might be subsets of chemical bonds that can or can not form (supramolecularly) etc. The individualistic nature of Darwinian thought processes makes it rather difficult to address this lower level of organization in the same algorithmic system as occurs during the death of inviduals.
So if really there IS a reduction possible here, it seems that there is some sense to the "pseduo" science claim but if the discontuity that comparative biology CONTINUES to bring practically is only widened then it is less likely that one is dealing with the kind of change from say phlogiston to atoms no matter how the metaphysics plays itself out. Darwinian organacism seems bound to certain notions of this change within lingusitic heirarchies and so can be slowing down the determination of something like if indeed we are actually wittling away the mistakes or simply making the same mistakes in different newer technical ways.
I agree somewhat fully with your last post above this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 4:30 AM Silent H has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 198 (198956)
04-13-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
04-13-2005 9:47 AM


Actually it is, IMHO.
The two issues simply cannot be compared.
I will be happy to discuss the difference in some other thread, but still believe it is OT here.
Trying to stick with this thread:
He has a valid point. That is possible and for someone with a moral viewpoint that the ultimate "truth" must be the focus of science, then our current methods can definitely be viewed as too strict.
I have no problem with that. They are certainly open to holding that opinion. Equally, I can believe that there is no correspondence between the world we observe and that point of view.
Your current, consistent one will have to be to retract your statement about certainty regarding the ToE.
I think you may have left a few words out there. Try again.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 9:47 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 198 (198993)
04-13-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-12-2005 5:42 PM


quote:
For example, in the Middle Ages, skilled craftsmen and alchemists dreamed of turning lead into gold
Actually, you can turn lead into gold. It just happens to be a nuclear reaction instead of a chemical reaction.
quote:
and of mixing chemicals with fire to discover the secret elixer that would guarantee ever-lasting life.
Well, actually, scientists are working on changing the chemistry of the cell (ie DNA sequence) to lengthen a person's life. It may not require fire, but manipulation of the chemistry of life may in fact result in ever-lasting life.
quote:
Again, while most scientifically minded indivuals would now scoff at this idea today, it was still nonetheless this very same psuedo-scientific impulse which would ultimately open the path for dedicated men such as James Clerk Maxwell to wittle away the myth from the pseudo-science.
Why were these pursuits pseudo-scientific? I think this is an important question. As Percy explained so eloquentily, a falsified hypothesis does not a pseudoscience make. Science is a tool, a methodology. Science uses methodological naturalism, a field where natural phenomena must be explained in terms of testable natural mechanisms. For making lead into gold, the pursuit could be completely scientific. In the end, they could conclude, scientifically, that there is no chemical reaction that will make lead into gold. This makes it a failed hypothesis, not a pseudoscience.
A pseudoscience is a methodology that does not rely on testable natural mechanisms. For instance, including supernatural forces to describe a natural phenomena is the hallmark of a pseudoscience. Zeus hurling lightning or God supernaturally pouring water from windows in heaven are two perfect examples of pseudoscience. Less extreme pseudosciences are ghost hunting and ESP research, both of which use untestable mechanisms to explain phenomena. Some ESP research is trying to be scientific, but the use of ad hoc hypotheses weakens it's hold on scientific methodology.
quote:
When Galileo presented his heliocentric theory, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our solar system. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet's motions. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Galileo was initially correct in determining that the sun was indeed the center of the solar system, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that the sun was the center of all the stars and indeed the entire universe -- and it took some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction could be clearly discerned.
So how was Galileo's Theory pseudoscience? Even within the quote it says "He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet's motions." This means that Galileo was doing science, not pseudoscience. His theory was completely testable through nature instead of the pseudoscientific method of revelation through interpreted scripture. The real pseudoscience was using Scripture and spiritual revelation to describe nature, the same pseudoscience being used by creationists today.
quote:
In Galileo's theory, the smaller claim is true -- but the larger claim is not.
