Today we focus specifically on conflict about land use in the Olifants River valley between 1725 and the 1780s.
Dr. Mitchell identifies components of a "historical argument". First, there is a chronology, or explanation of a sequence of events. Second, there is evidence of events on the chronology. Then there is a claim about the causes of these events. Some explanatory principle must be used to account for continuity or change. Last, there is a discussion of significance. In other words, we need to explain why we should care about these events.
The Olifants River Valley is in the Western Cape of South Africa. It would have been a nine hour ox ride from Cape Town, but we could get there in two hours today. The climate is arid and the land is rocky and dry. Irrigation from this river is important for farmers in this region since 1775. Much of the vegetation here is endemic. There is a low carrying capacity for this region. There are no herds and little large game, as the plant-life cannot sustain large animal populations. There were some rhinos and hippos through the 18th century but never many. There is an abundance of rock art sites in this river valley, including images of elephants. Along with this, European accounts confirm that there were elephants in this region from time to time.
In 1725, men began to claim land in the valley, mostly for grazing cattle and to supplement permanent farms closer to the city. Yet by 1763, there was the beginning of a permanent settlement. Although most of the claimants were white males, there are some instances of racial diversity. When we look at a formal claim for land, we can read this as a mere financial transaction, or we can see this as an example of the Dutch East India Company violently taking land from and selling it to others. Regardless of which interpretation you take up, this practice was legitimized by the government.
Halve Dorschvloer is the name of a farm on Karnemelksvlei. It was family property located on the east side of the Olifants River. It was a loan farm, but like many loan farms, were owned by a single family for multiple generations. The Burger family, in one form or another, leased the land for 26 years. This information is pieced together from multiple sources. Official land records indicate that one many had a claim to the land for 19 years, but the death certificate for that man indicates that his wife was actually running the land for half of that time. And although there is no official record of the son making a land claim, there are letters that indicate that he was pursuing a claim to this land.
The institutions that managed land use precluded the possibility for shared land use. In other words, they excluded the Khoisan from using the land and favored settlers. Although both relied in herds for their wealth, only the settlers had access to land after the 18th century. Not only did they lose land but also the ability to reproduce their culture. The power dynamic that had been set up was inherently unbalanced. As a result, Khoisan were somewhat integrated into colonial society, since they could not longer maintain their own society. They had to be part of the labor force because they could not herd cattle or hunt the land.
Dr. Mitchell notes that the basic cultural differences between Khoisan and settlers led to a basic incompatibility where two moral economies conflicted within a single biome.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
South Africa and the Khoisan Today
This article is about the attempts of current members of the Khoisan culture to seek compensation for the injustices done to their ancestors and their culture.
Hunters, Herders, Farmers and Nature
We will me comparing and contrasting Khoisan cosmology and its relation to land use with Christian settler cosmology and its relation to land use. Dr. Mitchell introduces a view of history, called Historical Materialism. Historical Materialism focuses on economic production and goods as a way to interpret historical events. This can be contrasted with a focus on merely cultural accounts. The relationship between the Khoisan culture and the Europeans can be explained in terms of economic needs and activities. Water played a large role in determining where people could easily live. Climate and resources required that the Khoi be mobile, which in turn limits the amount of stuff people could acquire. Both cultures also put their wealth into livestock.
Origin myths are very revealing about a culture. They are cosmological insofar as they are about the nature of the cosmos, or the existence of the universe. This is the San creation story. In the beginning, humans and animals lived together with Kaggen, the creator and a trickster. They lived underneath the earth until Kaagen made a whole for the humans to rise to the surface. Some animals were able to get to the surface not through the hole but through the branches of a tree that had been planted next to the hole. Kaagen gathered the people and animals and warned the humans not to use fire. After the sun set, humans were afraid and cold without the sun's light. The animals, however, had natural adaptations to see in the dark and stay warm. The humans decided to light a fire, which scared the animals away and forced them to live in caves, trees and mountains.
Themes in this story include free will, heavenly realms (underground), the trickster/creator figure, transformation and the relationship between humanity and non-human animals. San religion also included the notion that spirits of humans and animals could go into the form of the other. Kaagen, the sometimes man, sometimes preying mantis, had a favorite animal, the eland. He punished his son for killing an eland by making humans hunt the eland in spite of the fact that they will rarely succeed. Eland were represented in much San art. Women are initiated into society by acting out the scene of joining a herd of eland (which is acted out by the other women). Men are initiated into society by a procession of eland hunters. Men wear cloaks as a symbol of a man wearing his wife. The eland is also a symbol meant to mediate between men and women. Both in the hunt of the male and in the menses of the woman, important blood is spilled. The blood of the eland is an important symbol.
The sources for this information comes from European descriptions of dances in the 18th century. San also told ethnographers about their stories in the 19th century. Current ethnogrophies in Namibia and Botswana also reveal parallel stories. We also have cultural artifacts and art left behind.
In one San story, "The Great Thirst", there are many elements shared with the creation story. Animals as a source of change, transformation and blood as life are three important themes. There are three worlds, the heavenly realm, the everyday world and the underworld. Those with strong spiritual power can move between the two realms. Humans and animals have obligations to each other. Another important theme is the ability of animals and people to transform into one another. Animals are also often portrayed as doing human things, such as in "The Lion and the Jackals".
Let's now consider Christian cosmology. The Christian settlers in 18th century South Africa did not expect their God to manifest himself in the real world. Rather, God lives in one of three realms: heaven. The other two realms are the world of humans and the underworld, or hell. In the Great Chain of Being, we see how God stands at the top of a hierarchy that goes all the way down to humans, animals, plants and even demons. Only God and angels are higher on the hierarchy than humans.
