Plate Tectonics as Religious Dogma
I'm reading a fantastic book by Bill Bryson titled
A short History of Nearly Everything
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X
One section is about a theory that describes and explains how continents "drift" from place to place. Early in the 20th century there were *major unexplained mysteries* -- such as matching fossils and rocks on different continents, and why the rocks at certain places on the seafloor were always dated as being much newer than rocks elsewhere, and there was some weirdness about how magnetic rocks switched poles... and so forth
Over time, new information was uncovered, theories were proposed and rejected; often because one or more facets of the mysteries were not explained. Eventually a cohesive theory was developed, what we now call the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and it accounts for basically all of the unexplained geological mysteries. It is such a good theory that it is now universally accepted as fact.
So, why is this thread in the Philosophy and Religion TA?
I want to compare and contrast the Theory of Plate Tectonics with the Theory of Evolution.
It seems to me that before either theory was developed, the situations were similar: Unexplained phenomena had been detected and measured. Scientists tried to find ways to explain the mysteries in the light of other natural phenomena. There was disagreement in the ranks (Einstein famously discounted the idea of continental drift), but as more and more evidence came to light, the theory became more and more solid.
In the case of Plate Tectonics, the scientist have been so convinced of its truth, that no other theory competes. Most significantly, the public at large has no issue with it -- it is taught as simple fact in grammar school.
But in the case of Evolution, much of the public does *not* agree with the scientists.
Now the thought experiment: What if the Bible had included a passage like:
The Firmament was divided from the Waters and was fixed in place. The
shapes of the land were pleasing to His eyes and He spake: Let no man say
that the mountains have moved nor that the seas have changed location.
If that had been the case, would the theory still be in dispute? Would millions of people say that regardless of the evidence, continents don't move? Would one passage in an ancient book trump decades of scientific research?
A short History of Nearly Everything
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X
One section is about a theory that describes and explains how continents "drift" from place to place. Early in the 20th century there were *major unexplained mysteries* -- such as matching fossils and rocks on different continents, and why the rocks at certain places on the seafloor were always dated as being much newer than rocks elsewhere, and there was some weirdness about how magnetic rocks switched poles... and so forth
Over time, new information was uncovered, theories were proposed and rejected; often because one or more facets of the mysteries were not explained. Eventually a cohesive theory was developed, what we now call the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and it accounts for basically all of the unexplained geological mysteries. It is such a good theory that it is now universally accepted as fact.
So, why is this thread in the Philosophy and Religion TA?
I want to compare and contrast the Theory of Plate Tectonics with the Theory of Evolution.
It seems to me that before either theory was developed, the situations were similar: Unexplained phenomena had been detected and measured. Scientists tried to find ways to explain the mysteries in the light of other natural phenomena. There was disagreement in the ranks (Einstein famously discounted the idea of continental drift), but as more and more evidence came to light, the theory became more and more solid.
In the case of Plate Tectonics, the scientist have been so convinced of its truth, that no other theory competes. Most significantly, the public at large has no issue with it -- it is taught as simple fact in grammar school.
But in the case of Evolution, much of the public does *not* agree with the scientists.
Now the thought experiment: What if the Bible had included a passage like:
The Firmament was divided from the Waters and was fixed in place. The
shapes of the land were pleasing to His eyes and He spake: Let no man say
that the mountains have moved nor that the seas have changed location.
If that had been the case, would the theory still be in dispute? Would millions of people say that regardless of the evidence, continents don't move? Would one passage in an ancient book trump decades of scientific research?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
As for plate tectonic I believe it have already been coopted by crationism. fx as an answer to the annoying claim that the animals on Noahs ark would have a hard time crossing the various oceans to spread 'all over the earth' after the landing.
Now if we imagined a religion where evolution fit with scripture (as read), and plate tectonic did not, then the arguments would change. but the sins (and prejudices) would probably be exactly the same.
eg:
racism: "American Indians are not really human, How can they be after having evolved on a continent separated from the birthplace of humanity since long before real humans evolved. Obviously what we have here is a case of convergent evolution."
Homosexuals: "Civilized God fearing nations have a lower incidence of Homosexuals than foreingners who accept and make room for such sinful behavior (eg Amerinds and buddists) Surely this shows how God favor the faithful and his chosen people."
Religion: " 'And the devil took Christ up on the mountain to show him all he could have if only renounced God.' Please note that this does not include the other side of the earth due to the curvature of the earth maikng it invisible. Clearly this proves that the devil only showed him the parts of the earth worth having, the rest is just for supplying resources to meet our needs."
etc.
regards JakobA
Now if we imagined a religion where evolution fit with scripture (as read), and plate tectonic did not, then the arguments would change. but the sins (and prejudices) would probably be exactly the same.
eg:
racism: "American Indians are not really human, How can they be after having evolved on a continent separated from the birthplace of humanity since long before real humans evolved. Obviously what we have here is a case of convergent evolution."
Homosexuals: "Civilized God fearing nations have a lower incidence of Homosexuals than foreingners who accept and make room for such sinful behavior (eg Amerinds and buddists) Surely this shows how God favor the faithful and his chosen people."
Religion: " 'And the devil took Christ up on the mountain to show him all he could have if only renounced God.' Please note that this does not include the other side of the earth due to the curvature of the earth maikng it invisible. Clearly this proves that the devil only showed him the parts of the earth worth having, the rest is just for supplying resources to meet our needs."
etc.
regards JakobA
Jakob and Paul, first let me say again that I am a firm 100% believer in Neo-Darwinism, as described by Stephen J. Gould in his book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I reject creationism and intelligent design.
My trouble is very specific.
It is the assertion that chance events alone cause mutations. In statistical terms, this means that the probability of any particular genetic mutation is independent of the probability that a population "needs" this mutation for survival.
