Astronomy and the Origins of Science
Download Video Podcast (MP4, 47.3MB) »
Presented by Bob Baumbach, Professor of Astronomy (Retired), Grand Rapids Community College
About the Speaker
About the Event
Meeting Summary with Commentary and Upcoming Events Calendar for the Freethought Association. Meeting #228; held on April 25, 2007. http://www.cfimichigan.org. .
MAY I SUGGEST? There are many May events to mention. First, however, still in the month of April:
DISTILLED COGITATIONS: April 27, at 8PM is the date and time for the next Three Beer Discussion to be held at the new Freethought Association office; 3777 44th Street, SE, Kentwood, MI. Phone number: 616- 698- 2342. TBDs are small, casual, philosophy discussion group gatherings. BYOB and a snack to share.
CINE-FA: On May 2 , Jason P. will host the next Freethought Movie Night, featuring the film: The Prestige. This Christopher Nolan film (Memento, The Following, Insomnia, etc.) has everything from intrigue and clashes between powerful performers, to a mad electrical genius (Nicola Tesla) to thrilling escape artistry. Movie Nights start at 7PM on the first and third Wednesday of each month, at 740 Lockwood, NE. BYOB and a snack to share. For directions, to RSVP or for more information, contact Jason: or 616- 634-2471.
OPEN MINDS & OPEN HOUSE: We will be having an Open House for our new organizational office space at 3777 44th St., Kentwood, MI. Come for a tour and to discuss with us the exciting new possibilities this space holds for our organization’s development and expansion of activities. The Freethought Open House will be on May 5 from 11AM- 2PM.
A CORPORATE PHILOSOPHER GOES TO PRISON (I couldn’t come up with anything better than the actual topic title given!): Our next regular topic presentation meeting will be on May 9 at 7PM at the Women’s City Club. The topic is: A Corporate Philosopher Goes to Prison—Innovative Approaches to Business, Charity and Education. It will be presented by Michael DeWilde, PhD, Corporate Philosopher and Associate Professor of Philosophy, Grand Valley State University.
SUNDAYS WITHOUT A PRAYER: On May 13, we are having our next Freethought Board Meeting. It will be held in the meeting room of our office; 3777 44th St., SE, Kentwood, and will start at 10AM. Interested members are encouraged to attend in a non-voting capacity. Please RSVP to Assistant Director Jennifer B.: .
FILM.COM (Children Of Men): May 16 is another Freethought Movie Night, featuring the film: Children of Men. See May 2 FMN info for more details.
YOUTHS WHO NEED A GOOD PADDLE: May 18 is the date for the next Freethought Youth Group get together. This will be a Ping Pong Party and will take place at 2739 Maplewood Drive, East GR. Questions? Call 616-954-2687 or send an e-mail to .
FELLOWSHIP W/O THE FELLAS: May 19 is the date for the next Freethought Women’s Group. It will be at Amanda’s house; 734 Lockwood St., NE (GR) and will start at 10AM. For more information or to suggest a topic/activity, call Jennifer Beahan at 616-706-2029 or send an e-mail to her at .
MINORITY REPORT: On May 23, the FA meeting at the Women’s City Club (7PM) will feature the topic: The Power of Dissenting Opinion: Why Expressing Minority Points of View Matters. This will be presented by Christine Smith, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology, GVSU.
FREETHOUGHT AND FUN IS BLOOMING: Don’t miss the Spring Fling! Rain or shine. BYOB, a dish to pass and, if you’d like to, swim suit. The Spring Fling will be at the Seaver Farm: 10721 52nd Ave., Allendale, MI, from 7-11PM. There will be the traditional bon fire as well as lawn sports and other fun activities and good times for the whole family. For additional information call 616-892-9300 or send an e-mail to: .
THIS MEETING’S TOPIC was Astronomy and the Origins of Science, presented by Bob Baumbach, Professor of Astronomy (retired), Grand Rapids Community College. This presentation from FA member Baumbach was a sort of follow up one of a topic he presented about a year and a half ago called: Astronomy and the Origin of Religion.
