What did the Renaissance get us? The "Scientific method." Not just wishful thinking or blind faith, but verifiable events that were carefully measured and repeatable that were then formulated as theories that could predict future events with accuracy.
Science is always "as far as we know..." so there is no absolute answer as strewn about so freely by the Dobsons of our modern world. That is a big difference and the reason that science will always trump blind faith unless blind faith is the one with the gun.
The idea for this diary started while I was reading a book I've been meaning to read for the last several years by Dr. Richard Feynman, the physicist, teacher, painter, safe cracker, Nobel Laureate, and bongo drums player.
more after the fold
The book is a transcription of a 7 lecture series that he gave at Cornell in 1964 that was filmed [and aired] by the BBC2 channel. [Perhaps presaging the current quality of the american media empires?]
In the first lecture, he goes over the history of the development of the "law" of Gravitation from the Renaissance up to Newton.
He lays out the experimental and logical steps that led from one thing to another to another that finally led to Newton's "Law."
The time-line goes like something like this:
Ancient Astronomers - discovered "wanderers" [planetes] as well as stars that moved across the sky. The wanderers were called that because they didn't stay in the same relation to the stars which remained unmoving in their pattern from night to night. They moved, but in a particular way.
Later, Copernicus rediscovered that the planets revolved around the sun. It was theorized that they followed nearly circular paths. Observation said that this was not quite right though. Other theories were also propounded.
Tycho Brahe very carefully observed and recorded the timing and location of the planets risings and settings over an extended period of time and then evaluated the various theories that were expounded and compared them with the observed realities. The data fit the theory that the planets all follow elliptical paths with the sun at one focus of the ellipse.
Important point here:
He didn't make a statement first and then cook the data to suit his theory. He took very careful measurements [and lots of them] using the most exacting instruments and methods avaiable and then used that data to test the various theories until he found one that fit the data and could predict future data points.
Johann Kepler used the observational data of Brahe to deduce the eliptical path followed by the planets and the mathematical formulae that described their motion [3 "laws" of motion]. These are the same laws that allow the space shuttle to launch and meet the space station when they are both going at exactly the same speed so they can dock and drop off the sandwiches etc.
Galileo was performing more down to earth experiments here on earth and, again, thru repeated experiment and observation, was able to deduce some of our basic laws of motion. Example- "an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force." [phrasing borrowed from Newton] These were formulated and explained later by Newton who also came up with a theory that explained why the earth and other planets didn't just keep going in straight lines instead of following the elipses that they actually had been observed to follow for so long.
There must be a force that is affecting them to keep them on their paths. The roots of the "Law of Gravity." That same law hinted that there was a planet that had not been discovered yet when it was discovered, again by careful observation and measurement, that the timing of the orbit of Uranus varied the tiniest bit from what it should be. They calculated where a mass should be located to affect it and - Neptune was discovered.
But, you know, Newton's "Law" wasn't quite right. It was very very close but there was a small discrepancy that was later cleared up by Professor Einstein and that is "as far as we know" today.
This is a very abbreviated and patchwork description of the development of the theories from the observational data. One building on another that built on yet an earlier discovery. The common thread is that the observations and data collections came first and the results after.
The book, which is very readable by the non mathematician is titled, "The Character of Physical Law." It is a real treat to follow Feynman from the very large solar and galactic size down to the elemental particles [as far as they were known in 1964]. He was a fabulous teacher too, along with the safe cracking and bongo drumming, oh and the physics - always the physics.
I compare this quality of thinking and reasoning with the current crop of scientists for hire who mouth the "party line" for the corporatocracy du jour and despair. As much as the DOJ has been tarnished and besmirched by this administration's flunkeys, the erosion of NOAA, NASA, FDA, EPA and any other governmental acronym that uses science to formulate policy has done MUCH more damage.
How many years [after it was already an epidemic in the gay world] did it take Regan to just SAY the word "AIDS" in public? Science degradation sponsored by big business influencing government didn't just suddenly start with Global Warming. there is a long history of special interest slanted research that is very profitable for the business and for the public? - not so much.
This administration has a habit of stovepiping intelligence or information after it has been filtered so it fits into an existing agenda instead of formulating their agenda from real world data and intelligence. The CIA, EPA, et al are data collectors and interpreters. You ignore their checked and verified data, their tested and verified theories at your peril. Unfortunately for us it is also OUR peril.