I understand that a random distribution of genetic mutations is necessary if the mutations are independent of need. But it is not sufficient. To show that mutation and need are independently distributed requires that the probability distribution of mutation is the same for every value of "need" in the population.
My problem is, who in the world can say a priori what a population "needs" for survival at any given time? This is something that tends to be inferred retroactively. E.g., the giraffe grew his long neck because the good leaves were too high in the trees. I'm saying we can't get this information other than retroactively. As I said in an earlier post, what do dogs need, right now, for future survival. Quick, give me the complete list of favorable mutations.
You can't.
And this is why I say, it is IN PRINCIPLE testable that mutations are independent of the species survival needs. But IN PRACTICE it is *not* testable simply because the survival needs of a species at any given time can't be measured before the mutation, a definitive list of survival needs are inferred after the fact.
Perhaps I don't know the latest methods in zoology. Maybe there is a way to discern precisely what a species needs to improve its chance of survival prior to the mutation. But if there is a method, I'd hazard to suggest that such a measurement is ad hoc. And in any event, the way zoologists TEACH evolution is by explaining the development of species in the post hoc manner I'm talking about. They infer that SINCE the species survived, therefore the genetic mutation solved such and such survival problem, or gave the animals such and such advantage.
To recap my point, this aspect of the theory is testable in principle, but not really in fact. It seems to me Plate Tectonic theory has many testable consequences and doesn't have to resort to this inferior kind of post hoc logic.
My trouble is very specific.
It is the assertion that chance events alone cause mutations. In statistical terms, this means that the probability of any particular genetic mutation is independent of the probability that a population "needs" this mutation for survival.
I understand that a random distribution of genetic mutations is necessary if the mutations are independent of need. But it is not sufficient. To show that mutation and need are independently distributed requires that the probability distribution of mutation is the same for every value of "need" in the population.
My problem is, who in the world can say a priori what a population "needs" for survival at any given time? This is something that tends to be inferred retroactively. E.g., the giraffe grew his long neck because the good leaves were too high in the trees. I'm saying we can't get this information other than retroactively. As I said in an earlier post, what do dogs need, right now, for future survival. Quick, give me the complete list of favorable mutations.
You can't.
And this is why I say, it is IN PRINCIPLE testable that mutations are independent of the species survival needs. But IN PRACTICE it is *not* testable simply because the survival needs of a species at any given time can't be measured before the mutation, a definitive list of survival needs are inferred after the fact.
Perhaps I don't know the latest methods in zoology. Maybe there is a way to discern precisely what a species needs to improve its chance of survival prior to the mutation. But if there is a method, I'd hazard to suggest that such a measurement is ad hoc. And in any event, the way zoologists TEACH evolution is by explaining the development of species in the post hoc manner I'm talking about. They infer that SINCE the species survived, therefore the genetic mutation solved such and such survival problem, or gave the animals such and such advantage.
To recap my point, this aspect of the theory is testable in principle, but not really in fact. It seems to me Plate Tectonic theory has many testable consequences and doesn't have to resort to this inferior kind of post hoc logic.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>To show that mutation and need are independently distributed requires that the probability distribution of mutation is the same for every value of "need" in the population.<
A bit of a fools errand really, because the alternative is not rational, but rather "unbelievable magic occurs" when it is not necessary. This kind of stupidity could be introduced into every single scientific theory, if that was desirable. Clearly, to anyone seeking the truth or the progress of scientific knowledge, that is not desirable.
But we can measure mutation rates, and determine what factors are mutagenic and which are not and to what degree by statistical methods as JakobA notes above. Studies on bacteria in the lab are good for this.
A bit of a fools errand really, because the alternative is not rational, but rather "unbelievable magic occurs" when it is not necessary. This kind of stupidity could be introduced into every single scientific theory, if that was desirable. Clearly, to anyone seeking the truth or the progress of scientific knowledge, that is not desirable.
But we can measure mutation rates, and determine what factors are mutagenic and which are not and to what degree by statistical methods as JakobA notes above. Studies on bacteria in the lab are good for this.
"the survival needs of a species at any given time can't be measured before the mutation, a definitive list of survival needs are inferred after the fact."
Actually it is not even inferred after the fact. All we can do after the fact is to look at the mutations that happened and rate then on a 'need scale' we ourself construct for the purpose. The 'real need' may well be some mutation that never happened and is near infinitely unlikely to ever happen (eg: a change in our 'breathing reflex' so it no longer traps us in the garage where the car is running).
But in focusing on the word 'need' you are misstating the problem. Needs are a product of intelligence and desire, and the theory of evolution go nowhere near that realm. Fitness to live and reproduce is a considerably simpler criteria (though complex enough to be pretty difficult).
That said I thoroughly agree with you that the theory of evolution does not (and cannot) 'prove' that fx ID is wrong. There may well be a hand smarter than ours on the rudder of evolution, making it a directed, rather than a random thing. The test proposed abowe can merely make it more or less likely.
On the other hand we CAN look at existing evolved creatures and question whether they would be like that is there was an intelligently chosen purpose or need involved.
regards JakobA
PS: Whether you 'root for' ID or evolution is rather irrelevant, the discussion arguments are the same ;-))
Actually it is not even inferred after the fact. All we can do after the fact is to look at the mutations that happened and rate then on a 'need scale' we ourself construct for the purpose. The 'real need' may well be some mutation that never happened and is near infinitely unlikely to ever happen (eg: a change in our 'breathing reflex' so it no longer traps us in the garage where the car is running).
But in focusing on the word 'need' you are misstating the problem. Needs are a product of intelligence and desire, and the theory of evolution go nowhere near that realm. Fitness to live and reproduce is a considerably simpler criteria (though complex enough to be pretty difficult).
That said I thoroughly agree with you that the theory of evolution does not (and cannot) 'prove' that fx ID is wrong. There may well be a hand smarter than ours on the rudder of evolution, making it a directed, rather than a random thing. The test proposed abowe can merely make it more or less likely.
