Double Standards in History of Science?

[sayak83]

I am quite well aware (as a scientist) of the opposition to various fields of science from many fundamentalist religious groups (things like global warming, evolution etc.) . In this regard, I have read countless popular accounts of science that starts with the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic church. While tensions between science and religion in European history is undoubtedly true, it does seem that the account is biased against religion due to selective memory. Scientists had been, and continue to be persecuted whenever their finding go against the ideology prevalent in the society, no matter if its secular, religious or atheistic. For example, Lavoisier, the father of chemistry was executed by the French revolutionaries who created their state in the name of Enlightenment and Reason and the academy of science in France was banned as an organization.
Antoine Lavoisier - Wikipedia
Now, I as a chemist, know the contributions and the life of Lavoisier, who founded the field of modern chemistry with his seminal text, the elements of chemistry, yet his death and the persecution of scientists in the hands of an anti-religious atheistic regime, a dark product of the European enlightenment, has been largely forgotten in the popular discourse of science vs religion. Can it truly be said that religious worldview based political systems have been more hostile to science than non-religious worldview based political systems? If not, why do popular science books single out the cases where religious views persecuted science and forget the cases when secular and atheistic worldviews did the same (and often worse)?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For starter's I'd say that there is no atheistic worldview just as there is no theistic worldview. Atheism and theism, which are nothing more than a no and yes answer respectively to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods," are categories into which worldviews can fall.

Mine is called secular humanism, and it has never been the enemy of science.

This is the first item in the Affirmations of Humanism:

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

Christianity, on the other hand, has been an enemy of science from the beginning. Think of Copernicus and his unwillingness to publish until on his death bed, the house arrest of Galileo, and burning Bruno at the stake. Think Scopes trials. Who is it attacking science on these threads, unbelievers or creationists?

Lavoisier's execution was not based on his science, and it didn't represent institutionalized anti-scientism. From Wiki:

"Lavoisier was convicted with summary justice of having plundered the people and the treasury of France, of having adulterated the nation's tobacco with water, and of having supplied the enemies of France with huge sums of money from the national treasury."

 

[sayak83]

For starter's I'd say that there is no atheistic worldview just as there is no theistic worldview. Atheism and theism, which are nothing more than a no and yes answer respectively to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods," are categories into which worldviews can fall.

Mine is called secular humanism, and it has never been the enemy of science.

This is the first item in the Affirmations of Humanism:

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

Christianity, on the other hand, has been an enemy of science from the beginning. Think of Copernicus and his unwillingness to publish until on his death bed, the house arrest of Galileo, and burning Bruno at the stake. Think Scopes trials. Who is it attacking science on these threads, unbelievers or creationists?

Lavoisier's execution was not based on his science, and it didn't represent institutionalized anti-scientism. From Wiki:

"Lavoisier was convicted with summary justice of having plundered the people and the treasury of France, of having adulterated the nation's tobacco with water, and of having supplied the enemies of France with huge sums of money from the national treasury."

And all the charges were false, as noted in the Wikipedia itself, Lavoisier and the entire academy of sciences were persecuted as they were considered enemies of the newly established populist atheist state as they funded their research work using the governmental revenue systems present in the previous monarchic regime.
It is also the case that Galileo was persecuted only after he wrote a book in an argument form where the fool "simplicio" was a thin caricature of the pope himself. The situation in that case was also quite political.

But I am making the different point. The question is not whether many popular version of secular ideologies today (like secular humanism) are very hospitable to the sciences (they are ...though this is only true to some extent..the fascination to new age-ism, "natural" remedies, anti-gmo etc. come from the liberal worldviews) . The point I am making is historically science has faced opposition with equal fervor whenever its ways, findings or practices have gone against the establishment (whether the Catholic church or the French Revolutionaries or the Soviet State or the US government when it branded many scientists as communist sympathizers). It is certainly incorrect to only highlight the Galileo incident and to ignore other often more serious cases of persecution that came from other places and ideologies.

 

[HonestJoe]

If not, why do popular science books single out the cases where religious views persecuted science and forget the cases when secular and atheistic worldviews did the same (and often worse)?

Which "popular science books" are you referring to here? It's certainly true that there can be historical revisionism for political reasons and exaggerating Christian and other religious opposition to scientific progress can be an example of that but I'm not sure that's as widespread or targeted as you make out nor do I think "science" is responsible for it.

