106 CHAPTER 4

retlt'cted the views of most astronomers, includ ing those of Aristotle , there were exceptions. A notable excqninn was Aristarchus of Samos (ca. 310-230 B.C.), the brilliant a1tronomer of the

Alex.mdrian schnol. A1istarchm believed that the earth rotated on its own axis and that the e;lrth and the other planetl revolwd around the sun. In oth<· r worch. Arist.trchm arriv"d at tht' basic as­

sumptiom of the Copernican sys tem about I ,700 ye.m bctilrc• Copernicus. I kspite a ti..-w such di"en­ters, the view of the universe rdlected in the Ptnlemaic system prev.1iled until the 17th century. The l'rolemaic svstem was resilient t()l' at least three n.·a\lHJ..,:

• It accorded well with the testimony of the semes (the l'arth does appl';lr to be tlw tlxed n·nter nf the umwrst") .

• It allowed reason;�ble astronomical predictinm

• Later. it was congenial to Christian theology bc•c;1use ir g.1ve humans a ccmral pl.1ce in the universe ami thus was in agre<•ment with the biblical account of creation.

!'or a complete description of Ptolemy's sys­tem. including its mystica l componenh and ethical implic.aiom, see ·raub. I '1'13.

In medieval theology. many of the tc•;u:hin!-." of Ptolemy, like thme of Ari,tntle, became part of ot:. lici.1l dlllrch dogma and were therdi1re unchal­lenge;�ble. The \\'orldvie\\' h,,_,.cJ on the l'tnkmaic

system became dec·ply entrenchc•d in philosophy. theolns'J'. sci�nce. and �veryday hf�.

Nicolaus Copernicus

It \\'as not until a de\'<lllt c;mon of the !loman C:athohr church named Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), horn on Febrnary 1'1, at Tonm. Poland. puhli,hed his book De /{cJ•o/11/iouibus

Orbiu111 C<lclcstilllll (T1tc /{c•J•<'htll<l/1.< o( tin• 1-/<'•11'<'111)' Spl1<·rcs) that the· Ptolemaic sy.,tem was seriolllly challenged. Although report' on Copemicus's h<•­

li<Kl'lllric theory had been circulating since abom 1515. his Dc n,.,.,,futioui/111.' was not published until 15-\J, the ye.11· he died. The book was dedicated to

"the most holy lord, Pope Paul lll" and promised to solve a m;tjor problem with which the church had been stmggling; namely, the creation of a more accurate calendar. The book, then. did not ''I'i"'''" to be unliiendly toward the church. Furthennore,

when De Rcl'lliuli••uibus was published, its contents could be understood only by the most sophisticated mathematicians and astronomers of the clay.

Perhaps because of its apparent compatibility with church dogma and its esoteric nature . the book was

not immediately viewed as a threat by the church (although it was eventually condemned). In any case, in De Rel!(l/uti<lllibus Copernicus did argue suc­ressiitlly that, rather than the sun revolving around the earth (the geocentric theory), the e;mh re­

volved around the sun (the heliocentric theory). This argument, of course, "'"' a clt';�r contradiction of church dogma. Only gradually was it re.11ized that Copernicus's hdiocennic theory questioned the tra­ditional place of humankind in the universe. Once this realization occmTed, a mnnber of rcl.1ted ques­tions fi.lllowed: Were we f.tvored by God and therc­iilre placed in the center of the universl'? If not, why not? If the church was wrong abom this vital t:lCt, was

it wrong about other thinf!;s? Were there other soL1r systems that contained liic? 1 t so, hnw were they re­lated to ours, and which did God t:tvor? Uecause Copernicus's heliocentric the01y challenged a deeply held worldview going back at le.t't to Atistotle, it was

considered revolutionary (Kuhn, 1'157). Common sense dictated the acceptance of the geocentric the­ory, and those rejecting it were considered either mis­intonned nr insane . Within the church, to challenge .. the geocentric theory was to challenge church dogma.' and was therefi.1re heretical.

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was a fanner' Dominican priest who converted to the ancient�­philosophy of Hennetism. Among other things,:::: 1-krmctism professed the divinity of humans, the;;� existence of maf,>iC.JI ti.,rces that can be used to ben�( dit humankind, and a hannony among humanS:':,; stars, and planets. The Hennetic trad

.ition at�,�;

held that in the universe there are innumerable. ill"\}� hahited worlds (that is, solar wstctm) and m each ·1�� these worlds, including our ,;wn, the sun is diviiiJ!i*� For Bruno, "The Copemican sun heralds the filt�

THE BEGINNINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY 107

Nicolaus Copernicus

�unrise of tht' ancient and rrue philosophv afier its

agelon!!; burial in dark caverns'" (Yates , 1 964, p. 23H). Uruno, therdi.>re, accepted Copemicus 's he­liocentric theory not ii.>r scientific re;mms but bt'­cause it reston:d the divine status given to the sun by the ancient>. For Uruno, the magical reli!!;ion of the ancients was the onlv true rel igion that both Judaism and Christianity had obscured and cor­rupted (Yates , 19M, p. II). All of this was too much for the church, and Bruno was hrnught be-

/ fore the Inquisition in Venice on May 2(>, 1592. .. �·:and charged \Vith eight counts of heresy . At tirst

· he recanted hi> belief> and asked for mercy li·01n judge, but later he changed hi> mind, arguing he had m•wr been a heretic. Eight years atrer

ment, Bruno was convicted as a re­ht·retic and on February 17, 1600. was

·r'.('.(;\)Umted at the stake. It should not be concluded, ;;!,�?filic3wtevc·r, that Bruno was a martyr for science. In ··'''''l'·���··'"'""�.es brought against him, Copernicm was .: .. ;::.ir!IOI::•ev.en "''"m""'"'" (M. B. Hall, 1994. p. 1 25).

the rdi.>rnlt'rs wen· a> violent as those attempting to rdimn. For example,

John Calvin ordered the f:nnous Michael Servetus (1511-1553) to be the stakc because he "described the as a ban·cn wildemess (which it was),

thm contradicting the sniptural descript1o11 of it as a land of 'milk and honey"' (Watson and Evam, 1 <J<J I, p. 151 ) . The late of individuals like Bruno and Servetus helps explain the cmtion exhibited by scientists a11d philnsophl·rs eluting these times.