But how do we know that the larger claim was wrong? Through scientific testing. If Galileo was practicing pseudoscience it would not be testable.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-13-2005 02:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 5:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 5:52 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 14 of 198 (199035)
04-13-2005 6:13 PM


quote:
You make an interesting point.
  —Sylas
Thank you.
I guess I just wanted to note that, before I discuss this any further, my inquiry is more of a "general point" on the larger scale of the historical development of science.
Although I highly appreciate the clarification of terms regarding the theory of evolution, I'm not really looking to get into the specific mechanisms behind evolution. As far as I'm concerned, at our present level of knowledge, the theory of evolution is more than adequate in explainng our origins.
My inquiry is more about the development of science from the pseudo-scientific impulse that inspired the researchers to look further into the truth -- and the final conclusion that they arrived at after further testing in contrast to what they originally predicted.
I think this is something that is potentially overlooked within scientific circles -- and I think it is very relevant to the whole question of what is considered "science" in the first place.
quote:
The other quibble is with the sweeping use of the term "pseudoscience". We don't normally call a research program "pseudoscience" just because it gets things wrong.
  —Sylas
But that's not what I'm saying.
My point is that it is often very difficult to know for sure within one's own time if one is actually conducting valid research, invalid research, or a combination of both. Or, as previously noted, how does one discern the difference between science, psuedo-science, and science emerging from from psuedo-science?
What I mean by this is that the alchemists and craftsmen of the Middle Ages certainly believed that they were conducting valid scientific research in their quest to produce the things that we would now in our modern day consider psuedo-science. They spent long hours gathering materials, mixing things, testing things, observing things -- and spent large sums of money in their quest.
Actually, holmes echoed many of my thoughts from a different angle when he said the following:
quote:
The researches you discussed were not really pseudo-scientific. Generally we judge science by comparing it to modern scientific methodology. While we would view anyone pursuing a subject today as they did back then "pseudo-science", that was actually the science of the day.
I guess this is to say science was being practiced while scientific methodology was still under construction. Thus there should be a bit of sympathy for what they were doing, and that is besides the fact that they were starting with "black boxes" of phenomenon.
With our knowledge of chemistry it might be ludicrous to think of changing lead to gold by mixing some substances together, but back then they certainly knew you could get different substances by mixing to other substances together, or heating them in some way, so it all made sense... even from a scientific view.
  —holmes
Within this sense, it is usually only in retrospect that one can see the difference between the actual science and the psuedo-scientific impulse that initially caused them to engage in their research.
Again, to recall the former example, the alchemists of the Middle Ages knew that by "mixing stuff together" they could indeed get new substances -- but they didn't know the limits of what they could produce by doing this. Even though they were truly engaging in scientific research, the impulse (or inspiration) for their research was often psuedo-scientific.
quote:
Galileo was not a "pseudoscientist" for failing to figure out all modern cosmology.
  —Silas
But I'm not saying that Galileo was a pseudoscientist for failing to figure out all modern cosmology. I'm suggesting that the inspiration behind Galileo's search for the truth was initially pseudo-scientific.
I'm not suggesting this is neccesarilly a bad thing.
For example, at least in one sense, modern day astronomers may owe an enomrous debt to the astrologers of the past in so far as their meticulous techniques were emulated to observe the "heavens". In addition to this, the mythological stories left behind by the original psuedo-sciences, even though they were later rejected, nonetheless provided ample inspiration for later generations to initially look deeper into the sky in order to find the real truth.
If one retraces the refinements of Galileo's heliocentric observations leading back to Copernican theories, one will also note that healthy dosages of psuedo-scientific impulses were the original inspirations behind their search.
For example, as Sachiko Kusukawa (and the Department of History and Philosophy of Science of the University of Cambridge) note in regards to Copernicus:
quote:
Copernicus too lived in an age when astronomy and astrology were inextricably connected. Astronomy was generally seen as a theoretical underpinning of astrology, problems and events in the one, having serious implications for the other. Both areas, however, seemed to be far from perfect.