How did the Khoisan use the land? They moved around, following game, water and seasonal shellfish. They would use the same sites again and again although they maintained no permanent settlements. Wealth was measured by livestock. Contrast this with the way that settlers used land. They practiced extensive grazing and settled agriculture. Long term settled agriculture was facilitated by land rights. Land was demarcated, owned permanently (if one chooses) owned and alienable, meaning it can be transferred to heirs, or other people. People could either get a free hold grant, where the land was permanently owned. There were also loan farms, where people leased their land for a year. In practice, people held these leases for decades and transferred them to heirs. Settlers measured wealth in land, livestock, slaves and material culture such as houses and other structures.
Dr. Mitchell thinks that settlers had many similarities with Khoisan culture. Older South African nationalistic histories claim that the two cultures are irreconcilably different. She thinks that there were large differences between settlers, where some were limited in material resources and mobility, whereas other settlers had larger markers of wealth such as vineyards. She acknowledges that each interpretation has its own point to make, however.
Origin myths are very revealing about a culture. They are cosmological insofar as they are about the nature of the cosmos, or the existence of the universe. This is the San creation story. In the beginning, humans and animals lived together with Kaggen, the creator and a trickster. They lived underneath the earth until Kaagen made a whole for the humans to rise to the surface. Some animals were able to get to the surface not through the hole but through the branches of a tree that had been planted next to the hole. Kaagen gathered the people and animals and warned the humans not to use fire. After the sun set, humans were afraid and cold without the sun's light. The animals, however, had natural adaptations to see in the dark and stay warm. The humans decided to light a fire, which scared the animals away and forced them to live in caves, trees and mountains.
Themes in this story include free will, heavenly realms (underground), the trickster/creator figure, transformation and the relationship between humanity and non-human animals. San religion also included the notion that spirits of humans and animals could go into the form of the other. Kaagen, the sometimes man, sometimes preying mantis, had a favorite animal, the eland. He punished his son for killing an eland by making humans hunt the eland in spite of the fact that they will rarely succeed. Eland were represented in much San art. Women are initiated into society by acting out the scene of joining a herd of eland (which is acted out by the other women). Men are initiated into society by a procession of eland hunters. Men wear cloaks as a symbol of a man wearing his wife. The eland is also a symbol meant to mediate between men and women. Both in the hunt of the male and in the menses of the woman, important blood is spilled. The blood of the eland is an important symbol.
The sources for this information comes from European descriptions of dances in the 18th century. San also told ethnographers about their stories in the 19th century. Current ethnogrophies in Namibia and Botswana also reveal parallel stories. We also have cultural artifacts and art left behind.
In one San story, "The Great Thirst", there are many elements shared with the creation story. Animals as a source of change, transformation and blood as life are three important themes. There are three worlds, the heavenly realm, the everyday world and the underworld. Those with strong spiritual power can move between the two realms. Humans and animals have obligations to each other. Another important theme is the ability of animals and people to transform into one another. Animals are also often portrayed as doing human things, such as in "The Lion and the Jackals".
Let's now consider Christian cosmology. The Christian settlers in 18th century South Africa did not expect their God to manifest himself in the real world. Rather, God lives in one of three realms: heaven. The other two realms are the world of humans and the underworld, or hell. In the Great Chain of Being, we see how God stands at the top of a hierarchy that goes all the way down to humans, animals, plants and even demons. Only God and angels are higher on the hierarchy than humans.
How did the Khoisan use the land? They moved around, following game, water and seasonal shellfish. They would use the same sites again and again although they maintained no permanent settlements. Wealth was measured by livestock. Contrast this with the way that settlers used land. They practiced extensive grazing and settled agriculture. Long term settled agriculture was facilitated by land rights. Land was demarcated, owned permanently (if one chooses) owned and alienable, meaning it can be transferred to heirs, or other people. People could either get a free hold grant, where the land was permanently owned. There were also loan farms, where people leased their land for a year. In practice, people held these leases for decades and transferred them to heirs. Settlers measured wealth in land, livestock, slaves and material culture such as houses and other structures.
Dr. Mitchell thinks that settlers had many similarities with Khoisan culture. Older South African nationalistic histories claim that the two cultures are irreconcilably different. She thinks that there were large differences between settlers, where some were limited in material resources and mobility, whereas other settlers had larger markers of wealth such as vineyards. She acknowledges that each interpretation has its own point to make, however.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Conflict in South Africa: Background
For the next three weeks, we will be looking at the history of societies in conflict with one another, starting with South Africa. Not only are cultures in conflict with one another, but there are conflicts between the different ways that cultures interact with the natural world. Dr. Mitchell claims that "nature" is at the heart of the conflict between cultures. We will consider the control and use of natural resources, the proper relationship between humanity and nature and the nature of humanity itself.
We will focus on historical thinking skills, an introduction to geography and culture of South Africa, and the importance of contingency and specificity of time and place. Time-place specificity means that certain truths arise in a particular time and in a particular place. For historians, an attachment to time-place specificity means that there is almost always an exception to universal laws and rules. The clearest universal law seems to be that humans are diverse and unpredictable. Our specific place for this unit is the Cape of Good Hope and the time is 19th century. To say that something is contingent upon something else means that it is dependent upon that thing. For example, the fact that Afrikaans, a language in South Africa, sounds like Dutch is contingent on the fact that there were so many white Dutch colonists in South Africa hundreds of years ago.