Copemicm was aware that Alistarchus had

proposed a theory very similar to hi.s many centuries before and took some comfi>rt in knowing this. Nonetheless, he realized that the heliocentric the­ory was nothing short nf revolutiormy, and he was

j mtitiahly worried. FnrthemH>re, Copemims knew that despite the theological and philosophical tur­moil caused by his thenry, twthiug iu 11'1"111.< <?f'sricutf/ic •ICWIW)' "'''-' .�•1i11cd by it. That is, rlw astrological pre­dictions made by his theory were no more accm�1te than the ones made under the Ptolemaic system. Also, all known celestial phenomena could be a<·­counted l(.>r by the Prnlemaic sy,tcm; there were IH>

m;�jor mysteries that needed explanation. The '"") '

justification fi.n accepting Copernicu,"s heliocentric then�· was that it cast thc known astmlo!!;ical tou:ts imo a simpler , mnn· lumwlliom mathematical order.

In the Ptolemaic system. it was nen·ssa�' tn

make• a number of complex amnnptions concern­ing the paths of tht:: pla11ets around the e;lrth. Once these assumptiom were made, howe,•er, predictinm conceming the paths of the planets and eclipses of the sun and mnn11 conk! be made with considerable accuracy. What Cop<·rnicns's system did "'''' to n•­

duce the lllllllber of asst1111ptio11s needed to make those same predictions. As wt: ha\'l' set:n. a strnng

resurgence of int<·re�t in l'lat<.>n ic philosophy amse in till' 15th and I 6th centuries, and the Pythagort:an aspect of' Platonism was stre>Sed dt11ing this revival. Working in t:lvor of accepting the Copl'rnican viewpoint was the l'yth;Jgort:an-l'latonic view that the universe operated according to mathematical principles and that thme prinriplt:s are always the simplt·st ami most harmonious possible. It is no ac­

cident that the lir't to accept Copernicus's theorv were mathematicians who, like lmmclf. embraced thl' Pythagorean-Platonic worldv1ew. To those embracing nonmathematical A1istoteli.m philoso­phy, the idea of contradictin!!; observation in ti1vol· of mathematical simplicity was ridiculous.

108 CHAPT E R 4

\Ve have in the Ptolemaic-Copernican debate the tirst sctentitir revolution , to usc Kuhn's (1 ')57, ll)<J(J) tcrm inolop;y . The Ptolemaic system repre­scmed the accepted sciemitic paradip;m of the day. Like any paradigm, it defined problems, spccilied solutiom, and provided those accepting it with a

worldvic•w. The Copernican paradigm fi.,cuscd on dillerent problems , ditlerent methods of solution.

and a dtstinctly dil1erent world,·iew. Became to fi.)l­lnw Copernicus was to reject the prevailing view of the universe, the opposition to his view was wide­spread ami harsh.

Convetts to Cnpemicus's lwliocemtic theory ctmc slowly. Among the tit-.,t was .Johanm•, K epler , a l'rthagorean-l'latonic mathematician.

Johannes Kepler

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was horn on December 27 at Wei!. in the Duchy of Wiirttembcrg, in what is now Germ.my. He tit-.,t studied to become a Lmheran minister hut, unable to acn·pt thc rigidity oi Lutheran doctrine, swttched to the study of mathematics and astron­omy. Kq>ler w.ts ti.1rtunarc lO have a reacher, Michael Maestlin. who t•ncouraged a critical evalu­ation of both Ptolemaic and Copemtcan astronomy in spite of tlw l.tct that Luther had condemned the hehcKentric theory as a tlagrant contradiction of biblical tt'•tching•. For example, Luther said . "The

ti.H1I will turn the whole scil'ncc of astronomy up­sitlt• down. But as Holy W1it declares, it was the Sun and not the e;mh which Joshua commanded to

stand still" (M. 13. I-1:111, ll)l)4, p. 126). Othl'r Protestant leaders joined in tht• rl'jl'ction of Copernicm. Calvin cited the op.:nmg verse of the <JJrd l'saiiii-"Thc earth is established , it shall never b.: nwved,"-and asked, "Who will v.:mure to

place the auth01ity of Cop.:rnicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" (Kuhn, 1')57, p. 192). Thus, there was risk in embracing Copernican theory even tor a Prote,tant, but embrace it is what Kepler did. There appear to b.: two reasons Kepler took the risk. First, he. like Copernicus, was a Platonist seeking the simple mathematical harmony that describes the universe. Second, like Bruno, Kepler was a sun

worshipper and, as such, he was attr.tcted to the greater dignity given the sun in th.: Copt•rnic.m s�·stem. Throughout his lift:, when he gave hi• re.t­sons t(Jr accepting Copernican the01y . the en­hanced position giv.:n the sun by that the01y was always cited , and it was usually cited fim. In keep­ing with his Pythagorean-Platonic philosophy, Kepler behev.:d that fi'IIC reality W•lS the mathemat­ical hannony th•tt existed beyond the world of appearance. The sensory world, the world of ap­pearance, was •m interior retl.:ction of the certain, unchanh<inp; mathematical world.