At Cracow, Copernicus learnt astrology as well as astronomy. He studied the Alfonsine Tables, read the works of Peurbach and Regiomontanus, who, inspired by ancient astronomy, sought to reform theoretical astronomy, fully aware that improvement in astronomy would lead to improvement in its practice, astrology.
One of his teachers at Cracow, John of Gogw, wrote on the astrological consequences of a planetary conjunction. The University of Bologna, since 1404, required its professor of mathematics and astrology to issue annual prognostications. Thus Domenico Maria issued prognostications, which gave for the following year the date of Easter, phases of the moon, weather forecasts, times of eclipses (if any), various auspicious and ominous dates, and general predictions for the year.
Copernicus thus lived in a time when astronomical events were impregnated with astrological meanings.
He was equally aware of criticisms of astrology, such as the famous attack in Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's Disputations against Divinatory Astrology (Disputationes adversus Astrologiam Divinatricem, 1496).
In book X, chapter 4, of this work Pico pointed out that ancients and moderns disagreed over the ordering of Mercury and Venus, which suggested that the basis for gauging planetary influences was shaky. Copernicus settled the ordering of planets in the De Revolutionibus (book I, chapter 10).
By 1535, Copernicus had an established reputation for his accurate computations, and his almanac prepared for 1536 was circulating as the best one available.
Reforms in astronomy implied improvement in astrology, and some contemporaries looked to the De Revolutionibus with that result in mind.
So in 1541, Reiner Gemma Frisius (1508-55) wrote how the De Revolutionibus was an eagerly awaited work from a skilled mathematician which would hopefully end the astronomical errors and uncertainties that beset the astrologer.
For others, the attraction of the book lay in its tables, which in turn had astrological implications.
  —Sachiko Kusukawa
As Thomas Knierim recalled, in 1514 Copernicus put forward his alternative model, referred to as the heliocentric system -- in which the sun was believed to be at the center of the universe (and that all planets, including earth, revolved around it). One of Copernicus' great insights was his observation that the further apart a planet is from the sun, the longer it takes to complete a revolution. He also had the great insight that the phenomenological movement of the sun was most likely caused by the earth rotating around its north-to-south axis.
Copernicus carefully noted that these supposed complex and convoluted planetary motions still had one main weakness: they did not account for the observed backward motion of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn -- nor did they account for the the fact that Mercury and Venus never moved more than a certain distance from the sun. With these great insights, Copernicus effectively eliminated the necessity of Ptolemy's obscure epicycles -- something in whch Ptolemy actually beleived reflected the real motion of the planets. In other words, Ptolemy really believed that these planets travelled in wild and twisted almost pretzel-like revolutions around the earth.
Having said this, as noted above, even with this great insight there were still some psuedo-scientific astrological inspirations clinging to Copernicus' theory. For one, as noted above, he believed the sun was the center of the entire universe -- the concept of a solar system has not been fully developed yet.
Likewise, as David Plant notes, Copernicus was not particularly interested in observing the sky but he was devoted to Pythagorean mathematics. This is to say, Copernicus believed that the harmony of the universe revealed itself through the perfect geometry of planetary orbits.
As Nick Campion notes, the main contribution of the Pythagoreans to astronomy was made by Philolaus (5th c B.C.), a pupil of Pythagoras, and the ‘Philolaic’ system was to influence European astronomy up to the 17th century. Philolaus said that the earth and all the planets, including the Sun, orbited a central fire, the ‘watch tower of Zeus’, a system which explained how, if all planetary orbits moved in perfect circles in perfect motion, then their orbits were seen to be irregular from the earth. The Pythagorean belief in perfection was in direct contradiction of observable fact as far as planetary orbits were concerned, and the attempt to reconcile fact with theory was to be the main headache of astronomers until the discoveries of Kepler and Newton.