South Africa has many different climates. Dr. Mitchell notes that the landscapes impact the lives of people living there. For example, not all of South Africa has significant rainfall. Also, some areas are cut off from other areas by mountains. The diverse countryside ranges from dry deserts to sub-tropical forests. Cape Floral Kingdom, which is .5% of the size of South Africa, has 20% of the diversity of the country. There is also a lot of diversity of species within every genus. Also, approximately 30% of plants are endemic, meaning they grow nowhere else naturally. The biodiversity of the Cape Floral Kingdom has made it the subject of much scientific interest.
Early humanoid evolution has been documented in South Africa. Australopithacene fossils as old as 2.6 million years old have been found. There is archaeological evidence of humans hunting and foraging in this place 20,000 years ago, known as the San. Herders, or pastoralists, the Khoi, arrived 2,000 years ago. Bantu-speaking farmers arrived by 300 C.E. (300 A.D.) and moved down the East coast of South Africa.
The sources about Khoisan culture are somewhat questionable. European colonists described the locals as a mix of bushmen (foragers) and hottentots (herders). By 1750, Khoisan culture was almost entirely obliterated because of the disturbance caused by European colonists. There is linguistic evidence that the Khoisan culture had significant interactions with early versions of Bantu culture. We have rock art from this culture, which has no clear meaning and can be interpreted in many ways. There is also some further material culture and art, some colonial records and 19th century ethnographies.
"Bushmen" and "hottentot" are words used by colonists that were often intended as insults. From the European perspective, it appeared as if these people were somehow living "outside of time", suspended in a prehistoric way of living. But this ignores the complexity of the lives of such cultures.
In modern South Africa, there are 11 official languages, each of which carries socio-historical significance. Afrikaans, spoken over most of Western South Africa, in the places with significant rainfall, is spoken by the descendants of Dutch settlers. The Dutch East India Company was established to take advantage of trade opportunities with India. The Cape of Good Hope was supposed to be an outpost on the trading lines. In 1652, a small garrison was assigned to the area in order to establish a pit-stop for sailors. Jan van Riebeeck was in charge of this garrison. By 1656, he convinced the directors of the Dutch East India Company to import slaves from Asia to perform labor. In 1659, there was the first Khoi-Dutch war. In 1666-1679, Europeans built the oldest stone building in Capetown, the Castle of Good Hope. By 1763, the settlement had grown significantly from the original outpost.
We will focus on historical thinking skills, an introduction to geography and culture of South Africa, and the importance of contingency and specificity of time and place. Time-place specificity means that certain truths arise in a particular time and in a particular place. For historians, an attachment to time-place specificity means that there is almost always an exception to universal laws and rules. The clearest universal law seems to be that humans are diverse and unpredictable. Our specific place for this unit is the Cape of Good Hope and the time is 19th century. To say that something is contingent upon something else means that it is dependent upon that thing. For example, the fact that Afrikaans, a language in South Africa, sounds like Dutch is contingent on the fact that there were so many white Dutch colonists in South Africa hundreds of years ago.
South Africa has many different climates. Dr. Mitchell notes that the landscapes impact the lives of people living there. For example, not all of South Africa has significant rainfall. Also, some areas are cut off from other areas by mountains. The diverse countryside ranges from dry deserts to sub-tropical forests. Cape Floral Kingdom, which is .5% of the size of South Africa, has 20% of the diversity of the country. There is also a lot of diversity of species within every genus. Also, approximately 30% of plants are endemic, meaning they grow nowhere else naturally. The biodiversity of the Cape Floral Kingdom has made it the subject of much scientific interest.
Early humanoid evolution has been documented in South Africa. Australopithacene fossils as old as 2.6 million years old have been found. There is archaeological evidence of humans hunting and foraging in this place 20,000 years ago, known as the San. Herders, or pastoralists, the Khoi, arrived 2,000 years ago. Bantu-speaking farmers arrived by 300 C.E. (300 A.D.) and moved down the East coast of South Africa.
The sources about Khoisan culture are somewhat questionable. European colonists described the locals as a mix of bushmen (foragers) and hottentots (herders). By 1750, Khoisan culture was almost entirely obliterated because of the disturbance caused by European colonists. There is linguistic evidence that the Khoisan culture had significant interactions with early versions of Bantu culture. We have rock art from this culture, which has no clear meaning and can be interpreted in many ways. There is also some further material culture and art, some colonial records and 19th century ethnographies.
"Bushmen" and "hottentot" are words used by colonists that were often intended as insults. From the European perspective, it appeared as if these people were somehow living "outside of time", suspended in a prehistoric way of living. But this ignores the complexity of the lives of such cultures.
In modern South Africa, there are 11 official languages, each of which carries socio-historical significance. Afrikaans, spoken over most of Western South Africa, in the places with significant rainfall, is spoken by the descendants of Dutch settlers. The Dutch East India Company was established to take advantage of trade opportunities with India. The Cape of Good Hope was supposed to be an outpost on the trading lines. In 1652, a small garrison was assigned to the area in order to establish a pit-stop for sailors. Jan van Riebeeck was in charge of this garrison. By 1656, he convinced the directors of the Dutch East India Company to import slaves from Asia to perform labor. In 1659, there was the first Khoi-Dutch war. In 1666-1679, Europeans built the oldest stone building in Capetown, the Castle of Good Hope. By 1763, the settlement had grown significantly from the original outpost.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Philosophical Interpretations of QM
Remember, our task is not to evaluate quantum mechanist as if we are scientists. We are to consider what the consequences of QM might be for humanistic inquiry. Dr. Bencivenga notes that many of these interpretations of QM challenge not only our everyday notions about objects, but it also challenges the very structure of our language.
