Ideas of Scientists that Challenged Popular Beliefs in Society and the Religious Establishment

Ideas of Scientists that Challenged Popular Beliefs in Society and the Religious Establishment

Galileo versus the Catholic Church

Galileo was a devout catholic. He in fact trusted the church to educate one of his daughters who later became a nun (see Galileo's Daughter). His Daughter Suor Maria Celeste (born Virginia) was devoted to Galileo all of his life and was a great source of spiritual strength for him through their life-long correspondence.

Using a telescope that improved upon the original design of the Dutch lens-grinder Hans Lipperhey, Galileo was able to observe and make the first sketches of the sun, moon, and planets (including the 4 moons of Jupiter; moving Sun spots; and Venus showing that its phases resembled those of the moon, and the rings of Saturn). His descriptions of the moon's surface with its craters, and mountains and shadows caused some controversy by calling into question popular belief then supported by the church (and first stated by Aristotle) that all of the planets and stars surrounding the earth were smooth perfect spheres. Of course "God's Kingdom" hovered over all of the planets and stars. There were no serious consequences of Galileo's observations and he invited the clergy to make their own observations with the telescope. He even sold telescopes to church members as well as to merchants and other members of the Venice Senate. The church members also observed the irregularities of the moon's surface and probably did not choose to pursue the matter further.

More serious controversies arose later as a result of Galileo's defense of Copernicus's heliocentric theory of the universe. Heliocentric refers to the theory that the sun and not the earth is the center of the universe. In other words, the earth moves around the sun and not the other way around. Copernicus's publishing of this theory preceded Galileo by over 60 years. Copernicus did not actually prove that the earth revolves around the sun (he had no new evidence). He, however, considered that his theory was more internally consistent and had more explanatory power than the geocentric theory of Ptolemy. Copernicus died in 1543 (21 years before Galileo was born in 1564) with the publication of his book the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres. This book appeared at a time during which the Protestant Reformation was at its height and at the beginning of the Counter Reformation. The church had adopted decisions after the council of Trent (1545 to 1563) which stated that only the church had the power to interpret the bible. Church authorities preferred the geocentric (earth centered) model of the heavens (proposed by Aristotle around mid-300 BC and refined by Ptolemy ) and were in no mood to have their authority challenged by any new revolutionary theories. It needs to be emphasized here that the church in these times was extremely sensitive and defensive to anyone challenging the orthodox interpretation of scripture due to fears of a split in the church between western and northern Europe.

Even in Galileo's day the heliocentric theory was not yet conclusively proven even though evidence was mounting to support this assertion. Galileo published his book the "Starry Messenger" defending the heliocentric theory in 1610. Galileo reported that the planet Venus went through phases similar to the Moon. This lent support to the fact that Venus revolves around the sun and showed that Ptolemy's theory was wrong in this respect. This however was not conclusive proof for the heliocentric theory.

The church condemned the heliocentric theory as false and completely contrary to the "Divine Scriptures " in 1616. Galileo's writings were not mentioned in the decree. Copernicus's book, Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres was prohibited. It was however published 4 years later after removal of the first chapter and censoring other sentences discussing the motion of the earth. During a visit to Rome in 1616 Galileo was required to meet with Cardinal Bellarmine at the request of Pope Paul V. Cardinal Bellarmine took the position that as long as the heliocentric theory was not indisputably proven, the higher truth of the bible should be accepted. Bellarmine held that since God is the author of every statement in the bible, it must be true when properly understood and therefore any loyal Christian would have to accept its statements as true based on religious faith. It was church policy at the time that all historical knowledge about the natural world mentioned in the bible would fall within the scope of religious faith and was to be interpreted by the church.

It is not clear what happened during the meeting between Cardinal Bellarmine and Galileo. It is thought that Galileo was either simply informed about the upcoming papal decree declaring that the heliocentric theory could not be "defended or held," or that Galileo received a stronger injunction "not to hold, teach, or defend," [Copernicanism] in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing."