On the other hand we CAN look at existing evolved creatures and question whether they would be like that is there was an intelligently chosen purpose or need involved.
regards JakobA
PS: Whether you 'root for' ID or evolution is rather irrelevant, the discussion arguments are the same ;-))
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Sorry this part got cut:
From a plate tectonics argument, I can guarantee that we would be having a creationism vs evolutions style fight if this statement was in the bible:
The Firmament was divided from the Waters and was fixed in place. The
shapes of the land were pleasing to His eyes and He spake: Let no man say
that the mountains have moved nor that the seas have changed location.
Look at Galileo. 250 years later and the church just got around to pardoning him, and all he did was build an instrument strong enough to visually witness that the earth did not move around the sun. Going by past experience, not only would the church have denied that plate-tectonics are real, but also attempting to ostracize, humiliate, or kill anyone that manage to prove the theory empirically.
From a plate tectonics argument, I can guarantee that we would be having a creationism vs evolutions style fight if this statement was in the bible:
The Firmament was divided from the Waters and was fixed in place. The
shapes of the land were pleasing to His eyes and He spake: Let no man say
that the mountains have moved nor that the seas have changed location.
Look at Galileo. 250 years later and the church just got around to pardoning him, and all he did was build an instrument strong enough to visually witness that the earth did not move around the sun. Going by past experience, not only would the church have denied that plate-tectonics are real, but also attempting to ostracize, humiliate, or kill anyone that manage to prove the theory empirically.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
jtm111,
Those are some very good posts. Thanks.
However, like some above, I'll have to disagree with one part of the argument: It should be quite easy to design a testable scenario. To wit:
You get a lot of boxes full of fruit flies and provide just one plentiful source of nutrition in the box. The fruit flies can barely survive, but not thrive on that food. Now you irradiate the boxes (keeping some as a control, of course) to force some random genetic mutations. Given enough time, the theory of evolution predicts that a few of the boxes will end up with fruit flies that are able to digest that single source of nitrition better than other boxes.
The shorter-lived the species, the sooner you would see a result. PaulHews suggested bacteria and, indeed, that would probably produce recognizable results sooner than fruit flies.
>> what do dogs need, right now, for future survival.
Even though you can't know the survival needs of a specific species on a world-wide basis, you can design a study in which survival needs are known and controlled.
Azyre,
>>not only would the church have denied that plate-tectonics are real, but also attempting to ostracize, humiliate, or kill anyone that manage to prove the theory empirically.
I think you are right. And that is rather the very point I'm trying to make with my thought experiment.
Those are some very good posts. Thanks.
However, like some above, I'll have to disagree with one part of the argument: It should be quite easy to design a testable scenario. To wit:
You get a lot of boxes full of fruit flies and provide just one plentiful source of nutrition in the box. The fruit flies can barely survive, but not thrive on that food. Now you irradiate the boxes (keeping some as a control, of course) to force some random genetic mutations. Given enough time, the theory of evolution predicts that a few of the boxes will end up with fruit flies that are able to digest that single source of nitrition better than other boxes.
The shorter-lived the species, the sooner you would see a result. PaulHews suggested bacteria and, indeed, that would probably produce recognizable results sooner than fruit flies.
>> what do dogs need, right now, for future survival.
Even though you can't know the survival needs of a specific species on a world-wide basis, you can design a study in which survival needs are known and controlled.
Azyre,
>>not only would the church have denied that plate-tectonics are real, but also attempting to ostracize, humiliate, or kill anyone that manage to prove the theory empirically.
I think you are right. And that is rather the very point I'm trying to make with my thought experiment.
>> >>not only would the church have denied that plate-tectonics are real, but also attempting to ostracize, humiliate, or kill anyone that manage to prove the theory empirically.
> I think you are right. And that is rather the very point I'm trying to make with my thought experiment.
I'd modify it some.
While history demonstrates cases where that was true overall, it _seems_ to be less true as more time has passed. It tends to fall apart around the use of "the church" as a generalization.
Even at times when things were at their worst, there were always individuals in "the church" hierarchy who would be bold enough to voice some dissension.
As with most similar things, it is a matter of degree. The degree varies with both which 'church' and which member of which church.
Tom
> I think you are right. And that is rather the very point I'm trying to make with my thought experiment.
I'd modify it some.
While history demonstrates cases where that was true overall, it _seems_ to be less true as more time has passed. It tends to fall apart around the use of "the church" as a generalization.
Even at times when things were at their worst, there were always individuals in "the church" hierarchy who would be bold enough to voice some dissension.
As with most similar things, it is a matter of degree. The degree varies with both which 'church' and which member of which church.
Tom
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Oops something went wrong there, I seem to be repeating myself. Ha Ha. Damb spellcheckers. :-)
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>A change in climate would cause any 'fringe' variations to die out and any better suited variations to prosper, but it wouldn't necessarily cause an alteration in the young or unborn animals.
You contradict yourself in that statement, the mutation in this sense has succeeded as the "fringe" variations have died out. The alteration would be the creatures with the thicker skin are the survivors, thus a breed of giraffes with thicker skin would be the end result. As children inherit their genes from their parents, it's already proven that this would naturally lead to thicker skinned Giraffe's being the constant, and in this case WOULD BE the alteration.
>We only trace ancestry and ability to survive of creatures that are still here and still surviving, it's our ability (or obsession) to see patterns that lets us find a connection with longer necks and taller trees.
This isn't true at all. Every archeologist on the planet would argue this one with you. Not trying to be to be negative, but it truly is an incorrect statement. If anything it's our desire to persevere and figure out what went wrong with the creatures that didn't survive so it doesn't happen to us. We have the ability to analyze and learn from other creatures, if a Giraffe has a long neck to reach the leaves on the top of the tree, and short neck giraffes are dying maybe it's because the leaves at the top have more nutrients. IMO that's why we analyze creatures, but to do so we have to have the comparison with unsuccessful species, otherwise it would be just conjecture.
