Value for Tuesday of Week 33 in the season of Interlude

Using Scientific Methods

Science is a set of methods, a way of finding out about the world and about ourselves. It has brought the technologies we see all around us, and revolutionized human life.

  • Science especially enhances our health, wealth and security, which is greater today for more people on Earth than at any other time in human history. The scientific method, which underpins these achievements, can be summarized in one sentence, which is all about objectivity: Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is. [Neil de Grasse Tyson]
  • . . . science is more than a body of knowledge. It’s a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes ambling along. [Carl Sagan]
  • Science consists of observing the world by watching, listening, observing, and recording. Science is curiosity in thoughtful action about the world and how it behaves. [NASA]
  • The scientific method is about trying to remove our own bias and subjectivity, and be as objective as possible. But then you can put it back into context and you’re allowed to be emotional and human about the way you engage with it. [Alice Roberts]

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Karl Popper (1902-1994)

.

.

.

.

.

.

In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbitum coelesticum (On the Revolution of Heavenly Spheres), in which he argued that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not vice versa. He addressed the Preface by name to Pope Paul III, knowing that the work contradicted Church teachings. He knew they were not what people wished to believe.

Copernicus based his conclusions on observations he made by using a telescope. Yet while his main conclusion was correct, the details of his theory were incorrect. Galileo proved Copernicus’ theory of our heliocentric solar system to be true, largely by making four observations (which he published in The Sidereal Messenger (The Starry Messenger) (1610), Letter to Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany (1615) and Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), taking great pains in his Letter and his Dialogue to argue that his findings did not contradict The Bible).

  • The Moon was cratered and mountained, not smooth-surfaced, which meant that it was not a perfect sphere as described in ancient texts;
  • As seen through a telescope, Venus went through crescent-shaped phases, as the Moon did, which could be explained only by its moving around the Sun, not the Earth;
  • Four moons revolved around Jupiter, which further proved that not every “heavenly body” revolved around Earth; and
  • The Milky Way consisted of individual stars.

Observing, collecting facts, and basing conclusions on facts – this is the essence of the third civilization-transforming revolution in history, the Scientific Revolution. The content of Copernicus’ and Galileo’s conclusions are revolutionary in themselves; but more important is the method by which they arrived at their conclusions. Once we know how to do science, and become practiced at it, the conclusions will follow. The greatest compliment anyone has ever paid me came from my son, who wrote one Father’s Day, “He didn’t tell me what to think; he taught me how to think.” By following the facts to a conclusion, through reason, Copernicus and Galileo led the way to development of scientific method.

Yet while science has transformed our lives in these past nearly-600 years, a substantial share of populations all over the world know little of it, and do not follow its methods. Unlike mental health and physical fitness, adherence to scientific methods appears to have little effect on individual well-being. Denial of the evolution of species, global warming and the efficacy of vaccines are among the most destructive science-rejecting myths prevalent today. In human affairs, emotion routinely overpowers reason at nearly every turn. Can we use our marvelous brains to change this? What is the point of developing ethical systems and laws, only to believe what we wish to believe, and do what we wish to do anyway?

The very fact that science sticks out like a sore thumb amid mental health and physical fitness tells us where our species probably has gone astray. We do not attach the same kind of importance to the intellect as we do to our emotions and our physical health. That may substantially explain why our species is under threat – through climate change, overpopulation, degradation of the natural environment and warfare – from within. Yet each of us can commit ourselves to following the facts, through reason, if we so choose. This is an essential foundation to a well-grounded life.

Real

True Narratives

Leonardo was a forerunner of the age of observational experiments and critical thinking. When he came up with an idea, he devised an experiment to test it. And when his experience showed that a theory was flawed – such as his belief that the springs within the earth are replenished the same way as blood vessels in humans – he abandoned his theory and sought a new one. [Walter Isaacson, Leonardo da Vinci, (Simon & Schuster, 2017), p. 521.]

Developers of scientific method:

Ibn al-Haytham:

  • Bradley Steffens, Ibn al-Haytham: First Scientist (Morgan Reynolds Publishing, 2007).