At one time, astronomy, science and religion were essentially united. People gazed at the heavens in their quest for understanding their place in the universe and saw the gods and their divine influence upon humankind in the starscapes. Humans also saw predictable patterns emerging and noted correlations between the seasonal changes and the location of those night sky patterns. In applying its nascent scientific approach, early societies were, in effect, trying to comprehend the realm of deities and supernatural agency through the observable workings of the heavens.
The seeds of the science of astronomy were planted when ancient peoples gazed up at the night sky trying to fathom meaning in what they saw. Later instruments and measurements were made to plumb greater depths of the universe; a universe that expanded from the simple small and quaint one of the early geocentric view, to one yielding up ever greater vistas and better and clearer revelations to our ken. Evolution is the best explanation of how life and the universe itself unfolded, Baumbach noted, but astronomy emerges after humans had evolved to a state where they could create stories to explain their place within the naked- eye early observations of the tiny sliver of the universe that was visible to them.
Professor Baumbach held up the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond as an especially fine exploration into how cultures evolved and differentiated from each other due to a myriad of factors having nothing to do with differences of native intellect or internal fortitude or the pluck of a given people relative to another. What may be grown, what minerals are available as resources, what large mammals are around to use as draft animals, for warfare (horses) and that may be domesticated, what immunities developed for certain germs for one people that were a plague for other people for whom those foreign germs spelled disaster when introduced, and even what meridian one’s culture existed on relative to another (lateral spread was easier than longitudinal advance, for instance), and so many other factors all contributed to different sorts of societies developing, with some having ready made advantages for being a conquering people over others.
While not mentioned by our presenter, Diamond also wrote the excellent book The Third Chimpanzee, which refers to we humans (the other two being the bonobo and the common chimpanzee), and Collapse, dealing with how and why societies fall (again, not because of any innate superiority of one group over another in terms of their genetic endowment as a society).
Different populations developed their own ways of making sense of life and unraveling the tales that the stars told, depending on factors specific to their environment or placement on the globe. Scientific development was differentiated as well, though we now live in a time where the greatest number of people on the planet may potentially have access to the latest advances and level of scientific knowledge. Knowledge, techniques and ideas were to spread, along with goods that began to make their way to different lands during human development and expansion.
One point that our presenter stressed was that science should be understood in terms of its methodology, instead of simply considering its discoveries or end results. This is the mistake, he mentioned, that creationists- and others who tend toward pseudoscience- make. They attack the results without comprehending how those outcomes came to be, or seeing what lies behind the confidence a researcher will have in tested and verified hypotheses. This is perhaps why the creationist will thoughtlessly frame evolution as only a theory. He knows nothing of what constitutes a scientific theory, so he is untroubled in defining it as only a guess. Looking at results or discoveries rather than methodology, he may assert that the result of his guess is at least as valid as that of the working scientist.
By investigating the underlying methods of science, one may explore it in an historical context; seeing how the basic approach to tackling a problem changed over time and to see how cultural and temporal influences shaped methodology. Science yields both theoretical and practical results. One may begin to construct a working model of how the world and the heavens work but also be able to make predictions that will enhance various endeavors, such as agriculture, animal breeding, what materials are best suited for different purposes, etc., etc. Science informs us that the universe is real, predictable and knowable. Without these assumptions, science cannot be done. By contrast, religious and supernatural claims are placed in the realm of the unfathomable, unknowable and mysterious. No predictions may be made from the concepts generated by such an approach. Science studies only the natural processes of the universe; a universe that is composed of the interactions of matter and energy that is governed by natural laws.
The method of ancient science was naked eye observation. Its concomitant religious purpose was to predict the behavior of the gods. It sought to understand the motion of the heavens, believing this was the domain of the gods and that it displayed their activities. Saturn, as an example Baumbach gave, was a being to the ancients, not just a planetary body. To show how they saw things by way of a graphic depiction, Professor Baumbach showed us a star chart from 4,000 years ago. The constellations are still clearly recognizable but no stars are seen in the image! Instead, we see the fulyl fleshed out and garbed bodies of the deities. As others have also noted, including Carl Sagan, they didn’t see the star arrangements as loosely representing figures in some sort of connect the dots pattern—but instead as if they were viewing the actual beings. The stellar motion was for them the actions of the divine beings and these movements influenced what occurred on Earth in predictable ways.