You contradict yourself in that statement, the mutation in this sense has succeeded as the "fringe" variations have died out. The alteration would be the creatures with the thicker skin are the survivors, thus a breed of giraffes with thicker skin would be the end result. As children inherit their genes from their parents, it's already proven that this would naturally lead to thicker skinned Giraffe's being the constant, and in this case WOULD BE the alteration.
>We only trace ancestry and ability to survive of creatures that are still here and still surviving, it's our ability (or obsession) to see patterns that lets us find a connection with longer necks and taller trees.
This isn't true at all. Every archeologist on the planet would argue this one with you. Not trying to be to be negative, but it truly is an incorrect statement. If anything it's our desire to persevere and figure out what went wrong with the creatures that didn't survive so it doesn't happen to us. We have the ability to analyze and learn from other creatures, if a Giraffe has a long neck to reach the leaves on the top of the tree, and short neck giraffes are dying maybe it's because the leaves at the top have more nutrients. IMO that's why we analyze creatures, but to do so we have to have the comparison with unsuccessful species, otherwise it would be just conjecture.
>"As for plate tectonic I believe it have already been coopted by crationism. fx as an answer to the >annoying claim that the animals on Noahs ark would have a hard time crossing the various oceans to >spread 'all over the earth' after the landing.
>Now if we imagined a religion where evolution fit with scripture (as read), and plate tectonic did not, >then the arguments would change. but the sins (and prejudices) would probably be exactly the same.
>eg:
>racism: "American Indians are not really human, How can they be after having evolved on a continent >separated from the birthplace of humanity since long before real humans evolved. Obviously what we >have here is a case of convergent evolution."
>Homosexuals: "Civilized God fearing nations have a lower incidence of Homosexuals than foreingners >who accept and make room for such sinful behavior (eg Amerinds and buddists) Surely this shows >how God favor the faithful and his chosen people."
>Religion: " 'And the devil took Christ up on the mountain to show him all he could have if only >renounced God.' Please note that this does not include the other side of the earth due to the curvature >of the earth maikng it invisible. Clearly this proves that the devil only showed him the parts of the earth >worth having, the rest is just for supplying resources to meet our needs."
>etc.
>regards JakobA"
Honestly, I think this is the post of the year right here. Might as well close the topic and give him the points. Well put.
>Now if we imagined a religion where evolution fit with scripture (as read), and plate tectonic did not, >then the arguments would change. but the sins (and prejudices) would probably be exactly the same.
>eg:
>racism: "American Indians are not really human, How can they be after having evolved on a continent >separated from the birthplace of humanity since long before real humans evolved. Obviously what we >have here is a case of convergent evolution."
>Homosexuals: "Civilized God fearing nations have a lower incidence of Homosexuals than foreingners >who accept and make room for such sinful behavior (eg Amerinds and buddists) Surely this shows >how God favor the faithful and his chosen people."
>Religion: " 'And the devil took Christ up on the mountain to show him all he could have if only >renounced God.' Please note that this does not include the other side of the earth due to the curvature >of the earth maikng it invisible. Clearly this proves that the devil only showed him the parts of the earth >worth having, the rest is just for supplying resources to meet our needs."
>etc.
>regards JakobA"
Honestly, I think this is the post of the year right here. Might as well close the topic and give him the points. Well put.
>>A change in climate would cause any 'fringe' variations to die out
Yes, apologies. I'm sure you can see what I meant to put. The surviving parts of the species would tend toward one of the fringe variations. eg. development of a longer neck. The taller animals get just a little more food than the more average animals and so are just that little bit more likely to mate and pass the 'taller' attribute on to their offspring. It is not that an animal decided that the trees were growing higher and decided to grow a longer neck so it could reach.
>Every archeologist on the planet would argue this one with you
I wasn't very clear there either. Figuring out what went wrong with those that didn't survive, or trying to work out why some creatures never existed at all? Where are the long necked rabbits that eat from the tall trees? or the fossils of the ones that didn't quite manage to grow that high? I don't think there have ever been any. Equally, should there never have been giraffes, we would not be researching them or quoting them as examples of tall adaptations. We only have tall giraffes because they have adapted and survived. We don't spend much time looking for the remains of animals that never existed.
Yes, apologies. I'm sure you can see what I meant to put. The surviving parts of the species would tend toward one of the fringe variations. eg. development of a longer neck. The taller animals get just a little more food than the more average animals and so are just that little bit more likely to mate and pass the 'taller' attribute on to their offspring. It is not that an animal decided that the trees were growing higher and decided to grow a longer neck so it could reach.
>Every archeologist on the planet would argue this one with you
I wasn't very clear there either. Figuring out what went wrong with those that didn't survive, or trying to work out why some creatures never existed at all? Where are the long necked rabbits that eat from the tall trees? or the fossils of the ones that didn't quite manage to grow that high? I don't think there have ever been any. Equally, should there never have been giraffes, we would not be researching them or quoting them as examples of tall adaptations. We only have tall giraffes because they have adapted and survived. We don't spend much time looking for the remains of animals that never existed.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I appreciate the insightful comments by DanRollins, RobinD, BigRat, and several others on my auxiliary question.
These are all very well put. I get the point only in the most general terms, because I don't know much science, but It seems to me many of you are pointing out that I'm requiring proof that something which observation HAS not produced in fact, COULD not be produced. This is a crazy question, isn't it. It seems you all are saying that something not occurring in fact is extraordinarily good proof that it does not occur in theory. My argument was a counterfactual, which is not very productive.
Thank you for all your comments on my nagging question. I can see where my argument goes awry. I have refined my thinking accordingly, and I believe I have learned a thing or two. Thanks again (I wish I could award points, but alas).
