There are two ways in which a person might find themselves thrust into a great tradition of thought and philosophy – one, by accepting the basic ideas or propositions, and the two, by refuting them and breaking away. Admittedly, traditions that break away successfully amount to new traditions in and of themselves, but their roots are still in the past and this fact should not easily be forgotten. This description of breaks and recreation aptly describes the relationship between the Aristotelian tradition and Galileo Galilei’s scientific breakthroughs in the seventeenth century. This paper will attempt to trace the scientific tradition through Galileo to the Aristotelian tradition. This would then show that, far from being a modern construct, science is merely the latest shift in ever changing, ever growing living tradition of Aristotle. Moreover, the paper will attempt to decipher the dialectic between Aristotle and Galileo and how it influenced the scientific revolution by creating a long story wherein both Aristotle and Galileo both helped wean the tradition form the habit of believing in ideas or theories simply because a famous person had said it. Lastly, the paper will return to its basic aim of understanding human nature and will attempt to evaluate how the scientific tradition created a particular kind of human being who could, as Carl Sagan famously said, could ‘get nature to answer back’.
Enquiry into nature and the workings of the natural world was, up until quite recently, called natural philosophy. Many contemporary thinkers and scientists state that modern science broke away from natural philosophy through the work of Galileo and he is therefore credited with being the ‘Father of Modern Science’. There are two main differences between Galileo and Aristotle, and numerous, very curious similarities as well. The first distinction is that Aristotle drew his conclusions from a limited amount of data – only that which he could collect directly through the senses, or using very simple tools, whereas Galileo hugely expanded the range and possibilities of data collection by using much more advanced tools, i.e. the telescope. Secondly, Aristotle drew huge conclusions from very limited information, which were incorrect (as we can say through the benefit of hindsight) and the distance between the conclusions and the observed facts was often irreconcilable or just plain wrong. Galileo, on the other hand, was more conservative with his conclusions (not least because the Church would have had his head if he had gone any further).
With those two points aside, there are numerous similarities between Aristotle and Galileo, or rather, there are numerous philosophical points that Galileo accepts from the Aristotelian tradition. One such similarity is the belief that universals exist within particulars – an idea which laid the foundation for modern empiricism skepticism. It was only through a belief that the natural world is readily observable and understandable that the whole scientific process is made possible. Moreover, Aristotle’s epistemology, though falling short when trying to explain specific phenomena such as the reason why heavier objects seem to fall faster than lighter ones or his understanding of optics, did create a valid theoretical framework upon which people could build the sciences (Pigliucci 77-121).
One of the hallmarks of a living tradition is that it constantly changes and evolves. The Aristotelian worldview had many advantages but, if taken too literally, ended up becoming baggage that needed to be shed in order for progress to be made. At the time of Galileo’s great discoveries, there were some adherents to the ‘fundamentalist’ Aristotelian worldview who simply refuse to change even when new evidence is presented. There is a legend which states that when Galileo presented his telescope to several senior members of the church, which included Guilio Libri, a professor of Aristotelian philosophy, Christopher Clavius, a Jesuit astronomer and Cesare Cremonini, another Professor of Aristotelian philosophy, but this time a close friend of Aristotle’s. The goes that the first two critics simply refused to look through the telescope and completely dismissed Galileo’s findings without every testing or, according many accounts, even considering or seriously debating them. Only Cesare Cremonini looked through the telescope and apparently looked through it for so long that he got a headache! (Drake 335)
All in all this exhibition of Galileo’s telescope was a failure because no one seemed to be able to see the things that he did, or did not want to believe what they saw. Even Cremonini was known to have said something to the effect of saying – ‘Signor Galilei, your findings are astonished and had Aristotle not stated the exact opposite to be true, I would have believed you!’ To say that Galileo was fighting an uphill battle would be an understatement, but that is the price one must pay for rapid, radical change after centuries of stagnation. Once again, this is not to say that Galileo completely destroyed the Aristotelian tradition, far from it! He enriched and furthered the tradition immensely by accepting the core of it but rejecting its disproven parts. In fact, one might go so far as to say that had Galileo not done what he had done and unearth the (for the lack of a better word) ‘anthropocentric’ scientific observer hidden in Aristotle’s work, Descartes might never have become the rationalist who created the first fully modern avatar of the skeptical, scientific observer. Moreover, the very enterprise of science – the scientific method, and facts derived from speculation, observation and rigorous empirical testing would certainly have never achieved the status it has today. And all this from a tradition forged by an ancient Greek thinker who got many of the most fundamental laws of nature hopelessly wrong.