One everyday opinion is that the world is made up of different elements, or substances. In other words, there is some basic material or basic unit that makes up the world. In Ancient Greece, the basic components of reality were called atoms. Today, particles such as electrons are thought to be the most basic components. Yet modern physics challenges the idea that there are some basic components. Electrons can be created from energy. One kind of energy can be transformed into another kind of energy. According to modern physics, it appears as if the world is not made out of basic components or substances. It appears instead that the world is made up of energy. Heisenberg compares this idea to the idea of Heraclitus, an Ancient Greek philosopher.Heraclitus thought that fire affects particles. Energy moves things. Fire is the source of bodies just as particles can be made out of energy.
Heisenberg also refers to Anaximander. Anaximander thought that the origin of the universe was something indefinite or something indeterminate. He thought that things emerge out of this indeterminacy before returning back towards indeterminacy. Heisenberg thought that this idea is supported by QM. This theory still includes the idea that there are material objects in the world. According to Anaximander, material objects simply emerge out of indeterminacy and exist for awhile before returning to a state of indeterminacy.
Dr. Bencivenga encourages us to consider whether it is even the case that there are concrete, material objects in the world. In the Rutherford Gold Foil experiment, he shot large particles at a thin sheet of gold. Many of the particles were able to travel through the gold foil without any impediment. Rutherford hypothesized that this happened because the particles themselves are not material but are rather empty. They are not substances. Dr. Bencivenga suggests that what we think of as basic units (e.g. quarks) are merely points in space organized by forces. Heisenberg indeed seems to think that QM supports the claims of Pythagoras, another ancient philosopher. Pythagoras thought that the world is not made up of matter but rather is made up of mathematical form.
Quantum Mechanics even seems to undermine our langauge and logic. Language, for example, is thought to be made up of elementary sentences, such as "All bachelors are single". In such a sentence, there is a subject (what we are talking about) and a predicate (what we are saying about that thing). In the previous sentence, "all bachelors" is the subject and "are single" is the predicate. Yet QM challenges the notion that there are any basic facts that are true about the universe. It even becomes difficult to talk about a specific subject if we take QM seriously. At one point, an electron may be a wave and at another point, that same electron may be a particle. It seems impossible to even refer to any single object. Logic itself is also based on the principle of non-contradiction, meaning that one thing cannot be one way and the opposite way at the same time. But QM seems to entail the fact that at any given point, any object both is and is not in a certain position or is or is not travelling at a certain velocity. In other words, QM seems to require contradictory descriptions of entities. For example, light is both a wave and a particle--which had often thought to be contradictory.
Another notion that should be challenged by QM is the notion that scientists are somehow neutral and disinterested observers. Heisenberg notes that scientific endeavors such as the Manhattan Project (the project that led to the genesis of the atomic bomb) reveal that scientists are not merely observing the world but that they also shape the world in important ways. Dr. Bencivenga notes that at a time when many German scientists left Germany in order to support Allied forces, Heisenberg stayed in Germany to help the Nazis to make an atomic bomb. A recent book argues that Heisenberg remained in his homeland in order to purposefully stall these experiments. the NaAlthough we cannot know for sure if Heisenberg was trying to help or hinderzis, we can clearly see that science has many important moral consequences.
Traditionally, nature is often thought to be either a resource or a threat. It is an other with which we interact. The most authoritative means of interacting with nature has been science. Since the time of Galileo, science has gained a reputation for predictability and reliability. Dr. Bencivenga argues that this reputation is based on an old-fashioned notion of science that has its proper place in the 19th century and before. We often think that there is objective knowledge about the world that science can discover. But this idea seems outdated now. Since Max Planck, a revolution in the sciences has occurred. QM is one major aspect of this revolution. Relativity Theory is another important aspect of this revolution. According to Relativity Theory, space and time are relative to each person. Another aspect is Chaos Theory, according to which all things are singularly complex entities that can be thrown into chaos at some unknown breaking point. The most important moral to draw from these developments in modern science is that we should not be too optimistic about the extent to which the traditional scientific method can help us to understand the universe.
Traditional views of science see the scientist's task as a neutral observer of nature, but Dr. Bencivenga encourages us to see science as a dialogue between a scientist who is involved in and who affects nature.
One everyday opinion is that the world is made up of different elements, or substances. In other words, there is some basic material or basic unit that makes up the world. In Ancient Greece, the basic components of reality were called atoms. Today, particles such as electrons are thought to be the most basic components. Yet modern physics challenges the idea that there are some basic components. Electrons can be created from energy. One kind of energy can be transformed into another kind of energy. According to modern physics, it appears as if the world is not made out of basic components or substances. It appears instead that the world is made up of energy. Heisenberg compares this idea to the idea of Heraclitus, an Ancient Greek philosopher.Heraclitus thought that fire affects particles. Energy moves things. Fire is the source of bodies just as particles can be made out of energy.
Heisenberg also refers to Anaximander. Anaximander thought that the origin of the universe was something indefinite or something indeterminate. He thought that things emerge out of this indeterminacy before returning back towards indeterminacy. Heisenberg thought that this idea is supported by QM. This theory still includes the idea that there are material objects in the world. According to Anaximander, material objects simply emerge out of indeterminacy and exist for awhile before returning to a state of indeterminacy.