I'd also suggest that you're being a little revisionist and simplistic in your assessment of the French Revolution, which is kind of what you're objecting to, just in the opposite direction.

 

[sayak83]

Which "popular science books" are you referring to here? It's certainly true that there can be historical revisionism for political reasons and exaggerating Christian and other religious opposition to scientific progress can be an example of that but I'm not sure that's as widespread or targeted as you make out nor do I think "science" is responsible for it.

I'd also suggest that you're being a little revisionist and simplistic in your assessment of the French Revolution, which is kind of what you're objecting to, just in the opposite direction.

Cosmos documentary, books by Carl Sagan, Dawkins, Weinberg, Hawking, Krauss etc. The trial is widely known and widely mentioned. Yet the struggles of science to be an independent entity was waged against many interests (and continues to this day), to portray it as only a science vs religious conflict is very one-dimensional and quite untrue.

 

[HonestJoe]

Cosmos documentary, books by Carl Sagan, Dawkins, Weinberg, Hawking, Krauss etc. The trial is widely known and widely mentioned. Yet the struggles of science to be an independent entity was waged against many interests (and continues to this day), to portray it as only a science vs religious conflict is very one-dimensional and quite untrue.

My question was specifically to your reference to "science books", as opposed to history books for example. I'm not saying that Galileo and the Catholic Church don't get undue attention in relation to the wider issue socio-political attacks on science, I'm just suggesting that you're equally guilty in overselling the extent and nature of the imbalance.

 

[sayak83]

My question was specifically to your reference to "science books", as opposed to history books for example. I'm not saying that Galileo and the Catholic Church don't get undue attention in relation to the wider issue socio-political attacks on science, I'm just suggesting that you're equally guilty in overselling the extent and nature of the imbalance.

I said popular accounts of science. These people I mention write the most widely known popular science books, and none of them write history books. What are you saying?

By the way...did you know before this thread that Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry and the discoverer of the law of mass conservation, was executed by the French Revolutionary state?

 

[HonestJoe]

I said popular accounts of science. These people I mention write the most widely known popular science books, and none of them write history books. What are you saying?

I'm asking you to clarify who you're accusing and what you're actually accusing them of. You don't seem able to name any of the actual books or quote the elements you object to.

By the way...did you know before this thread that Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry and the discoverer of the law of mass conservation, was executed by the French Revolutionary state?

I'd never heard of him at all to be honest but then my field is computing, not chemistry (or French history).

 

[sayak83]

I'm asking you to clarify who you're accusing and what you're actually accusing them of. You don't seem able to name any of the actual books or quote the elements you object to.

Here is one that I got from the most recent Krauss book:- "The Greatest story ever told so far",

Chapter 4 first page,
The Greatest Story Ever Told--So Far

I'd never heard of him at all to be honest but then my field is computing, not chemistry (or French history).

But you have heard of Galileo and his persecution by the Catholic church, correct? Let's define selective memory as one where of two equally significant incidents, only one is remembered and another is not. Consider the significant incident to be the persecution of early scientists. Both Galileo and Lavoisier were equally great scientists. How many people do you think will recall Galileo rather than Lavoisier when thinking about famous persecuted scientists of the enlightenment?

 

[Augustus]

Cosmos documentary,

You're right on that one. The history parts in that are consistently dreadful, so if it is not biased, then it is amazingly badly researched. Given its budget I'm inclined to think it's more likely to reflect bias.

Let's define selective memory as one where of two equally significant incidents, only one is remembered and another is not.

It generally relates to this myth that everything good about modernity came from Enlightenment Rationalism and 'Enlightenment Values' were basically Secular Humanism. 'Science and Reason' make everyone open minded and tolerant (and when they don't then some 'No True Scotsman' type excuse applies).

This reflects the same degree of historical understanding demonstrated in Cosmos though. It's pretty much the equivalent of hagiography or religious apologetics.

 

[HonestJoe]

Here is one that I got from the most recent Krauss book:- "The Greatest story ever told so far",

So based on the overview, that's a book about the the history of an area of scientific discovery where Galileo's work (and the blockers to it) would be relevant.

But you have heard of Galileo and his persecution by the Catholic church, correct?

I never denied that there was more general cultural knowledge of Galileo than Lavoisier, I'm questioning your specific targeting of the "guilty parties" in that. There are all sorts of quirks of history like that.