These are all very well put. I get the point only in the most general terms, because I don't know much science, but It seems to me many of you are pointing out that I'm requiring proof that something which observation HAS not produced in fact, COULD not be produced. This is a crazy question, isn't it. It seems you all are saying that something not occurring in fact is extraordinarily good proof that it does not occur in theory. My argument was a counterfactual, which is not very productive.
Thank you for all your comments on my nagging question. I can see where my argument goes awry. I have refined my thinking accordingly, and I believe I have learned a thing or two. Thanks again (I wish I could award points, but alas).
ASKER
Religion seems to clash with science on many fronts.
The story of Galileo strikes a chord in my heart. I have a "backyard telescope" and I've looked at Jupiter. If you watch for very long, it's quite obvious that four nearby "stars" are actually moving around the planet. There is just no doubt about it. You can see the moon, Io, transit the face, then the shadow of Io follow behind it. Later the moon swings wide and returns, this time to disapear behind it -- all on an easily-charted schedule.
Imagine the utter thrill that Galileo felt when he saw this. Then the second dose of endorphic ecstasy when he worked out what it meant. He had learned something new about Nature. He wanted to tell people about it!
Alas, there are a few passages in the Bible that provide incorrect information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
And I think that it's important to realize that the Bible did not become wrong at the time of Galileo's discovery. It was wrong all along. And what's even more important: This is not somebody's opinion of how the world works. It is cold hard fact. If the Bible can be so completely wrong about something so integral to the way that Nature works...
When I was on jury duty, the Judge told us that if, for whatever reason, we were not convinced of the reliability or truth of testimony presented, then we were specifically permitted the option of disregarding part or even all of what that witness said.
I find the Bible to be a very unreliable source of knowledge.
I reserve the right to start by assuming that the Bible is wrong about everything, and then look at individual parts of it to decide on specific issues.
The story of Galileo strikes a chord in my heart. I have a "backyard telescope" and I've looked at Jupiter. If you watch for very long, it's quite obvious that four nearby "stars" are actually moving around the planet. There is just no doubt about it. You can see the moon, Io, transit the face, then the shadow of Io follow behind it. Later the moon swings wide and returns, this time to disapear behind it -- all on an easily-charted schedule.
Imagine the utter thrill that Galileo felt when he saw this. Then the second dose of endorphic ecstasy when he worked out what it meant. He had learned something new about Nature. He wanted to tell people about it!
Alas, there are a few passages in the Bible that provide incorrect information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
And I think that it's important to realize that the Bible did not become wrong at the time of Galileo's discovery. It was wrong all along. And what's even more important: This is not somebody's opinion of how the world works. It is cold hard fact. If the Bible can be so completely wrong about something so integral to the way that Nature works...
When I was on jury duty, the Judge told us that if, for whatever reason, we were not convinced of the reliability or truth of testimony presented, then we were specifically permitted the option of disregarding part or even all of what that witness said.
I find the Bible to be a very unreliable source of knowledge.
I reserve the right to start by assuming that the Bible is wrong about everything, and then look at individual parts of it to decide on specific issues.
>>It seems you all are saying that something not occurring in fact is extraordinarily good proof that it does not occur in theory.
No the other way round, since we are dealing with negatives. A theory proposes that certian things cannot occur. These things don't occur, therefore the theory is not invalid on that point.
Take the point about "Transitional Fossils". he Theory of Selection says that if you don't have an attribute you won't survive. The Theory of Reproduction says that you need to survive in order to have offspring. The Theory of Fossilisation says that fossilisation is a rare event. So the three theories put together say that there should be no "Transitional Fossils", ie the changeover from not having a certain attribute to having one is (from the fossilisation standpoint) instantaneous. No transitional fossils have been found, so the theories are not wrong on that point.
As far as Dan's comments on the Bible being wrong, the very same Wikipedia article mentions the doctrine of St.Augustine, who lived long before Galilieo.
No the other way round, since we are dealing with negatives. A theory proposes that certian things cannot occur. These things don't occur, therefore the theory is not invalid on that point.
Take the point about "Transitional Fossils". he Theory of Selection says that if you don't have an attribute you won't survive. The Theory of Reproduction says that you need to survive in order to have offspring. The Theory of Fossilisation says that fossilisation is a rare event. So the three theories put together say that there should be no "Transitional Fossils", ie the changeover from not having a certain attribute to having one is (from the fossilisation standpoint) instantaneous. No transitional fossils have been found, so the theories are not wrong on that point.
As far as Dan's comments on the Bible being wrong, the very same Wikipedia article mentions the doctrine of St.Augustine, who lived long before Galilieo.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks to all for participating!
Obviously a bit late to this party :) but I thought I'd introduce a few facts not previously brought up in the discussion.
1) The church wasn't against heliocentricity.
Galileo's "sin" wasn't as simple as going against the currently held view. Some argue convincingly that underneath it all was his lack of tact toward long-term supporters.
Evidence: Kepler was ahead of Galileo in understanding the cosmos. Kepler figured out the three laws of (elliptical) planetary motion, moon-based tides, etc. Galileo was a friend of his, but insisted on circular motion. Kepler published his proof (including earth's orbit around the sun) in 1609, well before Galileo's troubles.
And the church followed Kepler closely. From "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization""
2) Heliocentricity evidence was weak; it was not scientifically accepted
- Geocentricity was still the accepted view, as espoused long before by Aristotle
- Aristotle's falsifiable prediction: heliocentrism would require parallax shifts in star positions as the earth orbits. And nobody had found this.
- Copernicus delayed publishing not from fear of the Church but because he had no proof!
- Likewise, Galileo didn't have good evidence for his ideas. And in fact, he got it wrong: he thought planetary orbits were circular!