Ancient markers have been found all over the world that show the exact days of the spring equinox, winter solstice, etc. When and where there was written language, we are able to discern attempts at predicting eclipses. While our speaker did not express this thought explicitly, his presentation caused me to think of the extraordinary human industry and energy; talent and cogitation expended toward symbols, sites and shrines of veneration and worship for and of the gods. It may not, therefore, be unreasonable to think that perhaps ancient science would not have even begun in any meaningful way if the practitioners had not believed that they were delving into the minds and ways of the gods. While humans share the tendency to go to elaborate extremes to become reproductively successful with other animals, only humans seem to work their minds, bodies and emotions so hard on behalf of their imaginary beings. Such inspired and unflagging attention to what the ancients perceived as the realm of the gods helped bring about insights of a more naturalistic nature, helping to fuel a budding scientific approach.
One does not have to go back to the ancients to see this cohesion between science and religion toward a common goal of understanding the world. Before there was the idea of being a scientist (but not all that long ago), there were natural theologians; those who believed they were coming closer to knowing the ways of the Creator by examining His creation, using the best techniques and tools at their disposal at the time. Many a deeply devout religious person had made great discoveries in his reverential quest to know the mind of his Creator. It was only later that science and religion became more polarized.
Greek science had for its method natural philosophy, with the purpose of describing the natural world. They still believed the planetary motions influenced life on Earth, but they no loner believed that they were witnessing the behavior of the actual gods, as played out in the night sky. They further believed that human intellect was more reliable than human senses, since the senses could be tricked and observations distorted. Evidence that could be produced by use of the intellect ruled.
Further exploring how the foundational methodology evolved instead of focusing only on the fruits of the different methods used, Professor Baumbach discussed how they viewed the stuff of life as being categorized into separate elements, such as Earth,Water, Fire and Air. These elements behaved differently because of their affinities with either that which was above the Earth or that which was of or upon the Earth. Matter essentially wanted to be organized as it was, with earthly things going toward the Earth and atmospheric things being compelled to join with the air.
This sort of thinking lasted until Francis Bacon, Galileo and others of their ilk came along. They recognized that the senses were of more importance than had been previously thought. We identify problems to solve and formulate questions that guide our investigations regarding our observations via our sensory perceptions. Our senses inform our reasoning. True, our interpretations of our perceptions can mislead us, but humankind was coming into a time where better tools and techniques were being introduced to assist our formerly naked- eye observations. Instruments could not only boost our perceptions but could also help falsify or verify what we saw. They could lead to other fruitful avenues of exploration as well—ones that had been beyond our unaided ability to perceive before that time.
Galileo was able not just to present a well reasoned argument, but also actually show others what he saw through his telescopes and verify the Copernican Model’s heliocentrism; a model made before such instruments were in existence. While one needed only to peer through Galileo’s telescope to see for himself what Galileo claimed, this was strongly resisted. If one Bible based construct could be shown to be erroneous, then what would become of the others? Faith was too precious to allow it to be destroyed by a glimpse of reality. Kepler was especially gifted in creating wondrous instruments to probe deeply, and with great accuracy, into the heavens. As information could be spread more readily and stored more permanently, it could be examined and tested by others. The knowledge base of our species was able to take a major leap forward.
One of the hallmarks of science is repeatability. Whereas religion splinters off into countless sects and sub-sects so readily, due to differences of opinion on minute aspects of dogma and doctrine, scientific observation generates data that can be tested with repeatable results by, potentially, anyone on the planet- no matter the language spoken, the gods believed in, or any other differences. Science (and its language: mathematics) is universal. Once we were all on the same page as to what each other’s mathematical and chemical symbols represented, there would be no barrier to a scientific exchange between us and any other intelligent being in the universe.