This is to say that, certainly within astrological circles at least, the elliptical orbits of the planets was to be avoided if one were to retain well ordered and asthetically pleasing beauty of the "heavens". In reponse to this, Copernicus concluded that the only way to 'save the phenomena' of perfect circles and uniform speeds was to place the Sun at the centre of the solar system and let the planets revolve around it, just as Aristarchus had suggested long ago. Since Copernicus assumed that the orbits of the planets are circular his scheme still needed epicycles to make it work, but the simulation was certainly much more precise. For the first time, tables of planetary motion could be calculated from heliocentric principles. Furthermore, these tables proved more accurate than those based on the Ptolemaic system.
To briefly sum this up in regards to Copernicus:
1) The pseudo-science of astrology inspired Copernicus to look deeper into the nature of the planets.
2) Even though he was well-trained in astrology, Copernicus nonetheless had a truly scientific insight into the true nature of the solar system when he proposed that the earth rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun.
3) In addition to this, even though pseudo-science inspired Copernicus, he definitely employed solid mathematical principles to explore his ideas in a very scientific manner.
4) While he had a great genuinely scientific insight into the nature of the solar system, the pseudo-scientific trappings of astrology still nonetheless influenced his research and concepts into the nature of the universe.
5) Although not inspired as much by Pythagorean thoughts as Kepler later was, Copernicus still felt that the harmony of the universe revealed itself through the perfect geometry of planetary orbits.
6) While he did indeed conduct genuine science, he was still nonetheless influenced by astrology to the point that he still needed epicycles to make it work according to his view of the universe.
7) And while he certainly grasped a major insight into the nature of the solar system, he was ultimately wrong in thinking that the sun was the center of the entire universe -- a vestige of pseudo-scientific astrological thinking coupled with a genuine lack of scientific knowledge within his time.
In this way, one can see how science was certainly emerging from psuedo-science -- but that, within Copernicus' own time, it was extremely hard to determine what was simply employing or inspired by pseudo-science and what was actually employing or inspired by authentic science. It wasn't until, in retrospect, that, after more scientific discoveries were brought forth and analysed, one was able to clearly discern between the two.
And, as will be explained below in regards to Kepler's, Brahe's, and Galileo's later contributions, this scientific dialectic within astronomy took a considerable amount of time to figure out.
When one comes to Kepler, one sees a Pythagorean inspiration that eclipses the astrological inspiration behind Copernicus' search for scientific truth.
quote:
There were only six planets known in Kepler's time: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Kepler wondered why only six? Why not twenty, or a hundred? Why did they have the spacing between their orbits that Copernicus had deduced? No one has ever asked such questions before. There were known to be five regular "platonic" solids, whose sides were regular polygons, as known to the ancient Greek mathematicians after the time of Pythagoras. Kepler thought the two numbers were connected, that the reason there were only six planets was because there were only five regular solids, and that these solids, inscribed or nested one within another, would specify the distances of the planets from the Sun. In these perfect forms, he believed he had recognized the invisible supporting structures for the spheres of the six planets. He called this revelation The Cosmic Mystery. The connection between the solids of Pythagoras and the disposition of the planets could admit but one explanation: the Hand of God, Geometer.
Carl Sagan -- Cosmos
  —Carl Sagan
Kepler's inspiration, as Carl Sagan notes in his book Cosmos, was quite literally a model of the universe which displayed a cube, within a sphere, with a tetrahedron inscribed in it, another sphere inside it with a dodecahedron inscribed, a sphere with an icosahedron inscribed inside, and finally a sphere with an octahedron inscribed. In his thoughts, each of these celestial spheres had a planet embedded within them, and thus defined the planet's orbit.
To his disappointment, Kepler's attempts to fix the orbits of the planets within a set of polyhedrons never worked out. However, this realization was a direct consequence of his failed attempt to fit the planetary orbits within polyhedra -- which is good. Kepler's willingness to abandon his most cherished theory in the face of precise observational evidence indicates that he had a very modern attitude to scientific research.
Like previous astronomers, Kepler initially believed that celestial objects moved in perfect circles. These models were consistent with observations and with the "Platonic idea" that the sphere was the perfect shape. However, after spending twenty years doing calculations with Tycho Brahe's data, Kepler concluded that this model of planetary motion was inconsistent with the data of Tycho Brahe. Using Tycho's data, Kepler was able to formulate Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion in which planets move in ellipses, not circles -- a remarkable discovery based solely on experimental mathematical models being matched up concisely with their empirical observation.
quote:
He was a scientist, making important progress which others continue to refine.