Anned with a mixture of Platonic philosophy. mysticism, and Copernican theory , Kepler not only mack a living as an astrologer (he believed the heav­enly bodies atlect hunum destiny) but also made sig­n i licant contributions to astronomy. He worked out and proved many of the nuthematic.tl det;til� oi the CoperniCan syste1n, thereby \\'inning its further ac­ceptance. Through mathematical deduction and ob­servation , he t(mnd that the paths of the planets around the stm were elliptical rather than circular (as Copemicus had believed). He observed that the vdocities of the pl anets vary inversely with their dis­tance fi·om the sun, thus anticipating Newton's con­cept of gravitation. Finally , he demonstrated that •til the ditlerent planetary motions could be desctihed by a single mathematical statement. Perhaps K.:pler 's most important contribution to science, however, was his insistence that all mathematical deductions be verified by empirical observation.

Kepler also studied vision directly and t'lnmd that environmental objects project •tn inverted im­age onto tlw retina. This observation contrasted with earlier theories that explained vision as tht• result of the projt•ction of exact copit•s of objects directly into the sense receptors. Kepler also ques­tioned humans' ability to perceive th ings correctly when the image projected onto the retina is upside down, but he lett that problem for others to solve.

Galileo

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), known simply as Galileo, was hom at Pisa, Italy, on Fcbruaty 15 into a t:unily ol' impoverished nobility. He was a

THE BEGINNINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY 109

brilliant mathematician who, at the af!;C of 25. was :1ppninted profc>Sor of mathematics at the Unis·ersity of l'isa. Like Copernicus and Kepler, (;:diko viewed the universe as a perfect machine whose workings could be undemood only 111

m.1thematical terms:

Philosophy is written in that great book

which ever lies bdore our eyes-! mean thL· universe--but \Ve cannot understand it if we do not first leam the language and grasp the symbols in which it is written. This book is w1inen in the mathematical Lmgu�1ge. and the sy1nhnls are t1iangles .

circles, ;md other geonlL'tric ligures, with­out whose help it is impmsible to com­prehend a single word of it; without which one wanders 111 vain through .1 cbrk bl,v­rinth. (Burtt, 1 'l32, p. 75)

Also like Copernicus and Kepler, Galiko saw his t:1sk as explaining the true mathematical reality that existed beyond the world of appearances. Anned with these l'vthagorean-l'laronic beliefs, Galileo set

out tn correct a nuJnber oftnisconceptions ahnut the world and about heavenly bodies. l-Ie chal lenged Aristotle's contention that heavy nl�Jects !:Ill l;1ster tlun lighter ones because of their inherent tendency to do so hy dclll!liJSir<llill,� that both l;dl at the same r:�te. He accepted the Copernican heliocentric the­or\" and wrote a bonk in which he demolished all arguments against it. In J(,OlJ. Galileo used his modl­lied ver,ion of the newly inwnted tdescope to dis­cover the moLmtains of the moon, sunspots, and the t:1ct that the Milky \Vav is made up of many stars not visible to the naked eye. He also discovered four

moons ofJupiter, which meant that there were at le:ISt II bodies in the solar system imte ;lll of 7, as

claimed bv the church. Most people refused to look through Calilco \

telescope became' they believed th:1t to do so was an :Jet of heresy. Galileo shared one such experience with his ti·iend Kepler:

Oh, my dear Kepler, how I wish that we could hav.: one hearty laugh to­gether! Here at Padua is the principal

professor of philosophv. whom I have repeatedlv and urgently requested to look :1t the moon and plane ts through my gb�s. which he perniCJou-;ly rdi.JSL'S to do. Wlw arc you not here' \Vh:�t shouts of laughter we should have at this glo­rious fblly! And to he.lr the proi"c·ssnr ,,f philosophy at l'isa labnring be!t)re the Grand Duke with logir.d arguments, :�s if

with 1nagical incantatiuns. to cl1.1nn the m·w planets out of the skv. (Hurtt , I<J.'\2, p. 77)

()ther� refil\ing to look thrOllf-!,h Cali len\ teil'­scnpe asserted "that if God mc-.tllt man to usc surh a

conuivancL' in ;lcquirin� knowll'dge. He \\·ottld have endowed men with telescopic eyes"' (Kuhn. ]!J57, p. 226). Others who did look through the telescope acknowledged the phenomem D]1SL't-ved

"but cbimed that the new objects were not in the sky at all ; thev were appatitions ClUsc·d by the tele­

scope itself" (Kuhn, I ')57, p. 21r>). With his studies or the dvn:unics or projecnle.s.

c;ahleo demonstrated that the motions of all bodies under all circulll\t,lllrl'S are govcnH:d by a .'iin�lt� set

of mathematical laws. His studies showed that no­tions of "ani1nat:ion" were U!llll'CL'S),lry for l'Xj)lain­ing physical ewms. Th:lt is. bec:tuse behavior ot" nbjens and events can be explained in terms Df external forces. there is no need to po�tnlatc "'natu­rJl places," "p�l\sion"i," "ends." ;'cs"iences, ., or :my other inherent properties.

l:kfc1re Galileo"s time, mu,·h had been written on the subjL-ct of motion, but nD one h.1d anually measured tl1e nmtinns n( t:llhng bodies:

When Calilen was horn, two thousand ye:m of physics had not re'tllted in even rough llll'a)urenlents oC ;1ctual Jllotion"i. It is a strikin!,( tcll"t that the history of each science sho\\'S continuity h;H:k to it"i tlrst usc of nw.to.;urenlent, before which it exhibits no ance.stry bnt met:lphysi,·s. That explains why Galilco 's science w;1o.; )tuutly opposed by nearly every philosopher of his tinll\ ht• havinK 1nade it as ne .lrly (n:e ti·orn met:1physic' as he could. That was