Bottom line:
Everyone was more confused back then than they are now. And Kepler, who had his facts better lined up and was less abrasive to the Powers That Be, was more successful with his publishing etc than was Galileo.
Galileo's REALLY big mistake was the arrogance of thinking he had figured this stuff out, and could push it on the church. And so he got in trouble.
To me, the interesting thing is:
- people get religious about various aspects of science.
- people get scientific about various aspects of "religion" too
Just gotta be careful!
When it comes to the Bible, what many forget is that the Bible itself approves of and asks for critical thinking. It's the religious powers-that-be that squash critiques. Just like religious powers-that-be in science.
1) The church wasn't against heliocentricity.
Galileo's "sin" wasn't as simple as going against the currently held view. Some argue convincingly that underneath it all was his lack of tact toward long-term supporters.
Evidence: Kepler was ahead of Galileo in understanding the cosmos. Kepler figured out the three laws of (elliptical) planetary motion, moon-based tides, etc. Galileo was a friend of his, but insisted on circular motion. Kepler published his proof (including earth's orbit around the sun) in 1609, well before Galileo's troubles.
And the church followed Kepler closely. From "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization""
"Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. No more precise instruments for observing the suns apparent motion could be found anywhere in the world. When Johannes Kepler posited that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Keplers position through observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name."
So, it wasn't that the church opposed heliocentricity from a scientific perspective. They were fascinated by it.2) Heliocentricity evidence was weak; it was not scientifically accepted
- Geocentricity was still the accepted view, as espoused long before by Aristotle
- Aristotle's falsifiable prediction: heliocentrism would require parallax shifts in star positions as the earth orbits. And nobody had found this.
- Copernicus delayed publishing not from fear of the Church but because he had no proof!
- Likewise, Galileo didn't have good evidence for his ideas. And in fact, he got it wrong: he thought planetary orbits were circular!
Bottom line:
Everyone was more confused back then than they are now. And Kepler, who had his facts better lined up and was less abrasive to the Powers That Be, was more successful with his publishing etc than was Galileo.
Galileo's REALLY big mistake was the arrogance of thinking he had figured this stuff out, and could push it on the church. And so he got in trouble.
To me, the interesting thing is:
- people get religious about various aspects of science.
- people get scientific about various aspects of "religion" too
Just gotta be careful!
When it comes to the Bible, what many forget is that the Bible itself approves of and asks for critical thinking. It's the religious powers-that-be that squash critiques. Just like religious powers-that-be in science.
ASKER
To say that Galileo "got it wrong" ... and then ending the sentence... is, well, utterly ridiculous.
The difference between circular and eliptical is trivially minor in comparison to the alternative (geocentric) hypothesis which is way, Way, WAY wrong.
As to his "real error" of being arrogant in confronting the Church... frankly, that's exactly, specifically, why I give him so much respect.
One must not offer even one shred of respect for stupidity. One must not compromise with idiots who are in power. One must never suffer a fool.
The difference between circular and eliptical is trivially minor in comparison to the alternative (geocentric) hypothesis which is way, Way, WAY wrong.
As to his "real error" of being arrogant in confronting the Church... frankly, that's exactly, specifically, why I give him so much respect.
One must not offer even one shred of respect for stupidity. One must not compromise with idiots who are in power. One must never suffer a fool.
To understand Galileo, we need to better understand what was going on in science at the time.
Kepler, the guy who worked out the elliptical orbits, was followed closely, positively, and with respect, by the Church. The Jesuits were confirming his findings. Several Jesuit priests were counted as knowledgeable, respected partners in science.
Isn't that the kind of relationship and effort scientists and science should respect and uphold?
It is only in retrospect, and by ignoring the vast evidence for positive involvement of the church in science, that today we have such disdain.
If you think it was stupid, idiotic and foolish for the church to be cautious about heliocentrism, then you'd better be consistent and apply the same appellations to the many non-church scientists of the day who felt the same way.
Aristotle was a pretty smart guy. He was the one who laid out the case for geocentrism, and provided a set of falsifiable tests for why heliocentrism was wrong. And it wasn't until 1838, AFTER Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, that Copernicus and Kepler were proven right.
Aristotle actually had three tests supporting geocentrism over heliocentrism:
20/20 hindsight is handy, but doesn't automatically provide understanding of what was really going on.
Kepler, the guy who worked out the elliptical orbits, was followed closely, positively, and with respect, by the Church. The Jesuits were confirming his findings. Several Jesuit priests were counted as knowledgeable, respected partners in science.
Isn't that the kind of relationship and effort scientists and science should respect and uphold?
It is only in retrospect, and by ignoring the vast evidence for positive involvement of the church in science, that today we have such disdain.
If you think it was stupid, idiotic and foolish for the church to be cautious about heliocentrism, then you'd better be consistent and apply the same appellations to the many non-church scientists of the day who felt the same way.
Aristotle was a pretty smart guy. He was the one who laid out the case for geocentrism, and provided a set of falsifiable tests for why heliocentrism was wrong. And it wasn't until 1838, AFTER Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, that Copernicus and Kepler were proven right.
Aristotle actually had three tests supporting geocentrism over heliocentrism:
- If the Earth actually spun on an axis (as required in a heliocentric system to explain the diurnal motion of the sky), why didn't objects fly off the spinning Earth?
- If the Earth was in motion around the sun, why didn't it leave behind the birds flying in the air?
- If the Earth were actually on an orbit around the sun, why wasn't a parallax effect observed in the stars?
20/20 hindsight is handy, but doesn't automatically provide understanding of what was really going on.
Blaming Galileo when the Church has already apologized for his persecution seems a little unnecessary to me.
Kepler had his share of problems with the Church.
The disdain is not for religion in general. At least not those religions that know what science is and isn't. It is reserved for ridiculous claims and lies--neither of which is scarce in this thread and elsewhere.