But in the evolution of methodology that Professor Baumbach focused on in his presentation, there were other challenges along the way. Measurements were not deemed as important as they later became in understanding how things worked. Causation was prime, but without measurements taken, incorrect assumptions were made, such as what impelled the motion of things. An example Baumbach gave of this was the belief at the time that what caused an arrow to travel, was air rushing around to the tail end of the shaft to push it from behind. While Newton being beamed on the head by a falling apple as the inspiration for his views of planetary motion was apocryphal, ideas of inertia, gravity, force and other aspects of physics were formulated from observations of falling bodies and these could be extended to what happens in space. The divide between the Earth and the heavens, as discrete and completely separate values, would eventually be shattered.
Before that, however, the division remained. Our speaker talked about the Ptolemaic Model which had for its method, a rational description based on the observations of Hipparchus. The purpose was to predict the motions of the night sky. The heavens had different rules—ones dealing with perfection- while the Earthly rules were seen as imperfect. In the presentation to our group that dealt with the Celestial Sphere, there was a great deal of discussion about the difficulty people had in entertaining the correct idea that planetary bodies traveled in elliptical orbits. The reason for this was that the circle was believed to be the perfect shape and perfection was the domain of the heavens. Because of the belief in a divine governance at the center of all that was, there was particular emphasis on the whys of the universe.
There was a clockwork belief of how the universe was constructed, with planetary bodies traveling smoothly on clear shells in perfect circles. So- called shooting stars were perceived as atmospheric effects, for to see them as traveling through space toward or away from us would cause observers to be confronted with the notion that bodies could break through the clear, spherical belts, shattering them. Astronomical reality was far more complex, however, than the simple one of radiating spheres.
The mechanical version of the universe, with the Earth at the center and God turning the cranks persisted for an astonishingly long time (from 100CE to 1520-ish). The Ptolemaic Model worked sufficiently, so why go deeper into it? It kept mankind and the workings of the heavens where they should be; humans, with enough minor adjustments to the model, could still be the special pet of the Creator and have a prominent place within the geocentric construct, with a divine clock-winder at the center of it all.
The Copernican Model fundamentally altered this system and our all- important geocentrism. People often resist change, but in particular, change away from long and well- established beliefs is especially hard to accept. One that denies the centrality of the Earth in the universe, as endorsed by the very Word of God Himself was simply unacceptable. The Copernican Model also had to contend with new challenges to explain. Relocating the sun to the center of the system made other observations difficult to reconcile. This required establishing epicycles and with each vexing problem for the model, more epicycles had to added to make sense of what was observed and to retain the strongly held belief in perfect spheres Even the moon required its own epicycle. The alternative was to accept that orbits may be elliptical.
Such a heretical idea had to wait until Kepler worked out the elliptical orbits of planets to better explain their motions. Tycho Brahe invented a model that was a sort of cross between the two models but continued to retain an Earth centered system. Galileo’s method was to make his observations using instruments (as noted above) for the purpose of closely studying the natural world. He recognized that the senses were more reliable than had been previously supposed and sought to explain and measure the observations made by employing the new instruments that he had developed. Geocentrism was strongly entrenched, however, due to belief in the Bible’s word as absolute. Not only did the Bible start off with a tale of a single special world surrounded by everything else, but other biblical stories, too, supported the idea that the Sun went around the Earth, such as the account of Joshua having military success due to the Sun being halted in the sky, indicated that the sun indeed traveled around the Earth.
Newton’s Law of Gravity employed the method (as alluded to earlier) of mathematical reasoning based on observed evidence, with the purpose of providing a method of predicting the behavior of gravity. Mathematics could also explain shapes and plot trajectories and allow us to make predictions based on formulae. Further branches of mathematics were developed to explain ever more about the natural world. The laws of the universe were at last known to be constant with no artificial division between what occurred on the Earth and what happened above and beyond it. The law of gravity and a better understanding of physics not only explained ellipses but predicted them. This allowed further predictions about when and where one would see star and planetary patterns and movement.
Intellect and reasoning was also being unified with observation as part of the more modern scientific approach. There was not an immediate acceptance of Newton’s concepts, however. A major problem people had at the time was that, without the tracks, gear-works, crystalline celestial spheres or other such mechanisms, they could not imagine what held the whole thing together and caused it to operate as it did. We knew by this time that the Sun somehow held planets in their orbits and moons were held in their orbits around planets. We could plot and predict the timing and location of orbiting bodies. But we could not comprehend action at a distance.