110 CHAPTER 4

Galileo

achteved hy JlH:',l�lln.·ntent'l, made :l'l pre-­nselv as possible- with the lllL\lllS :JV<lliabil' ro G.dileo or that he nian;lgL·d to devi'>l'. (Drake, I 'J'J-l. p. 2-'l:l)

However. in hi'i attitude toward L'Xperinll'Jlta­tion, \Vl' again see Galileo's Pythagon:\lll-PiaLouic beliets. For (;,!Ideo, discowrin� a phvsJCal Ll\\· \\as

like discovering a Platonic fbnu. ( )]1'�ervatlon �ug­�e.sts th:it a lawli.d rL·bnonship may e,;l\t, <illd an experin1e11t is performed to either contlnn or di ... -conflrm thL· possibilitv. Ollce .1 Ll\1 1s ,Jiscovered. hO\\'l'\'l'f, further exrwrinwnt.ltion is IJOI: IH .. 'Cl'SS;ll)'� lll:ithematical deductloll is used to precisely describe all possible- mmifestations of the law. Calilco be­lieved th<lt. lll'sides hein� useti.il in VLTil)·in� the existence of laws. experiments could also tllllctlun a..; den1onsrrations that help convince those skeptical about the e_:�.j.,tence nf certJin Lnv'i. Galileo. then. relied nnH:h n1ore on nJathen�;nical deductlon than he did Oil L'Xpt•Jitlll'llt;Jtion. ()n the que\tion or fl'­

,l}i�lll vt:-rsus nomin�di'>nl. he \\'as clearly on tht· -;ide of realism. Actual laws (limns) c·:si,ted. <Hid those laws :Jcted on the phvsi,·,d w<>rld. Like <I true Platonist. Galileu said th.lt the sen'ies can pro­Vide only a him :1hout the nature of re.Jiitv. The

ultimate e:spl:ination ot re:d1ty must be in terms of the ratiOnal order of things: that is, the ultimate e:spl.mation must be mathematical.

Objective and Subjective Reality. Galileo 1nade a sharp di"itincrion between nbjecti\'e and subjective reality. Objective reality e:sists mdepen­dently of anyone's perception nf it, and irs anribute'\ :1re what bter in history were called primary qual­

tttes l'nmary qualities are absolute, objective, immutable. <md capab!t' of precise mathematical descnption. They mclude tfUanrity, shaJW, size, posi­tion. :md nwtion or rest. Besides the prinury qrl:liities (\\·hich e<JllStitutc· phystc.JI reality). another type of re.1lity is CIT<Ited by the seming or�anism; tillS re.llity n>nsists of what came to be called secondary quali­ties. Secondary qualitie'> (\vhich t"Oil'>titute subjt·ctive reality) are purely psycholo�ical e,;pe1iences and hal'l' no counre11'arts in the physic:d \vorld. E.'>:nnples of secondary qualities include the e:SJ'eri­cnces of color. liound, ten1perature, Sin ell, and t1ste. Accordmg to Galileo. secon(bry qualities art• reLnive. subjective. and fluctuatin�. Ofpnmary qualities (like Plato's l(mm), we Clll hwe true knowled�e; of sec­ombrv qualities. there is only opinion and illuston.

Althou�h seconcbrv qualnies m:1y seem as re:tl as pri1mrv qualities. thev are not. i'Jimarv qualities are rc.d. hut secondary qualities ;trl' tncrely nan1es we use to describe our sul')ectivc (psycholo�icll) e,;pe1iences:

Hence I think that these tastes, odours,

colours, etc., on the side of the ohjc'ct in which they secn1 ro L'Xi"t, are nothmg l'ise than mere names, but hold their residence solely in tl1e sensitive body; so that if the anitnal were rcmovelL evt't")' such quality would he abolished and annihilated. Ncvenhcless, as soon a'> we have i1nposcd n:lllll''i un thenl ... \\'C induce ourselves to believe that they also e,;ist just ;Js truly and re<dly as the [primarv qualities[. (l3urtt, I 'J.12. p. K5)

In studyin� the phvsJCal world. secondary qual­ities :Jre, at best, irrelevant. rr one phvsical object hits another, the color. smell. or taste of tht• objects

THE BEGINNINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY 111

is irrdevant in determining their subsequent paths. For Galileo , it was physical reahry, not subjective reality, that could be and should be studied scientifically.

The Impossibility of a Science of Conscious

Experience. Because so much of our comcious expetiencc consim of secondary L\ttaliries. and be­

c.tme such qualities can never be described and understood mathematically, Galileo believed rhar

consciousness could never be studied by the ob­jt·crive methods of science . Galileo's position markt•d a major philosophical shift concerning man's place in the world. Almost with our excep­

tion, all philosophers and theologians prior to Galilt•o ga\'e humans a prominent position in the world. If there wert' good thin�" and bad thin�" in the world and if there were changing ;md unchanging th inp;s in the world, those things aho exio;;tcd in lunnan�. 1-I lllnan'\ \Vcre vie\ved a�t a

nticrocmm that re flected the vast macrocosm: ''Tt ll the time of Galileo it had always been taken li>r gramed that man and nature were both inte­

p;ral parts oi a larger whole. in which man's place "'"' the more ti.mdarnental" (Burtt, 1 <J32, p. H'J). With Galileo, this \'iew of humans chan:;ed . Tho'e experiences that are most human-our ple.tSures: our disappointmenrs; our pa,sions: om

ambiriom; our visual, aud itoty , and oii:Ktory ex­

pt•tiences---were now considt•red infetior ro tht• rt-;tl world ours ide of human experience.