Following this papal decree, Galileo avoided the issue of heliocentrism until 1623 when a new pope was elected. Pope Urban VIII (formerly Maffeo Barberini) had been an early personal acquaintance of Galileo and a man of letters in his own right. Galileo visited him in Rome and met with him on 6 different occasions. Apparently the pope told Galileo that he could write about heliocentrism as long as he kept the discussion hypothetical. Believing that the political and religious climate would now change, Galileo wrote and published in 1632 the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems that presented a Platonian style debate between three individuals, Salvati who represented the new idea of heliocentrism, Simplico who represented the old geocentric tradition, and Sagredo who represented an open-minded inquirer who would assess the issues from a neutral point of view. The book was a sensation at the time and most readers concluded then and since that time, that Salvati won the debate and that this was a victory for heliocentrism.

A special commission was appointed by the pope to investigate whether this book violated the Decree of 1616 against Copernicanism. During the inquiry the documents related to the older injunction resulting from Galileo's meeting in 1616 with Cardinal Bellarmine were uncovered. The commission judged that Galileo had exceeded the instructions given to him to only discuss the heliocentric theory hypothetically. The pope was angered and Galileo was called before the Inquisition to decide whether the injunction was indeed violated and whether Galileo had received the required approvals from the church before publishing his book.

Although Galileo had a 1616 letter from Cardinal Bellarmine that made no mention of the injunction but only mentioned "defending and holding" views on Copernicanism, the church evidence citing the stronger injunction in another letter prevailed. During the whole trial there was no real discussion of the scientific truth of the heliocentric theory or the proper use of the bible in relation to science.

Galileo was "vehemently suspected of heresy" by the Inquisition for his defense of the heliocentric theory in 1633. He was forced to read an oath prepared by the court denouncing his own teachings. Already an old man, Galileo lived the rest of this life in disgrace under house arrest in his own home in Arcerti near Florence. During this time he did produce the Discourse on Two New Sciences which comprises his major contribution to physics. In the centuries following the church's decision in the Galileo affair, there was a low point in the relationship between organized religion and the scientific community. Much scientific investigation shifted thereafter from southern to northern Europe.

Copernicus's book, the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres was kept on an Index of literature forbidden by the church until around 1835. The trial of Galileo still dominates discussions with respect to the relationship between organized religion and the scientific community with distrust on both sides still being not far below the surface.
The trial of Galileo has been popularized in a play written by Bertolt Brecht (Life of Galileo first published in 1940). It was not until 1992 that Pope John Paul II who had commissioned an investigation of the affair in 1979, restated the aphorism that Galileo himself had stated that "the Bible tells how to go to heaven but not how the heavens go." The pope declared that Galileo had been a better theologian than those who opposed him. One can say of this statement that it is better to have come later than never, however at this pace what can one really expect with regard to an effective dialogue between the scientific establishment and religious leaders regarding burning ethical issues today (e.g. cloning, stem cell research, confidential use of genetic information and the rights of individuals).

Fraud in Science Article
In the Economist dated June 6 to 12, 2009
Liar! Liar

Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh published a Meta- analysis in the Public Library of Science in which he pooled the the results of 18 surveys of scientitst he found on the internet that dealt with reporting fraud. He found basically that 2% of the scientists questioned were willing to admit to having falsified or modified data to improve the outcome of experiments at least once during their scientific careers. About 10% of those questioned admitted to questionable practices such as "dropping data points based on a gut feeling" or "failing to present data that contradicted ones previous research. " These numbers went up when scientists were asked about the activities of other colleagues, suggesting that 14% of researchers had seen their collegues fabricate, falsify, alter, or modify data. If asked in more general terms, 46% of the scientists reported that other collegues ran experiments with deficient methods, or failed to report deficiencies or misrepresented data. Apparently, only half of those scientists who new about such behavior actually went ahead and tried to do anything about this misconduct.

This type of low level fraud is worrying since it can misdirect researchers to follow paths in their work that can lead to nowhere. At the same time it can discourgage research into areas that are important. The most visible cases in recent years were the Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk who falsely claimed that he had developed a method for making human embryonic stems cells by cloning, and the physicist Jan Schön who fabricated results in the fields of semiconductors and super conductors. These examples however were so high profile that it was only a matter time until the fraudulent nature of these claims were discovered. Low level fraud appears to be much more common and seems to reflect the pressures and competiton of the modern scientific enterprise "publish or persish."