Kepler had his share of problems with the Church.
The disdain is not for religion in general. At least not those religions that know what science is and isn't. It is reserved for ridiculous claims and lies--neither of which is scarce in this thread and elsewhere.
PaulHews, great.
So, rather than waste energy bashing people and situations that we might not actually understand, perhaps we can simply nurture a better understanding of science.
AND, perhaps we can nurture a better understanding of texts -- ancient or otherwise.
It's kinda funny how we look at our GPS and iPhone screens, read the exact time of "Sun Rise" and "Sun Set"... and don't give it a second thought...
But when we read something in an Ancient Text about the Earth standing still and the Sun moving... we laugh with derision about how stupid they were.
I guess regular people usually don't think in terms of frame of reference, do they :-D
So, rather than waste energy bashing people and situations that we might not actually understand, perhaps we can simply nurture a better understanding of science.
AND, perhaps we can nurture a better understanding of texts -- ancient or otherwise.
It's kinda funny how we look at our GPS and iPhone screens, read the exact time of "Sun Rise" and "Sun Set"... and don't give it a second thought...
But when we read something in an Ancient Text about the Earth standing still and the Sun moving... we laugh with derision about how stupid they were.
I guess regular people usually don't think in terms of frame of reference, do they :-D
>So, rather than waste energy bashing people and situations that we might not actually understand, perhaps we can simply nurture a better understanding of science.<
It isn't a waste of energy debunking the claims of creationists who think the earth is 6000 years old who believe that this should be taught as a "theory" in science class.
Read my posts above. If you think they are needlessly derisive, have a go at them.
It isn't a waste of energy debunking the claims of creationists who think the earth is 6000 years old who believe that this should be taught as a "theory" in science class.
Read my posts above. If you think they are needlessly derisive, have a go at them.
You'll get no argument from me on the 6000 years :)... just remember that ID and 6000 years are not at all the same thing.
It takes some extraordinary twists to get to 6000 years in any kind of way that preserves a scientific viewpoint. I've seen some things that looked potentially interesting, but in reality were still so far-fetched that I've never bothered giving them the time of day.
In accord with the topic of this thread, have you heard about the alternative geological explanation to plate tectonics? Suppose the continents didn't shift due to the undersea conveyer belt... but instead the entire planet was growing... thus separating the continental plates. Has tons of problems, but a) I'll give them points for creativity, and b) AFAIK, even plate tectonics doesn't explain everything...has some weak spots...
It takes some extraordinary twists to get to 6000 years in any kind of way that preserves a scientific viewpoint. I've seen some things that looked potentially interesting, but in reality were still so far-fetched that I've never bothered giving them the time of day.
In accord with the topic of this thread, have you heard about the alternative geological explanation to plate tectonics? Suppose the continents didn't shift due to the undersea conveyer belt... but instead the entire planet was growing... thus separating the continental plates. Has tons of problems, but a) I'll give them points for creativity, and b) AFAIK, even plate tectonics doesn't explain everything...has some weak spots...
For somebody who pleads for a better understanding in Science, you have a weird way of selecting things which are relevant and/or plausible. Take for example your last post, Mr.Pete, "but instead the entire planet was growing thus separating continental plates. Has tons of problems, but".
The phrase "Has tons of problems" is like those washing powder advertisments. "After an overnight soak". It eliminates all criticism, because it tacitly admits that its crap.
That "but" is another of those let me off the hook clauses. First you'd give 10 points to the pope in the Miss World competition, and second the fact that plate tectonics has it's "weak spots" is either a misplaced joke (and quite a good one) or the "AFAIK" means you haven't been bothered to look it up in the first place.
The real problem with the posting is that it completly ignores subduction, not an unimportant part of vulcanism, and as such was not worthy of mention.
The phrase "Has tons of problems" is like those washing powder advertisments. "After an overnight soak". It eliminates all criticism, because it tacitly admits that its crap.
That "but" is another of those let me off the hook clauses. First you'd give 10 points to the pope in the Miss World competition, and second the fact that plate tectonics has it's "weak spots" is either a misplaced joke (and quite a good one) or the "AFAIK" means you haven't been bothered to look it up in the first place.
The real problem with the posting is that it completly ignores subduction, not an unimportant part of vulcanism, and as such was not worthy of mention.
>>Kepler, the guy who worked out the elliptical orbits, was followed closely, positively, and with respect, by the Church
He was in fact Lutherian and had nothing to do with the Caltholic Church. Kepler who was accused of "Calvinstic heresies" kept himself well away from the Lutherian Church as well. In fact in 1611 when Galileo sought Kepler to fill the mathematics professorship in Padua, Kepler perferred to stay on German territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler#Personal_and_political_troubles
>>3.If the Earth were actually on an orbit around the sun, why wasn't a parallax effect observed in the stars?
This is one of those pseudo-scientific rhetorical questions in which you yourself indulge from time to time. The answer of course is that a parallax effect was not observed. However it is illogical to conclude anything from that answer simply because the preconditions of the question have not been fulfilled. Namely that for a parallax effect to be measurable one must have ascertained how far the stars actually are from us and whether one has the technology to measure them. The Greeks also did no experiments nor did they measure anything, so the question was totally rhetoric. You therefore cannot argue that "these tests made sense".
>>But when we read something in an Ancient Text about the Earth standing still and the Sun moving... we laugh with derision about how stupid they were.
No we don't. We deride those who insist that with the hindsight of today it was true then. Heliocentricity was the dogma of the time and got written into scripture with Joshua's battle of Jericho. What we now have is contortionists still claiming that some how this took place as described.