But the dialectic formed between Aristotle and Galileo had more far-reaching consequences than revolutionizing the physical science. Galileo was arguably the first person to successfully attack and disprove a classical thinker. In the centuries to follow, this had a ripple effect that spread throughout the natural sciences. It is possible that there is a clear link, and not just an accidental one, between the fact that it was only after the lifting of the ban on Galileo’s works in the eighteenth century that people started re-searching for the laws of nature in areas other than physics.
People such as William Herschel and Joseph Priestly were given free rein to study nature in a more scientific way and discover things that had never before been dreamed of. It would be wrong to make such a claim without mentioning at least a few other great thinkers who made this possible. Kepler, Copernicus and most conspicuously Newton, all played a role in creating the scientific revolution at the beginning of the Modern age. However, none of these great luminaries ever confronted their ancient root, or, if they did, they did not create as much of a ‘scene’ as Galileo did.
In his book Il Saggiatore or The Assayers Galileo launched a highly polemical attack on Aristotle and the Aristotelian tradition, which, ironically, he was also a part of, regardless of his rebellious nature. What’s even more ironic is the fact that, in his most vehement attack on Aristotle, Galileo ended up committing the same blunder that his forbearer did – he drew a conclusion with inadequate data, or more precisely, he ‘over-extended’ his theory to create a conclusion. In the book he argued that Orazio Grassi had misinterpreted the existence of a comet.
Grassi, the staunch Aristotelian had, in fact, got it right and Galileo was wrong. Galileo believed that the comet was an optical illusion and was not a physical object, but Grassi believed that it was. Moreover, the most curious aspect of the book was the fact that Galileo used some truly magnificent mathematical formulations in his book in an attempt not only to disprove Grassi but also, very peculiarly, to jeer at astronomers who use mathematics to study the stars. This highlights a very important point which the scientific tradition does not often remember – an idea or a theoretical base, though old, need not necessarily be antiquated. Galileo was Justas human as Aristotle was and, as has just been seen, was just as fallible as he was. Far from diminishing his status, this only makes Galileo’s position in the history of one of the oldest and most respected fields of study that much clearer and his role that much more vital.
Finally, when all’s said and done, the basic question remains – what of the human? The scientific tradition has provided mankind with an immense quantity of very useful, but also very dangerous knowledge. But what does it say about the scientist, the human, and human nature? Carl Sagan said (just after the statement quoted in the first paragraph) that ‘[humans were] the objects through which the universe understands itself’ (Sagan 300). This sounds like an exceptionally beautiful idea but it has some unpleasant connotations. Imagine the use of a telescope – there is the observer and there is the thing being observed and a telescope in between. Aside from checking to see that everything is in working order, the telescope is more or less immaterial – it is simply a tool. If Sagan is right, then humans are much the same as the telescope – nature uses us to look at itself and that aside, we are immaterial.
That is a very humbling thought. But there is another side to the story as well. A telescope needs to be cared for and well kept and, most importantly, fine-tuned. As humans, the scientific method states, we must be clear, precise and rigorous, never fearing that something might go wrong. Most important of all, this dialectic between Galileo and Aristotle cemented in the human mind the idea that the individual human was capable of understanding, if not the whole of the natural world, at least a large part of it. Although Galileo was never an atheist, his discoveries ensured that the idea of God would never again be used side-door to intellectual escapism. In effect, he made the human race more accountable for what we know and, in effect, not only provided us with a classic case study for human nature but also a means for changing and improving on it.
Work Cited
Drake, Stillman. Galileo at work : his scientific biography. Mineloa: Dover
Publications, 2003. Print.
Pigliucci, Massimo. Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us
Sagan Carl. Cosmos. New York: Random House, 2011. Print.