Dr. Bencivenga encourages us to consider whether it is even the case that there are concrete, material objects in the world. In the Rutherford Gold Foil experiment, he shot large particles at a thin sheet of gold. Many of the particles were able to travel through the gold foil without any impediment. Rutherford hypothesized that this happened because the particles themselves are not material but are rather empty. They are not substances. Dr. Bencivenga suggests that what we think of as basic units (e.g. quarks) are merely points in space organized by forces. Heisenberg indeed seems to think that QM supports the claims of Pythagoras, another ancient philosopher. Pythagoras thought that the world is not made up of matter but rather is made up of mathematical form.
Quantum Mechanics even seems to undermine our langauge and logic. Language, for example, is thought to be made up of elementary sentences, such as "All bachelors are single". In such a sentence, there is a subject (what we are talking about) and a predicate (what we are saying about that thing). In the previous sentence, "all bachelors" is the subject and "are single" is the predicate. Yet QM challenges the notion that there are any basic facts that are true about the universe. It even becomes difficult to talk about a specific subject if we take QM seriously. At one point, an electron may be a wave and at another point, that same electron may be a particle. It seems impossible to even refer to any single object. Logic itself is also based on the principle of non-contradiction, meaning that one thing cannot be one way and the opposite way at the same time. But QM seems to entail the fact that at any given point, any object both is and is not in a certain position or is or is not travelling at a certain velocity. In other words, QM seems to require contradictory descriptions of entities. For example, light is both a wave and a particle--which had often thought to be contradictory.
Another notion that should be challenged by QM is the notion that scientists are somehow neutral and disinterested observers. Heisenberg notes that scientific endeavors such as the Manhattan Project (the project that led to the genesis of the atomic bomb) reveal that scientists are not merely observing the world but that they also shape the world in important ways. Dr. Bencivenga notes that at a time when many German scientists left Germany in order to support Allied forces, Heisenberg stayed in Germany to help the Nazis to make an atomic bomb. A recent book argues that Heisenberg remained in his homeland in order to purposefully stall these experiments. the NaAlthough we cannot know for sure if Heisenberg was trying to help or hinderzis, we can clearly see that science has many important moral consequences.
Traditionally, nature is often thought to be either a resource or a threat. It is an other with which we interact. The most authoritative means of interacting with nature has been science. Since the time of Galileo, science has gained a reputation for predictability and reliability. Dr. Bencivenga argues that this reputation is based on an old-fashioned notion of science that has its proper place in the 19th century and before. We often think that there is objective knowledge about the world that science can discover. But this idea seems outdated now. Since Max Planck, a revolution in the sciences has occurred. QM is one major aspect of this revolution. Relativity Theory is another important aspect of this revolution. According to Relativity Theory, space and time are relative to each person. Another aspect is Chaos Theory, according to which all things are singularly complex entities that can be thrown into chaos at some unknown breaking point. The most important moral to draw from these developments in modern science is that we should not be too optimistic about the extent to which the traditional scientific method can help us to understand the universe.
Traditional views of science see the scientist's task as a neutral observer of nature, but Dr. Bencivenga encourages us to see science as a dialogue between a scientist who is involved in and who affects nature.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
In this short comedic sketch, Tim Minchin explains the logical mistake of confusing correlation with causation, also known as post hoc ergo propter hoc. This is relevant to our current lectures because scientists are supposed to identify causal connections and not only mere correlations. Warning: vulgar and offensive comedic stylings!
Monday, April 15, 2013
Hip Hop and Quantum Theory
In these two tracks, hip hop duo Eyedea & Abilities wax philosophical on the relationship between human consciousness and reality. Some explicit language.
"Powdered Water Too"
"Birth of a Fish"
"Powdered Water Too"
"Birth of a Fish"
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics
Today we will get a basic overview of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Then Dr. Bencivenga will discuss a few lessons that can be taken from this interpretation.
The Copenhagen Interpretation. The main idea is that only when an electron is observed can we fix a position or velocity of the electron. When a body (such as an electron) is not observed, it is in a superposition, meaning that it has many values for any given parameter. For example, a body may be in many positions or it may have different velocities. Each velocity that a body has a weighted value that can be mathematically represented. For example, an electron, E, may be 20% at location A, 20% at location B and 60% at location C. It is only when the electron is observed that it becomes a matter of fact what the velocity of the electron is. The electron will instantaneously and randomly shift from a state of superposition where there are many values for each vector to a state of determinacy where there is only one value for the vector that is being measured. Before the electron's position is measured, it can be expressed by a formula expressing the probability that the electron is located at any given place. A probabilistic notion of the mechanics of matter is just as causally necessary as a Newtonian view.
But one feature of quantum mechanics (QM) is that whenever one parameter, such as location, is measured, this means that other parameters, such as velocity, cannot be measured with as much accuracy. This is the indeterminacy principle, or uncertainty principle. Dr. Bencivenga notes the difference between uncertainty and indeterminacy. Uncertainty has to do with our knowledge of the world. Indeterminacy, however, has to do with the way the world is. It is one thing to claim that we are uncertain about the location of an electron. Yet it is another thing to claim that the position of the electron is indeterminate. Heisenberg himself endorsed this stronger, second notion. He thought that until we measure the position or velocity of an electron, there is no matter of fact about the position or velocity.
Heisenberg then makes some philosophical conclusions based on this innovation in theoretical physics.
We used to think about the world as having some determinate, fixed state that we can learn about with science. Even if our understanding is limited, we have often thought that there was some concrete, fixed, matter of fact about the world. But quantum mechanics views a world that is always in a possible state and never in a fixed state until we encounter it. Probability thus viewed is no longer a measure of a degree of likelihood that something will happen. In quantum mechanics, probability is used to express the potential within a body.