Science is the ultimate unifier. Seemingly separate bodies of knowledge all link eventually as more is understood. Instead of separate elements divided into discrete categories or a controlling deity from without somewhere, we find that all things are connected up with one another. Life is linked by common ancestral descent, the Earth and heavens are all linked by cosmological evolution with unified laws serving as a constant throughout. The mind and body are one with not only no need for a dualistic division but also no need of an immaterial soul.
Einstein, Maxwell and others were able to see how the basic natural forces were also intertwined. Space and time were one in Einstein’s formulation of spacetime and both together are influenced by matter. Matter too is influenced by spacetime. Matter causes spacetime to warp which exerts an attractive force toward itself—which is experienced as gravity. More massive bodies (and yes, mass, energy, time and space are all interdigitated and mutually influential upon each other) warped spacetime more, causing them to be a hub for other orbiting bodies—thus a solar system. Einstein was able to make predictions based on his intellectual constructs that were verified later on by direct observation via more powerful telescopes and the advent of rocketry and faster travel, and even looming skyscrapers (timepieces run at slightly different rates depending on if one is on the ground or top floor.) A wound up spring not only has more energy but also more mass. Time is influenced by its proximity to gravitational forces. Light bends around a planet’s gravitational force (warping of spacetime). Time changes for individuals based on their relative speeds. And so on.
We also talked about quantum mechanics and the Higgs boson. This is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only S.M. Particle not yet observed but plays a role in explaining the origin of the mass of other elementary particles. Chemical actions and reactions could be observed, predicted and used to formulate an ever expanding body of knowledge leading to Atomic Theory
Sometimes there is observation before discovery, such as when the way in which it connects to other aspects of a field of knowledge is not known by the observer. The planet Uranus is but one example in astronomy of something observed before it was discovered for what it was. The names for the planets follow the succession in a lineage of the gods of antiquity. Uranus, upon discovery, was not behaving as it should however. Its slight difference in direction predicted the presence of other planetary bodies exerting their own gravitational effects upon it. Armed with this knowledge, we were able to locate those other planets. Pluto, as another example of this, was discovered when there were unexplained perturbations of already discovered planets.
We may also predict the presence of planets around a star (a sun) by the star’s wobble, even when the planets themselves are not yet detectable by telescopic observation. But the prediction helps to guide our future observations and discoveries, as we have a better sense of knowing what to look for and where to find it. Our ability to generate predictions based on observations is possible because everything is connected. This is the main reason why supernatural thinking is so unsatisfactory: it is the ultimate disconnect. It breaks all the linkages of life and natural processes without establishing any new fruitful connections and it explains and predicts nothing.
And science is self correcting. Sometimes our interpretations of observations lead to false predictions. But this leads to better research fostering improved predictions that may be tested to determine their veracity and utility. One example Professor Baumbach gave of this was how Mercury was not going exactly as it should be. This led to the prediction of another planet between the Earth and the Sun which was called Vulcan. This was a reasonable prediction based on past observations, but it was ultimately not correct. However, this errancy in motion was later correctly explained by Einstein’s relativity theory which predicts that Mercury’s speed relative to ours, would lead to precisely the sort of deviation from the expected course that was observed.
Now we can send out probes and space telescopes. We can capture detailed images and make precise measurements of worlds that we once could never have even detected the presence of. We are formed from starstuff and our own evolution that links all life is connected intimately with the evolution of the cosmos—the ultimate creation story. And now we can delve deeper into the universe than could ever have been imagined by our ancestors… and since space and time is one, as we make observations deeper into space, we peer deeper into time. Nature and natural laws have usurped ancient tales of gods for learned people, but we may still peer up at the night sky in awe and wonder and see the stunning stories being told to us with an unmatched pageantry and power. It is no wonder that the cosmos inspired both the epic creation stories and the birth of the quest for scientific comprehension of what life is about and how it works.
Charles LaRue (the guy who sits in the front row of meetings scribbling notes.)