Ar best, humans can come to know the world of a'tronomy and the world of resting and movinp; terrestrial ol� ects. However, this knowledp;e can

never be attained by sensory experience alone . It

em be attained only by rationally grasping the mathematical laws that exist beyond sensory expe­tience. !'or the tirsr time in history, we ha\'e a \'iew oC lnnnan consciouc; experience ;1s secondary, un­real. and tot;tlly dependent on the senses, which arc lkceitful. What is real, important, ;md dignified was rhe world outside of man: "Man bep;ins to appear fi>r the first time in the history of thought as an irrdevant spectator and insignificant dfect of the great mathematical system which is the subst;mce ofrt>aliry" (Burtt. l<J32, p. <JO).

Thus, Gahleo excluded tiT>m science much of I· what is now includt'd in psycholop;v. and many 1 modl' l'll namral scientists refme to accept psychol­og,"' as a science l(>r the same rc.Nm rhat Gahlco did ,, i � nor accept it. There haw bet'n many etli1rt' to

qu;mnl�: cop;nirivc experience since the time of Galileo, and insolotr as these ef!(ms haw been suc­cessful. Galileo's conclusions ;�hour the measure­ment of secondary qualities were incorrect. Ho\1' suce<:ssli.tl these etforts haw been, however. '"" been ;md is widely dispured.

A.s we haw seen. At�storle "''" Gal ileo's prnnt• target. Using empirical observation ;md marheman­c;�l rt'ilsomng, Ga lileo discredited on� Aristoreha11 "truth" afr�r another, thus attacking rhe vc:r\' core

of church dog�m. At rh� ap;t• of 711, rripplt·d by rheumatism and almmr hhnd. Gali! t·o wa� brought bctixe the Inquisition and made to recant his scien­tific condtPtionli. l-Ie liv�d hi� retuaining year-; tm­

dcr house an·esr and. alrho11gh lm works had been condenmed. he continued ro write in �ecrer. The work Galilt:n considered h is ht'\1, J)i,J!.��"''·' C.>11ccr11i1(� "{;,.., .\.· .. ,,. Sric•w·s (I I>JH). was completed under thest• <:ircutnst�mcc'i :nld wa'i �ntuggled out of Italy. Galileo died on )<lllll;ny <J, 16-12. lt "'·" not

until Octolwr J I, I <J<J1 , rhat thl' Catholic church officially ahsolwd G:tlileo of his "transgre"ions" (Reston. I<J<J-1, p . .::'H3).

With the work of Cnpcrnit'm. Kepl,•r. and

Galilt:o, rhe old marcriali,ric \'iew of [),·nwcrints

was resurrt•cted. The universe appe.trt•d to consist of matter whose motion was determined by tim:es c:xrcrnal to it. God had become: minimally impor­tant in the scheme of thing�. and nnw c•ven the place of man was seriously questioned. Are lnnnam part of the: natural world? If so, they should be explicable in tenm of natmoii scic' tKe . Or i� there son1cthin� special about hun tan'i that set'i then1 apart from the namral world? If so. how are humilm special, and what special laws govem human heha\'­ior? The new science lotvored the view of humilns as natural phenomena . Newton's epic-making accom­

plishments ii.trtherecl the materialistic \'icw of the universe and encouraged the generalization of that vie\v to hurnans. Soon the uni\'l'rsc and eve1ything

112 CHAPTER 4

in It would be vie\ved as tnatetialiqic and nuc:hine­ltke, including humans.

ISAAC NEWTON

Isaac N!!wton (1642-1727) was born on December 25 the ye.tr Galileo d1cd. in the village of \Voobthorpe, England. His f.1ther d1ed bef(Jre Newton's birth and, when his mother remarned. he \V;l'i sent to live \Vjth his tnaternal !2;1"<tnchnother in a nei�hhoring tn\VI1. In school, N�wron was a mediocre student but showed great aptitude t(Jr building mechanical connivances sueh as windmills ;nul water clocks. When her second husband died. Newton's mother removed him ti·om school and hrou�ht hin1 back to Wool"ith(HlJL' hopin� he 1smtld become a t:mner. Recognizing his potential, one of Newton's teachers prev;tiled upon his ntother to prepare Newton tlw entrance into Cambridge Umversitv. Newton entered Trinity College. C.nnbridge, 111 16(>1 under the· ttltelage u( ls;tar Barrow. protl•..,..,nr nfnJathenJatic�. and oh­tJinL·d his dL·gree four years l.tter. Ne\vton 's !;.!;reate"it work, T71<' .\latll<·twllic,tl l'rinnj>ics 4 l\',lfnml PltilosoJ'il)' (I hH7/ 1 '!'!S) was written 111 j H mollths and was imnH·di;�rely hailed :ts a masterpiece. Newton was well aware of the lc1ct that he benelin:d ti·mn the 11·ork of those who preceded hun ;md said. "If I h;ll··e seen further it is hv standing on the shoulders ol giams" (Blackburn. I')')-!, p. �(,0). In Newton's ctse, those giants included Copernicus, Kepler. and Galiko.

In 170.) Newton was elected the president of tht• Rny.tl Societv . and 111 1711S he was knighted by Queen Anne. He was also tWICe a me1nhc•r of p;tr­hament. It is imeresting to note th;tt with ;til his accomplislnnenh, Newton cited his ltfi.,Jong celi­hKy '" his greatest ;�clm·vemt'nt (IJ. N. ll..obinson, I '!'!7, lecture �7). Also. although we ren 1ernlwr Nt:\Vton lllOSt for his scientitlc achieveinents, he wrote much more about theology ;�nd alchemy than about science (1-Iondelich, I 'J'J5, p. (,j X). For Newton, however, the three topics were msepar;�ble.