Another important feature of QM is the notion that observation itself changes the physical nature of the observed entity itself. According to QM, it is only when the position is measured that there is a fact about the position. Observing a body takes it out of a state of superposition and brings it into a fixed and determinate state. There is a reaction between reality and the observer. Quite literally, observers change reality when they observe it. Scientists are thus not just observers of the natural world, but they are players in nature who take part in making the thing that they are trying to observe.
QM has been criticized by modern scientists. Einstein, for example, was unhappy with the random view of nature presented by QM. He thus added to the theory of QM in an attempt to reduce indeterminacy to uncertainty. He thought that if we could take certain hidden factors into consideration, then we could have a complete and fixed image of nature. However, Dr. Bencivenga notes that there is not a single set of hidden variables that can be applied consistently in order to complement QM.
The Copenhagen Interpretation. The main idea is that only when an electron is observed can we fix a position or velocity of the electron. When a body (such as an electron) is not observed, it is in a superposition, meaning that it has many values for any given parameter. For example, a body may be in many positions or it may have different velocities. Each velocity that a body has a weighted value that can be mathematically represented. For example, an electron, E, may be 20% at location A, 20% at location B and 60% at location C. It is only when the electron is observed that it becomes a matter of fact what the velocity of the electron is. The electron will instantaneously and randomly shift from a state of superposition where there are many values for each vector to a state of determinacy where there is only one value for the vector that is being measured. Before the electron's position is measured, it can be expressed by a formula expressing the probability that the electron is located at any given place. A probabilistic notion of the mechanics of matter is just as causally necessary as a Newtonian view.
But one feature of quantum mechanics (QM) is that whenever one parameter, such as location, is measured, this means that other parameters, such as velocity, cannot be measured with as much accuracy. This is the indeterminacy principle, or uncertainty principle. Dr. Bencivenga notes the difference between uncertainty and indeterminacy. Uncertainty has to do with our knowledge of the world. Indeterminacy, however, has to do with the way the world is. It is one thing to claim that we are uncertain about the location of an electron. Yet it is another thing to claim that the position of the electron is indeterminate. Heisenberg himself endorsed this stronger, second notion. He thought that until we measure the position or velocity of an electron, there is no matter of fact about the position or velocity.
Heisenberg then makes some philosophical conclusions based on this innovation in theoretical physics.
We used to think about the world as having some determinate, fixed state that we can learn about with science. Even if our understanding is limited, we have often thought that there was some concrete, fixed, matter of fact about the world. But quantum mechanics views a world that is always in a possible state and never in a fixed state until we encounter it. Probability thus viewed is no longer a measure of a degree of likelihood that something will happen. In quantum mechanics, probability is used to express the potential within a body.
Another important feature of QM is the notion that observation itself changes the physical nature of the observed entity itself. According to QM, it is only when the position is measured that there is a fact about the position. Observing a body takes it out of a state of superposition and brings it into a fixed and determinate state. There is a reaction between reality and the observer. Quite literally, observers change reality when they observe it. Scientists are thus not just observers of the natural world, but they are players in nature who take part in making the thing that they are trying to observe.
QM has been criticized by modern scientists. Einstein, for example, was unhappy with the random view of nature presented by QM. He thus added to the theory of QM in an attempt to reduce indeterminacy to uncertainty. He thought that if we could take certain hidden factors into consideration, then we could have a complete and fixed image of nature. However, Dr. Bencivenga notes that there is not a single set of hidden variables that can be applied consistently in order to complement QM.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Some Relevant Tunes
Here is the Ellis Paul track I played in class called "Did Galileo Pray?", a song that considers to what extent a convicted heretic himself may have been spiritual.
The next track is more like a poem set to music. Tim Minchin's "Storm" is the tale of a scientifically-minded man trying to avoid making a scene as he debates with a new-age woman at a dinner party. Explicit language.
The next track is more like a poem set to music. Tim Minchin's "Storm" is the tale of a scientifically-minded man trying to avoid making a scene as he debates with a new-age woman at a dinner party. Explicit language.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Scientific Revolutions
Aristotle and Ptolemy believed in a universe that was divided into two parts. On the one hand was the earth, with water, fire and air. On the other hand, beyond the moon was a fifth element, called ether. In this realm of ether, things moved eternally in perfect circles. The original four elements, including earth, were thought to be stable and fixed. The movement of earthly bodies was thought of as a disruption from its natural state and the body's subsequent tendency to get back to this natural state. For example, since a stone is made of earth, it is supposed to be on the ground. A stone moves only when this natural state is disrupted, such as when it is thrown or kicked.
Dr. Bencivenga emphasizes the symbolism of Galileo's gesture of turning a telescope, which had been used only to look at the earth, to the heavens. Such a gesture indicates looking at the earth in a similar way to how we look at the other heavenly bodies. This is exactly the shift in scientific thinking that occurred when Galileo hypothesized that the earth is in motion just as other heavenly bodies are in motion.
Dr. Bencivenga notes that the common idea of modern science is that a super-human intelligence should be able to explain the movement of the entire universe with a single formula. It is only because human intelligence is limited that we cannot know everything. An unlimited intelligence could know everything. Dr. Bencivenga also notes that this conception of science is not faithful to current practice. Our next text, from Werner Heisenberg, will focus on the ways that science has changed in the last few hundred years.
In order to understand Heisenberg, we must understand the scientific context in which he was writing. Newton was very influential into the 18th century. Newton thought that the movement of light could be explained by particles. His system (Newtonian Mechanics) characterized physics for decades. At the outset of the 19th century, a famous experiment seemed to prove him wrong.
