The Roots, Shoots and Fruits of Science
FEST log
Entry #002
March 14, 2024
Historical roots of science
In the previous entry I've briefly touched upon the core aspects of science: theory, experiment, working hypotheses, and peer review. These four have been in place since the beginning of modern science, roughly around 1600. Let us now have a quick look at the origins of science, stretching back millennia.
Let me emphasize the "quick" in this quick look: For now I will focus on only some of the ancient influences that are recognizable in the state of knowledge around 1600 in Europe. For example, I will not mention the significant contributions from Arabic sources, but instead go further back by one to three millennia, to the Greeks and Babylonians.
Nor will I try to outline contributions that may have been made by Indian or Chinese knowledge, transported through the Silk Road or other means. And finally, Maya astronomy with its remarkably detailed observations, in some aspects more accurate than the state of the art in Europe at the time of Columbus, unfortunately never had a chance to contribute to European science.
From astrology to astronomy
Science didn't start in a vacuum. When Galileo discovered the largest four moons of Jupiter in 1610, he interpreted his observations using the Copernican model for planetary motions. This model was worked out by Copernicus a century earlier, around 1510. Copernicus in turn had based his model on that of Ptolemy, with the main difference being that Copernicus placed the Sun in the middle, rather than the Earth.
Ptolemy worked out his model of planetary motion in the second century AD, based on the principles put forward by Aristotle, five centuries earlier. Greek astronomy in turn started a few centuries before Aristotle, and was based upon more than a thousand years of observations of the Babylonians. In other words, modern astronomy was based on the uninterrupted efforts of several dozens of generations of astrologers building up a reliable database over many centuries.
From alchemy to chemistry
Just as the roots of astrophysics can be found in the databases that had been developed in astrology, similarly modern chemistry did not have to start from scratch. Alchemists must have produced their own databases of chemical reactions, for many centuries.
We can imagine a chemist wading through alchemical recipes that involve mixing various ingredients, at the time of the full Moon while chanting incantations, and involving perhaps the tail of a dog. The chemist may mutter: "hold your chants, timing the Moon, and probably the dog's tail, but please tell me more precisely what you were mixing!"
A rapid succession of shoots and fruits of science
Aristotelian physics had been the dominant theory of physics for an amazingly long time, a bit less than two millennia, until it was finally dethroned in the 17th century and replaced by Newtonian mechanics. Newton's laws of motion and of gravity were the first fruits of modern mechanics, and as such of modern science.
It took less than a century for Aristotle's physics to be overturned. It started with the very simple experiments that Galileo performed, dropping objects from a tower, and rolling objects from inclined planes, timing them with his heart beat. And in 1687 Newton's Principia appeared, explaining the dynamics of the solar system.
Galileo's modest shoots matured to bear fruit in only three human generations, during less than a century. What is more, it would reign supreme for eight generations, or well over two centuries. During that long period, it remained the most accurate theory physicists had for the study of motion in general, and motion of heavenly bodies under the influence of gravity in particular. It was only when Einstein formulated his special theory of relativity, in 1905, that it became clear that Newton's theory needed to be refined.
Lessons from starting up a science of matter
Since the goal of this log is to set up a science of mind, it is a good idea to start from the lessons learned from the science of matter. The recipe seems to have two parts: 1) find an extensive database of prescientific observations and experiments, and 2) add some simple and very general new experiments.
The time and effort that went into the building up of a Babylonian database was enormous compared to what Galileo contributed with his dropping and rolling of balls. Yet Galileo's shoots brought new life to the ancient roots of astronomy, reaching down three and a half millennia in history.
The big difference was that the Babylonians studied specific properties of the motions of specific lights in the sky, whereas Galileo was after general rules of motion, valid universally. The objects of study of the Babylonians were the motions of specific planets, standing in for specific Babylonian gods, each with specific characteristics. In contrast, simple as Galileo's experiments were, they formed a basis for subsequent experiments and theories, culminating relatively quickly in Newton's laws of classical mechanics and universal gravity.
Hints for starting up a science of mind
It is not difficult to generalize from a science of matter to a science of mind. There are quite a number of contemplative traditions with rich written treasure troves of descriptions of techniques and results of what can be achieved when studying mind using one's own mind. They can be based on forms of meditation or prayer, or a combination of both.
Examples of contemplative traditions can be found in different places and times. In Europe, there are the saints in early Christianity, mystics in Medieval times, and in modern times Quakers may come closest. In Asia, there is a rich spectrum including Taoist sages, Zen masters, yogis and Sufis, to just name a few. Plenty of sources to draw upon!
A well defined task
Following the 17th century recipe for starting up a science of matter, we have already secured a very rich database of prescientific observations and experiments, step 1) of the recipe. All that is left now is step 2), to add some simple and very general new experiments.
In the next entry we will propose a specific experiment which, simple as it might seem, will go to the heart of the structure of experience. In order for experience to happen, we need three items: an experiencer (1), who can experience (2), something that is experienced (3). Just about any type of experience seems like a molecule, since it is built out of three atomic parts.
Or is it? These three always seem to be given together, like a stick (2), with a left end (1) and a right end (3). Now that is a very different image than having a molecule with three atoms, where you can take off one of its atoms. In chemistry, once you do that, you wind up with what is called a free radical, a highly reactive leftover part of a molecule that misses one of its atoms.
With a stick, however, cutting off one end does not produce a leftover stick-with-only-one-end. Whenever you cut off part of a stick, you produce two new sticks, each again with two ends. So what is it? Is experience like a molecule, or like a stick, or like yet something else?
Given that we are trying to set up a science of mind, including a science of experience, there is only one answer: we'll have to design the right kinds of experiments, carry them out, analyze their outcomes, and design theories that fit these outcomes well.
We have our work cut out for us. Stay tuned for the next log entry!
– Piet Hut