Like Galileo, Newton conceived of the uni­verse as a complex, lawti.tl machme created by God. Guided by these conceptions, Newton devel­oped ditferential and integ;ral calculus (Leihmz made the s:nne discovery independentlv). devel­oped the universal law of g;ravitation, and did pio­neer work in optics. Newton created a conception of the universe that \Vas to prevail in physics and astronomy t(1r more than two cennnies, until Emstein revised it. His methods of vetillcation, ltke those of Galileo, included observation, mathe­matical deductton, and experimentation. In Newton, who was tkeply relis>ious, we h;we a

complete reversal of- the earlier l;tith-orientcd wav

of knowing God: 13ecause God made the univer.;�, studying it nhjecrively was a way of understanding God. In this he a�reed with most of the ScholastiCS and with Coperntcus and Kepler.

Although Newton believed in God as the cre­ator of the universe, Newton's wnrk greatly diniin­ished God's influence. God created the universe and set it in motion, but that exhausted his involve­nlent. After Ne\vton, it was hut a short step to removing God altogether. Soon dcisn1, the belief that God created the universe hut then ab.mdoned it, became popular. For the deist, the design ol' the universe \Vas God\ work, but revdation, religious dogma, prayer. and all fi.mm of supernawral com­Jnerce with God were considered ti·uitle�s (Blackburn. I 'J'!-1, p. '!7). Similarly, it was cmly a matter ot- time bet(Jre humans . too, would be viewed and analvzed as just another machine that operated in accordance with Newtonian principles.

l'erhaps Newton's most sisrni!lcant contribu­tion was lm u1nversal law of gr.1vitat10n. This law synthesized a IHllnber of previous findint-,rs, such as Kepler's observation that planetary motion is ellip­tical and Galtleo's measurements of the acceleration of Ctlling bodies. Accord111g to the law of gravit:t­tion, ,tf/ objects in the universe attract each other. The a mount of attraction is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the bodies and in­versely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This single l.tw was able to explain the motion of all physical bodies everywhere in the universe. Although the universe was a machine that

THE B E G I NN I NGS OF M OD E R N SCIE N C E AND PHI L OS O P HY 1 1 3

Isaac Newton

God had t:rt>att>d, it operated a ccording to p •inciples that hu mans could discover, and Newton tou n d that th ese p 1i ncip l es c o u l d be expn•ssed precisdy i n math ema tica l terms--rh us his conclusion char "God was a mathematici a n . "

Principles of Newtonian Science

The powelii.•l and high ly infl u ential principles of N ewto n ia n science can be sum marized '" fol lows:

Although God is the crea tor of the world , h e dot•s n o t actively intervene i n the events of t h e world (de ism) . I t is therefor<.' ina pprop1iate to invoke his wi l l as an explanat ion of any par­ticu lar thing or even t in the material world .

• The ma terial world is gove rned by natura l l aws, and then• are no exceptions to rhese laws.

There is n o place fi.n p urpose i n natural law. and therefore Aristotle ' s final causes muse bt• rejectl•d . I n other words, na m ra l events can n ever be exp la in ed by postu la ting properties i n herent in th em . Bodies f:t l l , tclr example, not because of a n i n h erent tendency to t:1 l l , as Aristo tl e had :l'sumed, but becmse of variom !(!l-ees acti ng on them. Tha t is , as a Newto n i a n scientist. one mus t not invoke tdeo logical explanations .

• Occa m ' s ra zor is to be accepted. Expla n a rinns mnst a lways be as s imple as p1m1ble . I n 13nnk I l l o f his l'rillciJ'I<'.' ( 1 6H7 I I 1!95) , N ewton giws th i s advice : "W� are to a dn 1 i t n o n t o re Glll �t·� o f natural things t h a n su ch a s a r e b o t h tru e and su tlicient to explain t he ir appearatll"l'<" (p . J � l l) . This is t h e prin ciple t h a t l e d Copern icus and many of hi< tel low mathematicians to reject the geocentnc system in f:l\"Or of the hehocemric system. Became with God . the: s implest is a l \\".tys the bc:st. so too should i t be with m a tlll'maticians a n d scientists. New ton " s concep ti o n of the u n i ­verst• c o u l d n o t have b e e n s i mp l er. Everything that h a ppens can be exp l a i n ed in terms of ( I i space, consisting ofpoims: (2) t ime. consi1ting of ntonlents; (3) 1 1 1 attcr, l'Xt!'tt ing in spare a n d po"i­sess ing mass; a n d (.f) t(lrce , that which p rovides change i n the motion of m a tter. Newton and his ti l l lowers believed that the ent i re p h ysical un i ­\'ersc cou ld he expla i ned in tl'l1m of tlll'se ftntr construct<. I n t : tct . a n expla nation of any nawra l e v e n t meant restat ing i t mathema tic1 1 l y in tcnm of sp.1 ce, tim e , matwr. and force .

Natural la w s :ne absolute . b u t at a n y gi ven n m e

our understanding is imperfi.•ct. Therelt>re. scientists often n eed to settle ltlf probabi l i t ies ra ther than certa i n ty . Th is is bectU\l' of h uman ignot�mce, not because of any tlcxihi l i ty i n na tural laws.

• Classification is not exp l ana tion . To note th.H chas i n� cats seen1� to he a charactl�ri �tic of dogs docs not exp la in ""' ) ' dogs wnd ro chase em.

