Lesson 4:
The Origin of Knowledge
|
4.1
The Rise of Science
There are, we have argued, three sources of knowledge. The first is the
kind of knowledge deriving from our expectations as a living organism,
largely pre-programmed and modified by experience admitted through our
particular senses. The second is tradition - what we are told by our
parents and by our culture. The third is based on scientific
observation, that is, observation that follows rules which are
acceptable to people trained in logic and math. (And to people with a
lot of common sense and no stake in the results - hence the old saw
"Out of the mouths of babes..." and the parable of the Emperor's New Clothes.)
To increase understanding - to make better models of the world which can
explain many more of the things that puzzle us - scientists make
systematic observations. And since our knowledge is based primarily on
vision, science took off in earnest when our means of extending our
vision increased, first by travel around the Earth, and then by
instruments allowing us to see the invisible.
It all started to happen around AD 1600, following the discovery that
Earth is round, and that Europe and the Mediterranean regions
(medi-terranean = "in the middle of the world") are but a small part of
it. Clearly, there were things the ancient philosophers had not told us!
Could it be that they did not know everything? Could it be
that many things remain to be discovered? These kinds of questions
brought the Renaissance into being, a time when the learned became
scientists.
Telescopes showed us that the Moon is a planet like Earth, with plains
and mountains, and that Jupiter is a solar system in miniature. When
Galileo (1564-1642) looked at the Moon through his telescope some 400
years ago, it ceased to be an object of adoration and became an object
for scientific study. Microscopy brought into view bacteria and other
microbes and taught us about the intricacies of sexual and asexual
reproduction. When Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) reported that
standing water is teeming with life, with a million "animalcules" in a
single drop, Life was never the same again. It took another two hundred
years (!) to establish that these life forms follow the same rules as
the visible ones - that is, "Life only comes from life". Louis Pasteur
(1822-1895) did the experiments, first showing that fermentation of milk
and of beer is done by different organisms, and then showing that there
is no fouling of a broth, even in a flask open to air, if particles in
the air are excluded from entering. There is no spontaneous generation
of complex life forms on the present day Earth. The evolution of far simpler
molecular life occured in conditons that no longer exist here.
What we now think of as "prescientific" beliefs were not necessarily
based on lack of observation. The full Moon does influence sleep
patterns of many people, and hence their mood. The Moon, therefore,
could be endowed in the public mind with certain powers. The Moon
certainly plays an important part in the reproductive cycle of many
organisms. Concerning "spontaneous generation", it is a fact that
maggots arise in rotting meat. Early observers may be excused for
missing the laying of eggs by flies, eggs so small they are practically
invisible. Put a fine net over the meat: it still rots, but no maggots.
Doing science is to find a way to agree on what is happening in the
world, and how the world works, or how it is put together, independently
of whether the scientists are from one culture or another.
Where it gets interesting is where the results from such common-sense
investigation conflict with older ideas as to how the world was made, or
works, or where we come from. From ancient times, beliefs preceded
knowledge, and beliefs are important in guiding our actions. Thus,
beliefs are resistant to change, with good reason. The celebrated story
of how Galileo was put under house arrest (for saying that scientific
observation is preferable to the say-so of cardinals) is but one example
illustrating the conflict. It goes on even today when school boards
discuss the merits of evolution.
Science is a way to generate conflict and to deal with conflict, not a
way to avoid it.
|