Thomas Young performed the two slit experiment. The experiment involves a source of light that goes through one screen with two slits onto a second blank screen. If light is made of particles, then some of these particles should go through either slit and hit the back screen. We would expect that the back screen will be illuminated by two spheres of light that overlap with a bright patch. But what we actually see is a series of strips, some brighter, some darker. This suggests that light is not made of particles but of waves. If waves travel through a slit, they can interfere with one another and either amplify or minimize the intensity of the light. The resulting display of light is an interference pattern.
Another change in science in the last couple hundred of years is how we conceive of motion. Aristotle, for example, thought that all motion is continuous. To travel from point A to point B means to travel on a continuous path between the two points, where all points on the path are met along the way. Max Planck thought that energy must travel in units of energy called quanta (or photons for light). Rather than moving in a continuous manner, energy makes giant leaps. Rather than passing by all points on a path, energy travels quantitative jumps from one place or value to another place or value.
Experiments about light in the early part of the 20th century seemed to indicate that both theories about light had some support in empirical evidence.
Heisenberg suggested that rather than conceiving of mechanical laws as equations for positions and velocities of electrons but for the frequencies and amplitudes. Frequencies themselves are the complex mixture of many different frequencies that occur at once. The extent to which a frequency is composed of other frequencies can be indicated with weighted measures. For example, a certain frequency, F, may be made of up 1/4 fA, 1/4 fB and 1/2 fC. So the equations are not fixed numbers but their value shifts depending on the complex event that is being described.
Dr. Bencivenga emphasizes the symbolism of Galileo's gesture of turning a telescope, which had been used only to look at the earth, to the heavens. Such a gesture indicates looking at the earth in a similar way to how we look at the other heavenly bodies. This is exactly the shift in scientific thinking that occurred when Galileo hypothesized that the earth is in motion just as other heavenly bodies are in motion.
Dr. Bencivenga notes that the common idea of modern science is that a super-human intelligence should be able to explain the movement of the entire universe with a single formula. It is only because human intelligence is limited that we cannot know everything. An unlimited intelligence could know everything. Dr. Bencivenga also notes that this conception of science is not faithful to current practice. Our next text, from Werner Heisenberg, will focus on the ways that science has changed in the last few hundred years.
In order to understand Heisenberg, we must understand the scientific context in which he was writing. Newton was very influential into the 18th century. Newton thought that the movement of light could be explained by particles. His system (Newtonian Mechanics) characterized physics for decades. At the outset of the 19th century, a famous experiment seemed to prove him wrong.
Thomas Young performed the two slit experiment. The experiment involves a source of light that goes through one screen with two slits onto a second blank screen. If light is made of particles, then some of these particles should go through either slit and hit the back screen. We would expect that the back screen will be illuminated by two spheres of light that overlap with a bright patch. But what we actually see is a series of strips, some brighter, some darker. This suggests that light is not made of particles but of waves. If waves travel through a slit, they can interfere with one another and either amplify or minimize the intensity of the light. The resulting display of light is an interference pattern.
Another change in science in the last couple hundred of years is how we conceive of motion. Aristotle, for example, thought that all motion is continuous. To travel from point A to point B means to travel on a continuous path between the two points, where all points on the path are met along the way. Max Planck thought that energy must travel in units of energy called quanta (or photons for light). Rather than moving in a continuous manner, energy makes giant leaps. Rather than passing by all points on a path, energy travels quantitative jumps from one place or value to another place or value.
Experiments about light in the early part of the 20th century seemed to indicate that both theories about light had some support in empirical evidence.
Heisenberg suggested that rather than conceiving of mechanical laws as equations for positions and velocities of electrons but for the frequencies and amplitudes. Frequencies themselves are the complex mixture of many different frequencies that occur at once. The extent to which a frequency is composed of other frequencies can be indicated with weighted measures. For example, a certain frequency, F, may be made of up 1/4 fA, 1/4 fB and 1/2 fC. So the equations are not fixed numbers but their value shifts depending on the complex event that is being described.
Vocab for Heisenberg
An interference pattern is the pattern that results from when two waves interfere with one another. If two crests meet, the waves become amplified. If a high point on a wave meets a low point on another wave, the wave becomes interrupted and de-intensified.
Quanta are small units of energy in Quantam Mechanics. Photons are small units of light energy. These can be contrasted with particles, which are thought to be basic units of energy in the system of Newtonian Mechanics. Particles were thought to move in a continuous manner, whereas quanta move in large jumps (quantum jumps).
Fourier Expansion was used to explain the movement of heat through a surface. The idea was that the movement of heat cannot be explained in one general theory but must be explained by appealing to explanations of the different parts of the larger event.
A parameter is a feature of a body that can be measured, such as velocity and location.
Superposition is a state in which a body has many values for any given parameter such as velocity, location, etc. In this state, there are many overlapping and co-existing values for each parameter. This is the state of things before we observe them. For example, before we observe an electron, there is no given fact about the position of the electron. The electron is rather co-located at many different positions.
Quanta are small units of energy in Quantam Mechanics. Photons are small units of light energy. These can be contrasted with particles, which are thought to be basic units of energy in the system of Newtonian Mechanics. Particles were thought to move in a continuous manner, whereas quanta move in large jumps (quantum jumps).
Fourier Expansion was used to explain the movement of heat through a surface. The idea was that the movement of heat cannot be explained in one general theory but must be explained by appealing to explanations of the different parts of the larger event.
A parameter is a feature of a body that can be measured, such as velocity and location.
