"Eppur si muove !" Galileo's heroic outcry was legitimized recently by the
Vatican (1). After twelve years of inquiry the Vatican concluded that both sides
in the dispute acted in good faith. At that time, Galileo's arguments were still
inconclusive and the Inquisition remained therefore unconvinced. It is true
that the compelling evidence for the Heliocentric theory was obtained nearly
a century later (2), still, doubts about the sincerity of Inquisition remain.
Vatican's declaration is regarded by the scientific community as a victory in
a prolonged and on going dispute on profound issues, and attention is now turned
to the next, Darwin versus Creationism. However, "Eppur si muove" unveils also
a hidden and unpleasant aspect of modern science, far less heroic, and relevant
to medicine.
"The sun rises and the sun goes down. . ." (Ecclesiastes)
Modern science has accepted the Copernican hypothesis as dogma, regarding
it as absolute truth. And yet, the Heliocentric theory contradicts our daily
experience of a rising and setting sun. Does this new view of the universe justify
the abandoning of ancient wisdom, e.g., that of Ecclesiastes (Chapter 1,5) ?
We are told that by simplifying the representation of the universe the Heliocentric
hypothesis improved the predictability of eclipses. Ptolemy's representation,
based on the Geocentric doctrine, was extremely complex. Heavenly bodies moved
in epicycles and the estimation of their trajectories was difficult. On the
other hand in the Heliocentric universe conceived by Kepler, planets moved along
simple ellipses. The universe became simpler and even more esthetic. Still,
does this justify the rejection of daily experience? Why not leave Kepler's
equations to Caesar and keep Ptolemy's for our daily life? Isn't Ecclesiastes'
view of the universe as worthy and esthetic as Kepler's? Such a heretic view
is met by modern science with contempt. Ptolemy's proponents are regarded as
quacks, charlatans or alchemists, since "Ptolemy was wrong and Galileo is right
!". This is the hidden aspect of Galileo's struggle. It is a struggle on absolute
truth. Now, since even the Vatican backs Galileo's "eppur si muove", Ptolemy
is wrong by decree of Heaven.
Absolute truth
According to the Vatican, the Inquisition did not
object so much to the Copernican theory, but to Galilelo's belief in its absolute
truth. "Had Galileo not championed the absolute triumph of the Copernican hypothesis,
he would not have been persecuted" (2). In view of the "benevolent" history
of the Inquisition such an understatement sounds like a farce. Yet it illuminates
the hidden aspect of the feud between Science and Church. The monopoly of absolute
truth.
Prior to the era of modern science absolute truth was part of religious
belief, revealed to mortals by prophets and demi-gods. To the first Greek philosophers,
e.g., Thales, Anaximander and Heraclitus (3), truth was relative. Later on Plato
laid the foundation of an absolute reality that is concealed from us. His philosophy
was adopted by the exact sciences claiming that knowledge of absolute truth
is achievable scientifically. This view places scientists like Galileo shoulder
to shoulder with prophets and other messengers from Heaven. An unacceptable
situation that the Church tries to correct with the aid of its Inquisition.
Big Bang
Einstein posed even a greater threat to the Church than Galileo. Galileo dethroned only the Earth, while Einstein dethroned Heaven and its inhabitants. Fortunately the Church was saved by Einstein's disciple, S. Hawking, the high priest of the "Big Bang" theory (4). Hawking's mathematical equations describe concisely the history of the universe from its very beginning, leaving the actual creation to God. While Science and Church embrace Hawking with love, his theory actually refutes the existence of absolute truth. It demonstrates that both, Copernicus and Kepler, were wrong.
According to Kepler, since planets move in ellipses,
each year the earth will advance along the same route. Yet if the universe continuously
expands, as maintained by Hawking, we all expand in it and earth trajectory
is not an ellipse but an ever expanding spiral far more complicated than Ptolemy's
epicycles. In Hawking's universe neither does the sun go around the earth, nor
is the opposite true. Why not then embrace Ecclesiastes?
The censored Albert Einstein
This seemingly unexpected conclusion was obvious to Albert Einstein.
His theory may be difficult to understand, yet its name reveals its philosophical
background. Einstein's relativity applies to our measurements and how we conceive
the universe. Since everything is relative, so is truth. According to Einstein
"the two sentences 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves' or the sun moves
and the earth is at rest' . . .can be used with equal justification." (2,5).
Einstein's relativity of truth is ignored by the scientific community or better,
it is censored in its collective consciousness.