There remains the relevant point that Galileo was very specifically targeted by the Catholic Church because of his science and (perceived) conclusions and his refusal to concede to the authority of the Church. Based on the Wikipedia article, it seems Lavoisier's execution was much more political and didn't have much to do with either his science or atheism.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I was aware of Lavoisier's execution during the reign of terror. Given the circumstances, I don't think this was a threat against science itself as much as it was a program to eliminate anyone who benefited from the royal, pre-revolutionary government under Louis XVI. This was a true reign of terror, with people denouncing anyone with only a shred of evidence being enough to execute someone. Anyone who *at any time* held that Louis didn't need to be beheaded was in serious danger. Don't forget that Robespierre (the leader of the reign of terror) himself lost his head.

So, yes, a great scientist lost his head, but as far as I can see, it wasn't *because* of his scientific views, but because of his links to the nobility.

The case of Galileo has often been exaggerated, though. By all accounts, Galileo was not an easy person to get along with. And the character of Simplicio was certainly not one to ingratiate oneself to the powers that be. Given that some of the early defenders of the heliocentric viewpoint were Catholic bishops (although under the previous pope), it is harder to say that it was *just* Galileo's science that was the basis of his problems.

But I do take your basic point as valid. It is *way* too easy to read the Galileo case in a light that tends to ignore the travails of scientists under other governments. Also, it is important to realize that scientists are human also, often with political viewpoints that clash with the governments they work under (or for). Soviet biology under Lysenko is another fine case where science was expected to validate the dogma of the day.

 

[SomeRandom]

To be fair, everyone and their dog knows about Galileo because he was part of Italian history. In the west, History at the younger levels tends to be super focused on the Romans and Greeks. With splashes of English, maybe Egyptian and one's own native country's history. Hell even art tends to focus on Roman and Greek.
French history doesn't seem to be taught widely with the exception of the "French Revolution." Maybe European countries might put more emphasis on French History I dunno.
But in the West at least usually one has to specialize in History and/or Chemistry in higher academia to learn about such things.

 

[Sapiens]

I am quite well aware (as a scientist) of the opposition to various fields of science from many fundamentalist religious groups (things like global warming, evolution etc.) . In this regard, I have read countless popular accounts of science that starts with the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic church. While tensions between science and religion in European history is undoubtedly true, it does seem that the account is biased against religion due to selective memory. Scientists had been, and continue to be persecuted whenever their finding go against the ideology prevalent in the society, no matter if its secular, religious or atheistic. For example, Lavoisier, the father of chemistry was executed by the French revolutionaries who created their state in the name of Enlightenment and Reason and the academy of science in France was banned as an organization.
Antoine Lavoisier - Wikipedia
Now, I as a chemist, know the contributions and the life of Lavoisier, who founded the field of modern chemistry with his seminal text, the elements of chemistry, yet his death and the persecution of scientists in the hands of an anti-religious atheistic regime, a dark product of the European enlightenment, has been largely forgotten in the popular discourse of science vs religion. Can it truly be said that religious worldview based political systems have been more hostile to science than non-religious worldview based political systems? If not, why do popular science books single out the cases where religious views persecuted science and forget the cases when secular and atheistic worldviews did the same (and often worse)?

I am quite well aware (as a scientist) of the opposition to various fields of science from many fundamentalist religious groups (things like global warming, evolution etc.) . In this regard, I have read countless popular accounts of science that starts with the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic church. While tensions between science and religion in European history is undoubtedly true, it does seem that the account is biased against religion due to selective memory. Scientists had been, and continue to be persecuted whenever their finding go against the ideology prevalent in the society, no matter if its secular, religious or atheistic. For example, Lavoisier, the father of chemistry was executed by the French revolutionaries who created their state in the name of Enlightenment and Reason and the academy of science in France was banned as an organization.
Antoine Lavoisier - Wikipedia
Now, I as a chemist, know the contributions and the life of Lavoisier, who founded the field of modern chemistry with his seminal text, the elements of chemistry, yet his death and the persecution of scientists in the hands of an anti-religious atheistic regime, a dark product of the European enlightenment, has been largely forgotten in the popular discourse of science vs religion. Can it truly be said that religious worldview based political systems have been more hostile to science than non-religious worldview based political systems? If not, why do popular science books single out the cases where religious views persecuted science and forget the cases when secular and atheistic worldviews did the same (and often worse)?