I think it's all part of a quasi-religious desire for perfection - just as the acients had "heavenly spheres" which had to give way to awkward ellipses, we'd like things to be round and beautiful. It starts with statements like "you cannot disprove the bible", although the internet is full of sites only too glad to show up the inconsistancies, and moves into the domains of the supernatural where God is in heaven and all is right with the world. This quest for elegance and simplicity - no rough edges - even goes into our most complex science, for I know several String Theorists, the theory having predicted absolutely nothing these past thirty years, still insist that it ought to be taught in Universities (and indeed it is!) because of it's sheer elegance. We've had it in Quantum Mechanics as well - the universe is a Dirac Hamiltonian in a Hilbert space, and we'd like it in Evolution - no nasty messy problems like "survival of the fittest", just simple God directed ways. All of this of course has to be sanctioned by the "elders" be they church, state or the university senate, and all who come before must show respect (the theme of the arrogance of people claiming to be right disturbs this cozy setup). The boat must not be rocked.
He was in fact Lutherian and had nothing to do with the Caltholic Church. Kepler who was accused of "Calvinstic heresies" kept himself well away from the Lutherian Church as well. In fact in 1611 when Galileo sought Kepler to fill the mathematics professorship in Padua, Kepler perferred to stay on German territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler#Personal_and_political_troubles
>>3.If the Earth were actually on an orbit around the sun, why wasn't a parallax effect observed in the stars?
This is one of those pseudo-scientific rhetorical questions in which you yourself indulge from time to time. The answer of course is that a parallax effect was not observed. However it is illogical to conclude anything from that answer simply because the preconditions of the question have not been fulfilled. Namely that for a parallax effect to be measurable one must have ascertained how far the stars actually are from us and whether one has the technology to measure them. The Greeks also did no experiments nor did they measure anything, so the question was totally rhetoric. You therefore cannot argue that "these tests made sense".
>>But when we read something in an Ancient Text about the Earth standing still and the Sun moving... we laugh with derision about how stupid they were.
No we don't. We deride those who insist that with the hindsight of today it was true then. Heliocentricity was the dogma of the time and got written into scripture with Joshua's battle of Jericho. What we now have is contortionists still claiming that some how this took place as described.
I think it's all part of a quasi-religious desire for perfection - just as the acients had "heavenly spheres" which had to give way to awkward ellipses, we'd like things to be round and beautiful. It starts with statements like "you cannot disprove the bible", although the internet is full of sites only too glad to show up the inconsistancies, and moves into the domains of the supernatural where God is in heaven and all is right with the world. This quest for elegance and simplicity - no rough edges - even goes into our most complex science, for I know several String Theorists, the theory having predicted absolutely nothing these past thirty years, still insist that it ought to be taught in Universities (and indeed it is!) because of it's sheer elegance. We've had it in Quantum Mechanics as well - the universe is a Dirac Hamiltonian in a Hilbert space, and we'd like it in Evolution - no nasty messy problems like "survival of the fittest", just simple God directed ways. All of this of course has to be sanctioned by the "elders" be they church, state or the university senate, and all who come before must show respect (the theme of the arrogance of people claiming to be right disturbs this cozy setup). The boat must not be rocked.
BigRat,
Just because Kepler was Lutherian means he had "nothing to do with" the Catholics?
What a wierd way of relating! Do you have no interaction with people unlike yourself? :)
Go read up a bit on the Catholic buildings designed as observatories. Read up on Kepler's interactions with Catholic priests. It's not as you presume.
(I think you meant to say "geocentricity was the dogma of the time"??) Guess who taught geocentrism as a scientific principle: Aristotle. It was tied to his views of motion and physics. Guess who showed that geocentrism better fit the available data than heliocentrism: ptolemy.
It was only later that the Catholic church got tied up in knots trying to link their theology to the then-current science.
Desire for "perfection" is part of human nature, as we've discussed in various places. It was the recognition that humility is needed that led to a better scientific method!
[BTW, yes the "growing earth" idea ignores subduction, using the idea of cracking-open-mantle instead IIRC. But then, subduction zones while making much sense are hardly proven; it's a very slow process. Or at least, that was the case a few years ago. My wife specializes in things marine-ish (having spent a while in college staring at murky mud off the California coast :) :) )... I'm not at ALL arguing for the growing-earth model, just that it apparently answers a few challenges left by plate tectonics, while plates answer many more challenges, including some left by growing-earth. We may not have that all figured out...]
Just because Kepler was Lutherian means he had "nothing to do with" the Catholics?
What a wierd way of relating! Do you have no interaction with people unlike yourself? :)
Go read up a bit on the Catholic buildings designed as observatories. Read up on Kepler's interactions with Catholic priests. It's not as you presume.
(I think you meant to say "geocentricity was the dogma of the time"??) Guess who taught geocentrism as a scientific principle: Aristotle. It was tied to his views of motion and physics. Guess who showed that geocentrism better fit the available data than heliocentrism: ptolemy.
It was only later that the Catholic church got tied up in knots trying to link their theology to the then-current science.
Desire for "perfection" is part of human nature, as we've discussed in various places. It was the recognition that humility is needed that led to a better scientific method!
[BTW, yes the "growing earth" idea ignores subduction, using the idea of cracking-open-mantle instead IIRC. But then, subduction zones while making much sense are hardly proven; it's a very slow process. Or at least, that was the case a few years ago. My wife specializes in things marine-ish (having spent a while in college staring at murky mud off the California coast :) :) )... I'm not at ALL arguing for the growing-earth model, just that it apparently answers a few challenges left by plate tectonics, while plates answer many more challenges, including some left by growing-earth. We may not have that all figured out...]
>>Go read up a bit on the Catholic buildings designed as observatories. Read up on Kepler's interactions with Catholic priests. It's not as you presume
I actually quoted an article to back up my claim. Where is yours?
>>subduction zones while making much sense are hardly proven;
Not in Japan, they're not.
I actually quoted an article to back up my claim. Where is yours?
>>subduction zones while making much sense are hardly proven;
Not in Japan, they're not.
ASKER