I’ve just had reason to recall something that I witnessed at the University of South Australia quite some time back. Given that it’s on a topic that has had much discussion, I thought someone may be interested.
I won’t name the academic or the subject that this occurred in and indeed, it didn’t even take place in one of my classes, but rather a class a friend was enrolled in. It just happened to be in the same room I was going to have a lesson in, in the next session.
The tutor, for whom I otherwise have had no reason to quarrel and indeed who on most counts I consider a good academic, was telling the class that the narrative of scientists being persecuted by religion during the 17th century was simply dogma that was repeated simply because nobody was being critical of it.
Now, said academic is vaguely Christian culturally speaking and both secular and politically progressive with strong humanist beliefs, so historical revisionism about religion and science isn’t something that you would necessarily expect. Not the usual suspect, at least as far as the culture wars have been concerned.
One thing that did stand out was their occasional misuse of science I witnessed in other circumstances. Particularly opining that neo-Darwinism argued that humans are at “the top of the food chain” and thus justified in eating animals and that vegetarians may be the next step in human evolution (with the implication of being superior in a non values-neutral way).
Aside from getting the basics of evolution wrong, biology (or science in general) doesn’t dictate or produce values. As far as values as an outcome of science is concerned, science reports on the is so that philosophy can make informed decisions about the ought.
One can fairly describe said academic’s very common treatment of Darwinian theory as an example of the humanities’ abuse of science.
Fortunately, their work isn’t really predicated on this, at least not necessarily so, nor have I reason to believe that dissent would negatively affect anyones grades.
But back to the historical revisionism.
Galileo was the example given to the class, and his treatment at the hands of the Church was both critically analysed, but sadly also discounted. The students presumably didn’t know a full account and hence the tutor was the soul source of information. The foibles of Galileo (e.g mocking the Pope and in general behaving like Phillip Adams) were played up, documented reasons for his sentence were glossed over and the details of his punishment were altogether missing.
No mention at all was made of his daughter, Maria Celeste, with whom his relationship was even further isolated (she lived in a convent) during his house arrest (and with whom Galileo had a very close bond). There was no mention of the changes in her living arrangements while taking upon some of the burden of her Father’s punishment, nor mention of how their isolation made her untimely death all the worse for her father.
All under the aegis of a church supposedly friendly to science.
Nor was the trial of Giordano Bruno (some thirty years earlier) mentioned. The popular version of the story goes that amongst a list of reasons, Bruno was denounced as a heretic and burned at the stake, amongst these reasons being that he believed in a heliocentric solar system (i.e. that the Earth revolved around the Sun). What isn’t in dispute is that Bruno, an early scientist, was charged with heresy and burned at the stake (with his jaw clamped shut and a spike rammed through his tongue, presumably so the kiddies didn’t have to hear him scream).
The original, primary documentation for his execution has long since been lost and certainly enough time has passed since its loss for all sorts of conspiracy theories and fanciful narratives to have arisen and attained popular status. Who’s to say that the popular account isn’t in a large part romanticised?
With no great surprise, various parts of academia have fixated upon the role of heliocentrism in Bruno’s trial. Supposedly, with the loss of the primary documentation there is nothing to say that heliocentrism was a part of Bruno’s trial.
Up until Pope John Paul II got up and set a few things straight in 2000, it was common Catholic doctrine that Bruno was executed for offenses not including heliocentrism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy apparently takes the same position to this very day. Perhaps part of Galileo’s story just got mixed in over subsequent re-tellings.
Well, there is a problem with this line of reasoning. In 1940 documentation that directly cited the lost, original primary documentation was found, including the line of inquiry that Bruno was subject to.
In response to questioning about his cosmology, Bruno replied in defense;
“Firstly, I say that the theories on the movement of the earth and on the immobility of the firmament or sky are by me produced on a reasoned and sure basis, which doesn’t undermine the authority of the Holy Sciptures […]. With regard to the sun, I say that it doesn’t rise or set, nor do we see it rise or set, because, if the earth rotates on his axis, what do we mean by rising and setting[…]“
(Vatican Secret Archives, retrieved 2008 )
So if Bruno wasn’t charged with heresy at least in part on the grounds of his heliocentrism, why was he defending heliocentrism from his inquisitors?
Of course, even prior to the fact of the role of heliocentrism in the trial, one has to ask why heliocentrism is suddenly discounted, but not Bruno’s belief that Mary wasn’t a virgin. Why not his belief that Jesus wasn’t the son of God? Why aren’t the his theological beliefs being similarly discounted as heresy criteria when they are subject to the same loss of evidence as the role of his scientific beliefs?
It’s quite obvious really, even without considering the evidence of the discussion of heliocentrism in his trial. The people applying the double standard between evidence for Bruno’s scientific views and his religious views are the same people trying to conclude that the Church’s hostility to science is an overblown narrative.
I’m not saying that there isn’t an exaggerated “Martyrs of Science” narrative out there, nor that the Church has been universally hostile. Indeed, both the previous Pope and the Vatican Secret Archives have done well in dealing with the religion-science schism (I especially commend the ethos of “Documents belonging to history”, espoused by the VSA). What I am saying is that the discounting of the facts demonstrates a massive anti-science bias.
Following the “Science Wars” of the nineties, Bruno Latour, writing in Critical Inquiry (2004), showed concern at methods of critical studies of science being used for cynical political means. He also laments the teaching of students for “wars” with “enemies” that aren’t there anymore, which given the popular insistence of much of the science-critical humanities on dealing with the supposed positivism and certainty of science, is at least heartening.
Perhaps when the Latour’s of the humanities realise that positivism was dealt with by philosophers of science before Kuhn’s thesis was published and that certainty was first eroded by Galileo himself and more decisively so by Popper, Latour may realise his mistake. The main enemies of science studies were dead and buried before science studies was even conceived.
Science is today and for some time has been defined as necessarily corrigible and positivism was never more than a often ignored, passing fad in the scheme of things.
Which brings us back to incredulity in the “Church versus Science” narrative. What has the critical humanities brought to this discussion other than to point out the valid but somewhat obvious? History is ambiguous and certainty of historical truth isn’t attainable (and I stress a distinction between certainty and confidence).
I’m not and can’t be certain of the degree that heliocentrism played in Giordano Bruno’s persecution if it did at all, but I am confident that it did play a significant part. Just as I am confident that anti-heliocentrism persecution led to significant, unjust suffering by Galileo.
Bruno Latour, in relation to scientific fact questions “Should we rather bring the sword of criticism to criticism itself and do a bit of soul-searching here: What were we really after when we were so intent on showing the social construction of scientific facts?” I think the revisionists of the “Church versus Science” narrative should take this advice on board as well.
What are they after when criticising the narrative? Are they just commenting on the ambiguity of history (something which many take for granted anyway) or is there another bias? In church versus science, which party best embodies the humanities? Is theology and philosophy in general a science, or is it of the humanities?
It’s not just global warming denialists or young Earth creationists manufacturing anti-science controversies with the aid of the science-critical humanities. Oh no.
A certain new Pope has been at it as well. Undermining some of the more noble deeds of his predecessor, and fomenting further unnecessary conflict between science and the church.
~ Bruce