Apparently some successful and famous scientists also committed low level fraud such as Robert Millikan the scientist who first measured the charge of the electron. He was reported to have discarded results that didn't match his expectations but still managed to win the Nobel prize because he was right in his gut feeling about the data. Another example is Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, whose results it has been claimed are far too accurate compared with what would be expected when applying the methods of modern statistics.
So it seems that scientists, being human, are more willing to see fault in others than in their own ethical behavior. This in my opinion shows the importance of ethical oversight at universities research centers, and industry and the need for open channels to address fraud in science in a discretionary but effective manner.

Scientists and religion

Views of some prominent scientists on God and religion

From Broca’s Brain by Carl Sagan, 1979, Ballantine Books, New York pages 329-41

Sagan believes that religion should be subject to skepticism just like theories of UFOs or other superstitions. He believes that any belief system should be able to withstand critical scrutiny, testing and skepticism. Religion he believes should not be immune from this and any belief system that cannot withstand such scrutiny should be discarded. He recognized that doctrinal religions might feel threatened by the pursuit of knowledge (e.g. Moslems feeling threatened after the first moon landings since the moon has a very special place in their religion). People inherit their religion and do not necessarily think too deeply or critically about their religion. Searching questions can make them feel uncomfortable.

Sagan quotes Christainus Huygens who, in a book written in 1670, speculated about other planets in the solar system. Huygens warned his contemporaries, who found such speculation objectionable, that they presume too much responsibility in presuming to know the limits God has set for man’s search for knowledge and how men should choose to pursue this search. Such people should not presume to know what God has chosen to be revealed to man and what is not to be revealed. Had man limited his pursuit of knowledge, said Huygens, we might never have found out about the nature of the Earth and of the existence of the continent of America.

Sagan mentions that our universe is not benignly quiet and that cataclysmic phenomena occur almost constantly. He describes that, for instance, an explosion of a quasar in the universe could likely destroy millions of worlds including countless life forms (maybe some even intelligent). The very scale of the universe ( e.g. more than a hundred billion galaxies, each containing a hundred billion stars) shows us how inconsequential human events on our planet can be seem in the cosmic context. What kind of God does such a universe require (Western or eastern?) Is a God even required? Sagan believes that the pursuit of knowledge is consistent for both science and religion. If there is a God then we are using our God given gifts to pursue knowledge. If there is no God, then our gifts of curiosity and intelligence are our tools to manage our (man’s) survival.

Sagan describes Einstein's belief in "Spinoza's" God who reveals himself in the harmony of all being, not in the God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men.

From Human Instinct by Robert Winston, 2003, Bantam Books, London, pages 372-392

Winston mentions that our ethical attitudes can only be as good as our understanding of the world around us (e.g the observation in 1694 by Hartsoeker of a homunculus in human sperm leading a rabbi (Rabbi Elijah ben Meir) to write in 1790 to say that destruction of the sperm was equivalent to murder). He draws a parallel between the outdated and cruel and morally outdated Code of Hammurabi and religious or ethical views that are based on false premises, faulty observation or flawed data; both being valueless and misleading. He mentions however that misguided scientists are no better (e.g. eugenics).

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins wrote in the Guardian after the Sep 11 2001 attack and destruction of the World Trade Center in N.Y. and the Penatagon in Washington D.C. that the cause of the attacks was religion of the “Abrahamic kind.” Winston takes issue with this by answering that all of the moral and ethical values we all hold dearly today are based on these religions and that there were other causes, not purely religious, for the attacks (as are Hamas terrorists attacking Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv being more a political then religious attacks).

Richard Dawkins is is very outspoken against both organized and disorganized religion. In a Devil’s Chaplain (under the chapter “Infected Minds.”). Dawkins, as a scientist, is against strongly accepting any belief without proof.. Religious beliefs are not tested with the same rigor as are scientific theories.

Summaries of books I have read

Whose view of life? By Jane Maienschein Harvard University Press Cambridge, Mass London, England 2003

Main points of the book

1) Setting the boundaries for the beginning of life has strong implications for the regulation of human embryo research

How to decide at what point to count an embryo as being alive?

Absolutists define this as being at the point of conception (sperm fertilization of the egg. Any disruption of the development process is immoral. They favour prohibiting all human embryonic cell research and making this kind of research illegal.