  —Sylas
Coming to Galileo, the observations of the heavens which he carried out with his telescope certainly led to the discovery of mountains on the moon, the satellites of Jupiter and to Galileo's own increased adherence and refinement of the Copernican system. Within his time, Galileo was sure that the earth revolved around the sun, and he even noticed that the milky way resolved into stars when he gazed at them through the telescope -- yet, at the same time, attached to this knowledge was an echo of the same astrological reasonings that, along with his friend and colleague Johannes Kepler, inspired many of his searches into the nature of the solar system.
As Culture and Cosmos Vol. 7 No. 1 aptly notes:
quote:
Galileo was the last of the long line of distinguished astronomer-astrologers to flourish in the courts of Europe before the two disciplines parted company in the western world in the mid seventeenth-century.
Or, as Nick Kollerstrom details even further:
quote:
Galileo, like Kepler, was a mathematicus, a term which had a threefold meaning as referring to mathematics, astrology and astronomy. In 1881 Favaro composed his essay, Galileo Astrologo, which concluded:
It seems to me impossible to have the slightest doubt that Galileo was involved with astrology, indeed, that he was famous for his great ability in that art, so that distinguished people consulted him with complete confidence, in many cases asking for horoscopes and predictions.
The letters by Galileo to his astrological colleagues have been lost and we only have the replies, as likewise the most famous charts composed by him have been lost, however some twenty-five charts drawn up by him do remain, plus several instances of his chart analyses. The book from which he learnt his astrology while at Pisa may have been Porphyry's Introductio in Ptolemaei opus de effectibus astrorum of which a copy annotated in his hand remains at Florence.
Contrary to the portrayal of the dedicated scientist looking past myths to find the scientific truth, Galileo, quite possibly not intentional at that, appears to have fathered a brand new branch of astronomy mostly out of his desire to pursue his astrological pseudo-science. In addition to this, his trial by the church, contrary to the original intent of suppressing his endorsment of Copernican theories, seems to have forced the heliocentric theory more out into the open than ever before. It is in this way that many feel that the inital building blocks of modern astronomy are highly indebted to astrological pseudo-science -- even though astrology has long been left behind with the emergence of astronomy from within it.
Consequently, it wasn't until much later that the concept of the "solar system" as being distinct from the universe was even theorized.
As the National Academy of Sciences has noted:
quote:
Contemporary planetary scientists strive to answer questions akin to those that have perplexed scientists, philosophers, religious leaders, and lay people since ancient times: What are the planets like? How did the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets come into existence? What are the laws and physical processes that shaped the past evolution of Earth and its sister planets and govern their behavior today? How did life arise on Earth, and, more significantly, is it unique? With the growth in scientific knowledge over the centuries, the questions have certainly changed in emphasis; for example, 400 years ago, few would have used the phrase "solar system" or asked about its evolution. A basic reason for asking these questions is curiosity, but the answers often benefit humanity in both intellectual and applied ways.
Edit: spelling and page layout.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-13-2005 08:42 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 04-13-2005 6:24 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 198 (199036)
04-13-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-13-2005 6:13 PM


I think indeed i understand your "point". Rene Thom related his notions of catastrophe theory in morphogenesis in his mid70s book on structural stability from a prior use of magic but his points about maps and mutations seemed never to impress Francis Crick much despite our lack of understanding of how the brain works. Richard Lewontin rejected topology as overarching all conditions in "The Triple Helix". If catastrophe theory was actually taken up by biology fully it might be possible to differentiate to circuits of biochemical rxns that Thom discusses if indeed there is more magic or none left at the reduction I suggested relating chemistry and form that Faraday glimpsed when he suggested that matter might be "thrown" into the electrotonic state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-13-2005 6:13 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-13-2005 9:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024