To underst:md why anything acts as i t docs. i t is necess:uy to know the physica l atnibu res of the ol�j ect be ing acted on (su ch as i ts mass) a n d the natu re of the ti.lrccs acting on it. Again , no pttrpose of any type can be amibtt t t•d to ei ther the object or to the fc.lrces acting on ir .

The su n·ess ot ' CopenHcus, Kepler, Gali leo. and Newmn w i th cm p i ti ca l observat ion a n d math­ema t ica l deducti o n stim uL1ted schola rs in a l l fil'llh and launcht·d a spirit of rurimity and experimema­tio n that: has persisted unt i l the presem. S im i la rl y . the su ccess t h a t resu l tt•d from viewing th e Unt\'et>c as a mach i n e was to have proti.>u ml impl ica t ions li.> r

1 1 4 C H APT E R 4

psychology . Scit' IKL' had become a proven way of unl ock i ng n.tture 's se<Te ts , and i t w.ts embraced with m temc• c·n rhusiasm. I n m a n y ways. sn ence

w.ts beco n n n g t h e new n:!i!-(ion:

For cennnies rhe C h u rc h had bt:en im ­prt:S\ ing on m a n th" l i m ita tions of h is own wi"lo m . The m ind of God is u n t:t thom-able . God works i n a myste ti ous way his won ders ro pt•rli:lt1 n . Man must bt: conten t with pattial understanding; t h e rest he t ml\t s imply belit:ve. For a Gal i len or a Newton mch a restticti o n of h u m a n curi-os i ty was unaccep table. Tht: scientist was

wil l ing to conct:dc that some th ingo; may he u l t imatdv unintc l l igib!L' <:xcept on the b.t, i s o f t:t i th ; hu t as he 'tuhhorn l y co n ti n -ued tn oh"ierve, tt1c.vm n: and cxpcri n u .•nt ,

he disc! ln•rt:d tha t m ore· a n d m ore of t h e puzzks nf na t ur e were becoming dt•;tr. l-Ie ""'" a ctua l ly expla i n ing in n a tu ra l tenm

phenonwna that h a d hith erto ht:en un i n­

te l l igible. Smal l \HHldt:r. tht:n , that the UC\\" scil:'IH."e beg-an to ge nerate a 1:1 i th that u l t imately sc it:nc<: would d isplace tht:ol-ogy . There• is ! i t t it• evidt:tKe tha t in the >i xteen th ;md sevc·nret:nth centuries such a t:t i th wa.s more than a dim hope. Nevettht:k•ss the seeds had bct:n sow n ; scien tists \\'ere tnt covcTing: ntore and ntore

of the secrets of n atu re ; and more and mort: <:xplanatiom were no\\' being given ' 'w i tho ut lwndit of ders')· . " (Mad.eod, I 'J7'i , p . I O'i)

F R ANC I S B A CON

I · · �

Francis Bacon ( 1 5 6 1 -1 62 6 ) was bom i n t o a chs­t i ngui<hed po l i t ica l f:nn i \y Oil j.muary n ill Londo n . A fter studying three years at Cambtidgc, he nHwed to France, wh ert: h e worked for a n a m ­bassador. He renmwd to England tn practice l aw, and i n I 'iH.J he was d ectt:d to parl i ament . S h ort ly a ftt:r puh hc.ttinn of his most i n tl u c mial work,

.\"t>l'll/1 1 O•;�mmm (:\·, ., , .\lctl! . •d! ! l h20/ l'J'J.J) , he was imp"ach ed by parh. 1 1ll t'nt fo r aaepti ng bribes. He was levied a hc;t ,·y fine (winch he ne\'er paid) a nd servt'd a brief prison sent<:nce ( fo u r days) i n the Tower of Londo n . His forced retirement fi·mn legal a n d legisla t i ve ma tters, at 60 years of age . a l l nw,·d him to concentrate on science and phi losophy, and a nu mber of significant books soon fi>l lowed.

Bacon has trad i tional ly been l isted as tht: main spokesm an fi:>r th e new science in i ts revolt aga inst

past authorities, especial ly Aristo t l e . H is shall-' wit and bti lhant wri ting style have tem pted some to specu late that he wa.s the tnt e au th or of the Shakespearean p l ays . J-le was a contempora ry of G.t l i leo, ii.>l lowed Copemicm by almmt 1 00 yt·ars. a n d was 35 ye;m o ldt:r than Desca rtes (whom we

wi l l consider next) . Bacon was a rad ic .t l empi ricist who bel ieved that na tu re could be t tnderstood only by sntdyi n g i t directlv and objective ly . Accounts of how na tu re shi>llld lw based on scriptu n.- . f.t i th , or a n y phi losoph ical or theological a u tho ti ty would only h a m pt•r one' s e tli:>rts to learn how t h e world a ctua l ly l�m ctions. Bacon amhored the ti> l low i ng satitica l story. which d <"a rly demomtrates his own pos i tivist ic approach and his disdain fi.1r a u t b oritv :

In the year of our Lord 1 -132, then· ; �rose a grievous quan·d amon�; tht' breth ren over the n u mb<'r of teeth in the m on th of a horse. For 1 3 days the disputat ion raged wtthout ceasing. All tht' ancit'nt hooks a n d c h ro n icles were f<'tched out , and a w o n ­derfi.ll a n d ponderous erud i t i on , s u c h '" "''" n ever bcfiJre he;ml of in this region ,

was m a de manifest . At th" beginning of t!w l -Ith day . a youth fu l friar of goodly bearing asked his leamed su pt·riors fi.>r pemli,sion to add a word, and straightway. to the wondem1ent of the disputants, w hose deep wisdom h e sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse ;mel u n ht'ard-ot� a n d to loo k in th<'

opt'n mouth ot" a h orse and find answer to

their q n estionings. At this , th e ir dign i ty bt'ing grievous ly b u tt. they waxed ex­ceed ingly wroth and j oining i n a mighty