Abu Arrayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni:

Avicenna:

Robert Grosseteste:

Roger Bacon:

Galileo Galilei:

Francis Bacon:

René Descartes:

Isaac Newton (see Creativity)

Charles Sanders Peirce:

Karl Popper:

Thomas Kuhn:

From the dark side:

Further from the dark side: ethics and scientific “progress”:

Technical and Analytical Readings

Photographs

Documentary and Educational Films

Imaginary

Fictional Narratives

Novels and stories with science as a theme:

Poetry

Music: Composers, artists, and major works

James Dashow, an electronic music specialist, has composed an opera called “Archimedes, A Planetarium Opera” (2008) (approx. 157’), after the ancient Greek mathematician. “After witnessing some epic laser and electronic music shows that took place in science museum theaters, Dashow – a distinguished electronic music pioneer – decided this venue would be perfect for bringing the Ancient Greek mathematician’s story to life. It was only later that he learned Archimedes had in fact invented the first planetarium (a mechanism that demonstrated the planets rotating around the Earth).” “The vocal parts are performed with a mix of spoken word, Sprechstimme, and fully sung lines, most of which are visceral representations of the text.” “. . . Mr. Dashow’s vision is to have Archimedes performed in a planetarium with a live ensemble; singing, acting, dancing, and immersive electronic sounds and images are to fuse in forming a profound multimedia discourse.

Often called “the father of electronic music”, composer Edgard Varèsestudied mathematics and science in the aims of becoming an engineer”. He saw “music as an art-science”. In a lecture called “The Liberation of Sound”, he argued that music was in a primitive stage in 1917, and said: “Music, which should pulsate with life, needs new means of expression, and science alone can infuse it with youthful vigor. ” He “believed that art should reflect cultural, particularly scientific change.” His works are presented on the albums “Complete Works of Edward Varèse, Volume 1” (1951) (27’), “The Complete Works” (1998) (150’), “Boulez conducts Varèse” (2001) (68’), “Orchestral works” (2001) (71’), and “Orchestral works 2” (2008) (67’); and include:

Harry Partch designed his own musical instruments, and devised tuning systems for his music, based on science and mathematical principles. “Experimentation with various tuning systems led Partch to work with scales that allow for smaller intervals than in the standard Western tuning. Partch divided the octave into an unbelievable 43 unequal tones, and described himself as a 'philosophic music man seduced into carpentry.' Anaïs Nin said of Partch: “It was as if one had drunk the music instead of accepting it through the ears…The affinity of his music with water, with the poetry of space, with fusion appealed to me. Some of his writings have been assembled in book form; books about him and his work are by S. Andrew Granade, Bob Gilmore, and David Dunn, ed. Albums of his music include “Harry Partch, 1942 (Live)” (57’); “The Harry Partch Collection, Volume 1” (1997) (76’); “The Harry Partch Collection, Volume 2” (1997) (77’); “The Harry Partch Collection, Volume 3” (1997) (69’); “The Harry Partch Collection, Volume 4” (2005) (76’); “Plectra and Percussion Dances” (2014) (56’); “Historic Speech-Music Recordings from the Harry Partch Archives”; “Enclosure 5” (1997) (224’). Significant works include:

George Perle was a follower of Schoenberg’s twelve-tone system, and a musical pioneer, who “who created his own version of the 12-tone system”. He was widely hailed as “the poetic voice of atonal composition . . .” “He was among the first American composers to recognize and incorporate the revolutionary transformation in the language of music embodied in the work of the ‘Second Vienna School’ in the early years of this century. However, from the start, his own work as a composer and theorist represented a radical reinterpretation. In his first published article in 1914, he presented a fundamental critique of Schoenberg's twelve-tone method, which he saw as the first step toward a new tonality, rather than as a special technique of atonal composition.” Perle authored books called The Listening Composer, Twelve-Tone Tonality, Serial Composition and Atonality, and The Right Notes (essays). His compositions include:

Other works:

Albums:

On the dark/cautionary side:

Music: songs and other short pieces

Visual Arts

Film and Stage

latest from

The Work on the Meditations