Why beliefs don't matter in science
by KrauzeThere's been a lot of buzz around Marcus Ross, the young-earth creationist who did his PhD dissertation on mososaurs, marine reptiles that lived 65 million years ago. Now some critics are saying that the university shouldn't have allowed him to take a PhD, and some are even demanding that they revoke it. Wittingshire links to a number of responses by the telic-friendlies, but Scott Aaronson really hits the nail on the head:
In his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo had his Salviati character carefully demolish the arguments for Ptolemaic astronomy - only to concede, in the final pages, that Ptolemaic astronomy must obviously be true anyway, since the church said it was true. Mr. G, of course, was just trying to cover his ass. The point, though, is that his ploy didn't work: the church understood as well as he did that the evidence mattered more than the conclusions, and therefore wisely arrested him. (I say "wisely" because the church was, of course, entirely correct to worry that a scientific revolution would erode its temporal power.)
(HT: Paul Nelson in the comments)
February 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
At the time of Galileo, Church and Academy were one. The dispute over the Ptolemaic model vs Galileo's model was not a religous dispute as we would think of one today. Rather, it was an academic and scientific dispute.
The Ptolemaic model was not derived from or based on Christian scripture and belief. The Academy was just not ready for a paradigm shift. Since "everybody knew" that the Ptolemaic model had to be correct, Galileo was just a troublemaker.
Comment by Stuart Harris — February 15, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Stuart, you are whitewashing the church's role in the Galileo affair. Read this. (Yes, I disagree with Paul Newall on a number of things, but his Galileo essay is the best survey I've seen.)
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 15, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
February 16th, 2007 at 11:24 am
I think there are two extremes we need to avoid when we consider what really happened to Galileo. The first extreme is Galileo "the martyr of science" viewpt, which has been used by the anti-catholic/anti-religious folks since the so called enlightment in the 18th century. The other is the blame the victim approach that has been used recently by some pro-catholic apologists. My own opinion, after spending considerable amount of time and doing a considerable amount of reading on this subject last summer, is that the Galileo heresy trial had a lot more to do with 17th century European politics than it had to do with theology or church doctirne. Indeed, I would argue that had a few small circumstances been a little bit different there would never had been a trial at all.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 16, 2007 @ 11:24 am
February 16th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Scott Aaronson has it backwards. The theologians didn't have a problem with Galileo because they hated "evidence", they had a problem with Galileo because they respected it.
Galileo was the one going around insisting that people just had to believe that his under-determined hypothesis was physically true. So all those Darwinists who want to take away Ross's PhD because he doesn't believe in some "paradigm" are the true heirs of Galileo.
Comment by Brian Killian — February 16, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
February 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
But Galileo's position wasn't even proven…and had many problem's of its own at the time. I thought a "real scientist" is supposed to just keep both in mind until further evidence.
Comment by Ben Z — February 16, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
February 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Anyone interested in the church's position to Galileo should read Cardinal Belarmine's Letter to Foscarini. Cardinal Belarmine was a Jesuit scholar with much influence in Rome.
Comment by BenK — February 16, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
February 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I've always been a little bit more than lukewarm when it comes to passing off ID as scientific theory. I continue to think that those who are trying to push ID as a scientiifc theory are putting the cart way before the horse. On the other hand, I do think that ID advocates raise a number of important issues about the limits of science and it's relationship to other disciplines such as philosophy and theology. These issues are necesarily interrelated because physical science will never be able to tell us everything about our universe and the reality we are part of. History is important because if we look for it we will discover the evolution of this interrelationship. As a matter, of fact before Galileo natural science was considered to be a part of philosophy; indeed, Galileo insisted that he be given the title of philosopher. It's good to revisit the Galileo affair because it was the original "wedge". 400+ years later that wedge between science, philosophy and theology is still with us. I think it would be helpful for all sides to understand why. Maybe then we would starting having a more constructive dialogue and less acrimonious debate.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 16, 2007 @ 3:51 pm