· Alternative supporters believe that from conception life goes through different stages some of which may be considered life and deserving of protection and other stages that are too early to be considered as life. These stages include:

Ø the blastocyst stage (4 to 5 days after conception)

Ø implantation of the embryo in the uterus in the uterus

Ø at the gastrula stage (14 to 15 days after conception) with formation of the “primitive streak” (the primitive streak has been show to react to external stimulation)

Ø According to the Jewish religion “ensoulment” of the embryo begins 40 days after conception

2) Reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning, human embryonic stem cell research call into question how life is to be defined and defended

· The concept that life arises gradually in stages is the basis for the legalization of abortion

· Fertility clinics allow the mixing of sperm and egg in a Petri dish, allowing the fertilized egg to divide, followed by implantation in the mother. Eggs must be collected from mothers to do this. Eggs can be stored by freezing after fertilization and at freezing, they may also be destroyed.

Is the potential to manipulate embryos a distortion of human life itself?

Should society fear the consequences that can arise in the future as a result of false decisions? Can our political and social processes lead us to the right moral judgements decisions or should this technology be banned across the board?

Preformationists: “there is a moment when life begins and from that point the individual is already formed and begins to grow”

Epigenetic: life is a “gradual and emergent process with form and new life arising gradually and progressively over time.”

Epigeniticists believe that a life and living processes occur through the course of development and there is no decisive moment for the beginning of life but rather an ongoing process, and indeed that is why there is a prolonged course of gestation and development.

Usefulness of the historical analysis of the debate:

· One can see that competing points of view are long standing concerning this issue and that they draw on similar arguments. One can possibly diffuse the arguments of current claims of moral truth by showing the arguer that the current debate has had a long history

· Perhaps something can be learned from past responses to hard questions. We can also see how the past controversies have shaped and constrained our current state of belief and the current debate. The epigenetic versus preformationist debate still goes on today e.g. church institutions versus pro-choice advocates.

The historical perspective can help to give guidance on how to resolve the current controversies around cloning, and embryonic stem cell research by enabling us to come to the realization that rapid advances in science have always led to predictions of impending doom that never took place. Because of these we must realize that we are not on the brink of some type of danger that we have never encountered before.

· Respect for the rights and interests of the parties involved

· Balance duties and obligations to all

· Avoid doing harm

· Protect minorities

· Seek justice consistent with democratic principles

These decisions must be informed by the best available science knowledge. But science alone cannot define at what stage in the sequence of development is the point at which society wants to call a life.

4) Core of controversy

Are all stages of human embryonic development equivalent to the beginnings of life? Bioethicist theologians consider early stage embryos as being potential persons as meriting the same moral consideration as fully formed fetuses. They are considered to be potential persons. These arguments need to be demonstrated.

Such arguments fail to take into account the vast amount of evidence showing significant biological differences between potential and actual life. Bioethicists choose to discount these differences as not decisive in their argumentation. This discounting of the differences during embryonic development, however should be based on fact and not on misinformation or ignorance of biological phenomena and pretending not to discount these differences during development and maintaining that all stages of development are equivalent.

How science works:

· Accumulating knowledge

· Revising interpretations in light of new evidence

· Moving through a consensus of the scientific community about what is established and what is hypothetical and in need of further testing

5) Questions

• Who decides what counts as good science?
• What is the role of science in society?
• Who decides what is true and good for society?
• What are the responsibilities of scientists?

6) Biopolicy decision policy should be based on:

· Promotion better public understanding of science

· Scientists, bioethicists, and theologians must learn humility and tolerance for each others points of view. Biopolicy must be based on the best available scientific the best moral thinking (this is important because there have been many views of life and many definitions of life throughout history and ethical thinking has changed with new knowledge)

· Learning from history that even though new scientific innovations seem to threaten or even destroy life as we know it, society has learned to manage the risks and later found the it was good to have the new technology.

·

References

Scientific literacy

1. Mainshein et al.. Scientific literacy. Science 1998;281:917
2. Mainshein et al.. Commentary: To the future; Arguments. Science Communication 1998;21:75-87
3. Zoloth L. The Ethics of the Eighth Day: Jewish Bioethics and Research on Human Embryonic stem Cells in The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001. Holland, Lebacqz, and Zoloth eds.):95-111
4. McGee G and Caplan A. What’s in the Dish? Hastings Center Report 1999;29:36-8
   
5. Caplan A. Attack of the Ant-Cloners [Comment]. Nation June 17, 2002
6. Caplan A. Half a loaf is not good enough. Scientist Sept 17, 2001:6