THE BEGINN INGS O F M O D ERN S C I E N C E AND PH I L O S O P H Y 1 1 5

uproar, they tlew u pon him a nd smote hh hip <m d thigh , a n d cas t h im o u t tc11thwith . For. said they, su rely Satan bath te mp ted this bold n e-ophyte to decla re u n holy and u n heard-of ways of findrng truth co n trary to all the teachings of the ti1 thers . Ati:t•r many days or grieVOUS sttifc the do\'C or

peace sat on the assembly, and they as one m a n . dec la ring the problem to be an e\'er­bsting mystery became of a g1ievom d earth of histori cal a n d thcologi c;r ] evi­dence- thereof� so ordered the sam e writ down . (Baars, I 'IHh , p. 1 <J)

Baconian Science

A l though Bacon and Galileo were conremporonies, their approaches to scie-n ce were ve-ry tli tTerl'nt. Galileo sou gh t general prin c i ples (laws) that: c o u l d be expressed mathematically and from which de­ductions could be made , a n approach that actual ly requin:d very l ittle <'xperimcntat ion . For G a l i l e o . disco\'l'ring t h e laws th a t govemed t l w physical world was i m pnrtant . O n ce such laws had b een isola ted ;md expressed mathem atical ly. a large n u m ­ber or m•m i tcst;r t ions of thme laws cou l d be de­d u ced (deduction invo l ves pn�d icting a particular event ti·01n a gen e ra l princ ip l e ) ; Bacon . on t h e o t h e r h a n d , demanded science hased on induction. According to Bacon , science should inc lud� no th eories, no hypotheses, no mathematics, a n ti n o tk·ductions hut shou l d involve only th e !iJCts of o b ­servation. He believed tha t a n y o n e d o i n g rese.1 rch

with preconceived notions wou ld tend to see n;l­tu n· in l igh t o f those preconcep ti ons . I n other words, Bacon though t that accepting a theory "'·"

likely to bias one's observat ions, and he o!Tc•rcd Aristotle as a n example of a biased req•arch cr. Bacon said that because Aristo tle had assu mc·d tha t the obj ects in natmc were gnvemed by ti n a ! c;mses, h i s research con tinned the t•xiswnce of fi ­nal causes: " J Baco n J dec lared that wht'n we aS\u m e ' tina! causes' a n d :1 pp ly them to s c i e n c e . we a rc cu-ryJng in to n:nurc \vhat exio;ts only in o u r i n t a gi­na t ion . l nste;rd of understa ndin g tllir��.i, we disp ute

abom wt�rds. wl1 1ch t•,J ch man intervrets rn su i t h i m ­sel l" (Esper, I %-1. p . 2'J0) .

Bacon d rstnrsred ratio na l ism beca use of its empham o n words. and he distrustt•d mathema tics because of i ts emphasis on symbols: He said , "Words arc· hut the ima�es of ma tter . . . . To tir l l in love with them is pike fl l l ingJ i n love with a picture" ( I (>t.l5 ! I X7H, p . 1 20). Bacon trusted only the direct obst•rvation and record ing o f na tu re . With his radical t• mpiricism , Bacon m ade i t clear that the u l tima te ;nl t h o rity in science was to be L'mpirical observation . No a tt th nriry, no theory . n o words. no matlwmatical t(mmr l a tion. no beli e f� a nd no t<r n t:asy could displace emp irica l ohSl'I'\'<H ion as th e basis of t:lctual knowl­edge. Later in h i s t'O r)' , Bacon's approach tn scicnn: would h<! calico<l positivism.

But Bacon <hd not a \'oid classifying t'mpirica l obsen•;niom. He b e l i eved th ;l t a lter many observa­t ions. !,!:<'ner; r l iz ,l t ions could be made. and sim il.lri­ties and d itli.: r"Cnce' among observat io ns note d . Th ese ge nera l i zat iom nlll ld he u s e d tLl describt• c lasses of l'\'ents or cxpt'liences. I n Bacon ian sci­e n c e . o n e proceed'\ ti-o1n ob'\erva tion to ge neraliza­t i on (mdunion) ; in Gal ile.m sc ience , and later in Nt'\\'ton i a n scil·ncc. lHll' proceeds ti-otn a g-eneral law to the pred iction o f spt•cr tic, <' lllpi rical eve nts (deduct ion) . Bacon did not deny the im portance- of the· ra tion a l powers of the mind , but h e h d i e ved

that those powel'< should be m<!cl tn u n d e rsta n d the t:ll·ts of na tu re ra th<!r t h a n the tlgments of the human imagi n a tion. What Bacon ( H>20/ 1 '.J'J-1)

pmpmt'd was a posit ion i nt e rmediate between tra­

dit iona l empiric im1 (si mplv t:ll't ga thering) and r:l­t ional i sm (the crearion of abstract princip l es) :

E m p i ri c ists, l i k e ants , merely mllect thi ngs and me th e m . The Ratio n a l ists. l ikl' sp i­ders . spin webs out of t h L•mselves. The m iddle way is tha t o f rhe bee, which �athcrs i ts m a terial ti·om the flowers of the gardt•n and field , bur then transf(mns ;r nd digests it by a po\\'er of i t s own . An d the true business o f p h i losophy is I I l llCh the sa m e , 1(11' i t do,·s not rdy only or chi etly on tilL' prm·t• rs of the mind, nor docs i t store

the ma terial supplied hv n a tural h istory a n d