Levoisier was executed neither for either his religious nor for his scientific views, he was executed because his political views and activities. I fail to grasp your point here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

. The point I am making is historically science has faced opposition with equal fervor whenever its ways, findings or practices have gone against the establishment (whether the Catholic church or the French Revolutionaries or the Soviet State or the US government when it branded many scientists as communist sympathizers). It is certainly incorrect to only highlight the Galileo incident and to ignore other often more serious cases of persecution that came from other places and ideologies.

That may be.

I'm a secular humanist. Do you find fault with our ideology or history?

 

[sayak83]

That may be.

I'm a secular humanist. Do you find fault with our ideology or history?

No.

 

[Alison Wonderland]

If there's a valid challenge to the scientific method, I'd love to hear it.

Otherwise, this thread is just drivel.

 

[Native]

Christianity, on the other hand, has been an enemy of science from the beginning.

I rather would say Christianity became "enemy of science" when they discarded the mytho-cosmological way of interpreting the Creation Story where several deities resembled "the works of creation". In this way the original and real cosmological/scientifical knowledge of the creation became dogmatic and the cosmological insights were lost and abandoned.

 

[Polymath257]

Christianity, on the other hand, has been an enemy of science from the beginning. Think of Copernicus and his unwillingness to publish until on his death bed, the house arrest of Galileo, and burning Bruno at the stake. Think Scopes trials. Who is it attacking science on these threads, unbelievers or creationists?

This is going a bit too far. Yes, by the 16th and 17th centuries, Christianity had started turning against science. This is especially true for Catholicism at that time (Protestants were more bothered by Darwin than Galileo or Newton, which was much later).

But that is a far cry from saying that Christianity was *always* against science. In fact, the driver of the translation movement from Arabic to Latin starting in the 11th century was the church. One of the monks who became pope was involved in these translations and wrote treatises on the astrolabe (one of the more useful scientific instruments at the time). The attempts to reconcile the 'new' teachings from Aristotle lead to a considerable amount of thinking about things like inertia, movement, the concept of uniform velocity, the concept of uniform acceleration, etc. ALL of this was done under the auspices of the church or the church-run universities.

The problem for Copernicus and Galileo was, in part, the protestant revolution, which shook Christianity to its core and produced widespread ideological war. While the Catholic church was in the forefront of new ideas in the 12th to 14th centuries, it was fighting a rear-guard action by the 17th.

Now, if you go back further to the 5th and 6th centuries, the Christian church was at the heart of closing the schools of philosophy and suppressing the best 'scientific' minds of the time.

In contrast, Islam was, at first, quite willing to learn the 'new' sciences from the classical world, expanding their investigations in many directions. Al-Haytham is often considered one of the first true scientists. But by the 11th century, the religious authorities cracked down on such 'anti-Islamic' thinking. Fortunately, the Catholic church was around to translate into Latin.

One key idea in medieval Christianity that was quite different than in medieval Islam was the idea that there *could be* or *are* natural laws that can be understood by humans. While this seems trivial today, it was a huge difference between the cultures in the 11th century.

 

[Augustus]

In contrast, Islam was, at first, quite willing to learn the 'new' sciences from the classical world, expanding their investigations in many directions. Al-Haytham is often considered one of the first true scientists. But by the 11th century, the religious authorities cracked down on such 'anti-Islamic' thinking.

This is a bit of an overstatement. Ghazahli's 'Incoherence of the philosophers' is often given a lot of credit for reversing the Islamic attitude to science (in Cosmos, Neil Tyson practically blames Ghazali for single handedly precipitating the ending of the Golden Age), but it actually led to an increase in philosophical output.

The gradual scientific decline that happened is far more likely to relate to the gradual economic decline of the Islamic Empire and the growing instability caused by the fracturing of the Caliphate that occurred in the 10th C.

The problem for Copernicus and Galileo was, in part, the protestant revolution, which shook Christianity to its core and produced widespread ideological war.

Now, if you go back further to the 5th and 6th centuries, the Christian church was at the heart of closing the schools of philosophy and suppressing the best 'scientific' minds of the time.

We see these repressive attitudes frequently at times of threat and instability when there is a strong drive for ideological conformity.

Whether this is post-reformation, 5th C Christianity with disputes over monophysitism/Arianism/etc. combined with the decline of the Western Roman Empire, and plague and Wars with Persia affecting the Eastern part. Also in the Islamic Empire(s) in the period that included in the Mongol invasions.

This seems to be a pretty common future of human group dynamics.