11
‘On the other hand, there are some telescopic phenomena
which are plainly Copernican. Galileo introduces these phenomena as independent
evidence for Copernicus while the situation is rather that one refuted view –
Copernicanism – has a certain similarity to phenomena emerging from another
refuted view – the idea that telescopic phenomena are faithful images of the
sky. Galileo prevails because of his style and clever techniques of persuasion,
because he writes in Italian rather than Latin, and because he appeals to
people who are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and standards of
learning connected with them’
the question here is really whether anything is verified or
refuted at this stage of the game – or for that matter – really at any stage of
the game?
the simple fact of the matter is yes Galileo was proposing a
cosmological view that was in conflict with the status quo
this does not mean that his view was ‘refuted’ –
the argument of the Aristotelians – and the grounds on which
it was based – is of course what Galileo was challenging
to simply say that the argument of the Aristotelians or its observation statements refuted Galileo
is to miss the point
this argument was rather just what Galileo was arguing
against
to assert that the status quo ipso facto
‘refutes’ any alternative view is to fall back into un-reflective ignorance
it is clear that Feyerabend – in proposing this view is
either playing the devil’s advocate – rather too well –
or which is more likely – that this approach is just a straw
man argument – indeed a pretence – to effect a conclusion (Galileo’s ‘clever
techniques of persuasion’) – for which there is in fact – no evidence
Feyerabend goes on to say –
‘But – and with this I come to what I think is the central
feature of Galileo’s procedure – there are telescopic phenomena which agree
more closely with Copernicus than do the results of naked-eye observation’
the idea here is that the evidence is fitted to the theory –
and used to support the theory – and then presented as a refutation of the
opposing theory
let us assume for the argument’s sake that this in broad
design is Galileo’s method
my question is – so what?
if he has found phenomena that the naked eye theory of the
Aristotelians cannot account for – then prime facie he has an argument
against them
now of course they can argue that the phenomena are not
genuine – and as it were counter Galileo on theoretical grounds –
this line of attack though does place the theoretical issue
of true vision front and centre
Galileo is at an advantage here
the Aristotelians can only assert their theory of vision as
true – and the Copernican-Galilean view as false
that is they have nowhere to go – once they are challenged
they can knuckle down – and hold their ground – claiming
some form of common sense
Galileo on the other hand can show that their theory of
vision hides a relativism
i.e. even with terrestrial vision there is no absolute in
the visual field – and illusions abound
and on the basis of this Galileo can then argue that the
deliverances of the telescope – are in this relativistic respect – no different
but further that telescopic observations are an advance on
naked eye observation – just because of the fact of range of scope and
magnification –
and you could say these notions – range of scope and
magnification – have as much common sense status as so called veridical observation
all this is to point to the fact that the Aristotelians have
no theoretical advantage –
and Galileo does have a phenomenal advantage –
i.e. the phenomena the Aristotelians can’t see or account
for – such as the change in brightness of Mars as it approaches and recede from
the earth
‘The reader will realize that a more detailed study of
historical phenomena such as these, creates considerable difficulties for the
view that the transition from pre-Copernican cosmology to that of the 17th
century consisted in the replacement of refuted theories by more general
conjectures which explained the refuted instances, made new predictions, and
were corroborated by the observations carried out to test these predictions.
And he will perhaps see the merits of a different view which asserts that,
while the pre-Copernican view was in trouble (was confronted by even
more drastic refuting instances and implausibilities); but that being in
harmony with still further inadequate theories it gained strength, and
was retained, the refutations being made ineffective by ad hoc
hypotheses and clever techniques of persuasion. This would seem to be a more
adequate description of the developments at the time of Galileo than is offered
by almost all alternative accounts.’
a proposition – a
‘theory’ – is a proposal – open to question – open to doubt – uncertain
if you take this view – then from a logical point of view –
no theory is verified or falsified – in any final sense –
it is always open to question
a verified proposition – or theory – is one that is accepted
– for whatever reason –
and the ground of any acceptance – as with the proposition –
the theory itself – is open to question – open to doubt – is uncertain
a falsified proposition – or theory – is one that is not
accepted – is rejected – for whatever reason
and the ground of any rejection – is open to question – open
to doubt – is uncertain
that is the logic of the matter
as to what happened and why – yes that is an historical issue – and any
proposal here –
is likewise open to question – to doubt – is uncertain
Feyeraband as a methodologist of science – and of the
Copernican / Galilean revolution – puts up a proposal – to account for the move
to the Galilean perspective
is it a more adequate description of the developments of the
time – than i.e. the conjecture / refutation view of Karl Popper?
my point would be that any methodological proposal – has a
place at the table –
and that any methodological proposal – as with any empirical
/ historical proposal – is open to question
genuine understanding of any issue – is not a matter of
finding the truth – in any final sense – it is rather the exploration of
possible perspectives
the hard fact is that the matter is never settled
and we have to understand the role of philosophical
prejudice – in these matters
philosophers come to the matter to be explained – with
metaphysical – logical – epistemological – ontological perspectives –
where the focus is a particular subject – i.e. the history
of a scientific episode – these perspectives may be unstated – even as they are
the driving force of any analysis and interpretation
if these perspectives are un-questioned – they are
prejudices
logically speaking the methodologist is in the same position
as the scientist or the historian – he operates with proposals – propositions –
theories that at any point are open to question – open to doubt – uncertain
there is no final word – empirically – theoretically –
methodologically
the best we can hope for is multiplicity – variety –
imagination – and argument –
on-going argument
Feyerabend began with this statement –
‘Galileo prevails because of his style and clever techniques
of persuasion, because he writes in Italian rather than Latin, and because he
appeals to people who are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and
standards of learning connected with them.’
Feyerabend does not present any evidence for this claim
none at all
what we get from Feyerabend is an assertion – and an
assertion that is purely rhetorical –
that is an assertion meant to persuade – in the absence of
argument – in the absence of evidence
let us assume for the argument’s sake that because Galileo
wrote in Italian and not Latin so more of his countrymen could be aware of his
ideas –
it doesn’t follow from this that therefore his theories
would prevail
it is conceivable that quite the opposite could have
resulted
and the same point applies to the suggestion that Galileo
appealed to those who are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas –
‘the temperamentally opposed’ might well have rejected his
ideas along with the old ideas –
the problem here is that the Italian and temperament
proposals – are just speculations –
interesting – but baseless as presented here by Feyerabend –
and really given that this idea that Galileo was a clever
propagandist – is a central plank of Feyerabend’s argument concerning Galileo –
you would expect something more substantial than just throwaway
lines
I say that Galileo prevailed because of the perceived
strength of his argument
and if that is so – then it is irrelevant whether the
argument was presented in Latin – Italian – or Swahili –
and I would also put that a good argument – that is a
skilful use of logic – will appeal to those with an open mind – regardless of
their temperament
that’s my proposal