The three theories, Ptolemy's, Copernicus', and Einsteins', are equivalent,
neither replaces the other, and they are used when convenient. Kepler's laws
are used for predicting eclipses, galaxies continue expanding according to Hawking's
equations, and the geocentric universe still dominates our daily life since
it appeals most to our common sense. The same common sense that served medicine
from the dawn of mankind and was banned by the exact sciences.
Ludwik Fleck
Fleck was interested in the philosophical theory of reality. As physician
he realized that the Platonic approach of the exact sciences is not applicable
to medical reasoning and felt that neither does it applies to exact sciences
themselves. "Truths" evolve and emerge (6,7). Truth in science depends on a
particular thinking style by a group of scientists, or thought-collective. A
thought-collective is "a community of persons exchanging ideas or maintaining
intellectual interaction". The individuals of a thought-collective share the
same thought-style. Truth and falsehood in science are meaningful only within
a specific thought-collective and with respect to a given thought-style and
depend on the purpose of investigation. Different views can be equally true
(8).
Fleck maintained that even if in the thought-collective
of the exact sciences truth is regarded as absolute, it is actually relative
to the truths of other thought-styles. The "eppur si muove" story supports Fleck's
assertion that even in the exact sciences truth is relative and continuously
evolves . Science and religion belong to two thought collectives of persons
exchanging ideas. In spite of their different names both may be regarded as
sciences. Nothing in the scientific thought-style makes it more "scientific"
than that of the Church. Yet if relativity of truth is taken as scientific hallmark,
the two thought-styles differ. Why not then leave absolute truth to the Church?
The Bible as scientific document
The three western religions regard the Bible as ultimate truth and have
difficulty to deal with modern scientific discoveries that are either not mentioned
in the Bible or contradict it. Like dinosaurs whose remnants are obvious even
to believers? Or, how to reconcile between the Genesis story and Darwinism?
According to the Israeli philosopher and scientist J. Leibowitz the Bible is
not a scientific document. Its sole role is to guide Jews how to serve God.
On the other hand, many stories in the Bible were proven scientifically, and
archeologists search the Bible for clues where to dig and how to interpret their
findings, regarding it as a valuable scientific document.
From the viewpoint of the scientific thought-style, the Bible is a scientific
document, and its statements, scientific hypotheses. One of them is Creationism.
Despite its "Ptolemic aura", it is a valid scientific hypothesis. Yet when creationists
maintain that theirs is the only correct theory they actually join the non-scientific
thought collective. As long as this aspect of Creationism is explained to the
students there is actually no harm in teaching Creationism in schools.
Truth in medicine
Medical thought-style (9,10) has a unique way for examining the correctness
of statements. Any statement that improves the patient's well being or restores
his health is medically correct. Medicine should investigate not only traditional
statements, but also the so called "unproved methods", usually labeled as quack
medicine, e.g., para-medical theories, Chinese method, or spiritual approach
.(11). Following the example of the exact sciences, modern medicine still adheres
to absolute truth, attacking dissenters, even devoted physicians and healers
(12). The medical establishment does not shy away from attacking even distinguished
opponents like P. Duesberg, a retro-virus expert who doubts that AIDS is caused
by HIV. Duesberg may not be a Galileo, yet the scientific establishment hastily
applies Inquisition tactics in order to destroy his credibility (13).
Indeed "eppur si mouve". Earth, sun , truth. Anything! (3).
References
1 Eppur si non muove, Editorial. Nature 360:2,1992.
2 Psimopoulos M, Theocharis T. Problems with Galileo. Nature 363:108,1993.
3 Zajicek G. Chaos reigns - Heraclitus is back. Cancer J.
6:108,1993.
4 Hawking SW. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books New York, 1988.
5 Einstein A, Infeld L. The Evolution of Physics.Cambridge University Press
p. 224,1938.
6 Zajicek G. Ludwick Fleck: Founder of the philosophy of
modern medicine. Cancer J. 5:304-305, 1992.
7 Cognition and fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck. Cohen R.S. and Schnelle
T. Eds. D. Reidel Publishing company, Boston USA, 1986.
8 Lowi I. The immunological construction of the self.in:
"Organism and the origins of the self". Tauber A.I. Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers
Norwell USA. p 43-71,1991.
9 Zajicek G. What is wrong with clinical trials?Cancer J. 6:102-103,1993.
10 Zajicek G. Cancer and Metaphysics. Cancer J. 5:1,1992.
11 Zajicek G, How to evaluate unproven methods in oncology? Cancer J. 5:180,1992.
12 Moss RW. The Cancer Industry. Pergamon House New York,
1989.
13 Silvester DJ. Letter to the editor, Nature, 364:96,1993.