Superposition is a state in which a body has many values for any given parameter such as velocity, location, etc. In this state, there are many overlapping and co-existing values for each parameter. This is the state of things before we observe them. For example, before we observe an electron, there is no given fact about the position of the electron. The electron is rather co-located at many different positions.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Scientific Method Pt II: Another Application and Critical Comments
Today, before we turn to criticisms of the scientific method, we will first look at another application of Galileo's method. Consider arguments about the daily, or diurnal, movement of the earth. One might wonder why we feel no wind from the movement of the earth. Or one might wonder why gravity pulls things straight down rather than at an angle. Indeed, these considerations seem to show that the earth is stationary. It does not seem as if the motion of the earth has an impact on the physical laws that govern the movement of things on this planet.
Galileo responds with an analogy. Imagine standing high on the mast of a ship. If you were to drop a stone, it would land directly below where you had dropped it--even though the ship is moving just as the earth is moving! This analogy is not yet conclusive, however. The scientific method requires that there be a causal explanation of the movement of objects. One explanation for why we feel no wind from the movement of the earth is that the atmosphere of the earth rotates with the earth. This is a causal explanation for why we feel no wind from the movement of the planet. Also, consider the movement of a stone that is dropped. At the time that the stone is dropped, it is already moving at the velocity of the earth. As it falls to the ground, it maintains this motion, which is why it falls directly below where it is dropped. Both the stone and the ground below it have the same motion, so it appears as if they stay in the same location in relation to one another.
Dr. Bencivenga notes that the scientific method does not prevent Galileo himself from making serious mistakes. He notes two important mistakes in particular. First, Galileo thinks that stars and planets move in perfectly circular motions. A contemporary thinker, Thomas Kepler, was correct to theorize that the planets move in an elliptical shape. Second, Galileo was very invested in his explanation of the tides. He thought that because the earth moves on a rotation around its own axis as well as around the sun, this creates a very irregular motion that causes the waters of the oceans to slosh around.
Another criticism of the method is that it does not help us to make a choice between two opposing theories. Both the view of Ptolemy and the view of Galileo are able to provide a causal account for the evidence. Both can provide Ultimately, Galileo claims that his view is better because it is more natural. Specifically, he appeals to a notion of simplicity in justifying the truth of his own view. He thinks that it is simpler to explain the apparent motion of the heavens if me hypothesize that the earth rotates around the sun rather than other planets rotating around the earth. He also thinks that his explanations are more elegant. Another notion that he appeals to is a notion of proportionality between causes and effects. In short, little things have little causes and big things have big causes. According to this principle, it seems silly to think that the earth (which is relatively small in the cosmos) could cause the heavens (relatively large compared to the earth) to move. Proportionality, elegance and simplicity are three intuitive principles that Galileo appeals to. None of the three are themselves justified by the scientific method.
In short, Galileo thinks that the Copernican system is more credible and reasonable. Dr. Bencivenga questions why we should think that the universe is organized according to credible and reasonable principles? Indeed, Galileo himself at certain points notes that we should not think that the universe operates only in ways that we are able to understand clearly. The actual events that happen in the universe are not limited simply by what we find to be reasonable and credible.
The upshot of all of this is that there is no single method that can be used infallibly to find the truth. Mistakes will be made when searching for the truth. Trial and error are both important in the quest for knowledge. Galileo thinks that we must accept that our searches for knowledge may not always yield knowledge. We must have intellectual courage in the face of this daunting fact. Not only do we need courage but also freedom in order to perform science. Freedom is necessary in order to pursue alternative explanations and to try to explain things in new ways.
Galileo responds with an analogy. Imagine standing high on the mast of a ship. If you were to drop a stone, it would land directly below where you had dropped it--even though the ship is moving just as the earth is moving! This analogy is not yet conclusive, however. The scientific method requires that there be a causal explanation of the movement of objects. One explanation for why we feel no wind from the movement of the earth is that the atmosphere of the earth rotates with the earth. This is a causal explanation for why we feel no wind from the movement of the planet. Also, consider the movement of a stone that is dropped. At the time that the stone is dropped, it is already moving at the velocity of the earth. As it falls to the ground, it maintains this motion, which is why it falls directly below where it is dropped. Both the stone and the ground below it have the same motion, so it appears as if they stay in the same location in relation to one another.
Dr. Bencivenga notes that the scientific method does not prevent Galileo himself from making serious mistakes. He notes two important mistakes in particular. First, Galileo thinks that stars and planets move in perfectly circular motions. A contemporary thinker, Thomas Kepler, was correct to theorize that the planets move in an elliptical shape. Second, Galileo was very invested in his explanation of the tides. He thought that because the earth moves on a rotation around its own axis as well as around the sun, this creates a very irregular motion that causes the waters of the oceans to slosh around.
Another criticism of the method is that it does not help us to make a choice between two opposing theories. Both the view of Ptolemy and the view of Galileo are able to provide a causal account for the evidence. Both can provide Ultimately, Galileo claims that his view is better because it is more natural. Specifically, he appeals to a notion of simplicity in justifying the truth of his own view. He thinks that it is simpler to explain the apparent motion of the heavens if me hypothesize that the earth rotates around the sun rather than other planets rotating around the earth. He also thinks that his explanations are more elegant. Another notion that he appeals to is a notion of proportionality between causes and effects. In short, little things have little causes and big things have big causes. According to this principle, it seems silly to think that the earth (which is relatively small in the cosmos) could cause the heavens (relatively large compared to the earth) to move. Proportionality, elegance and simplicity are three intuitive principles that Galileo appeals to. None of the three are themselves justified by the scientific method.
In short, Galileo thinks that the Copernican system is more credible and reasonable. Dr. Bencivenga questions why we should think that the universe is organized according to credible and reasonable principles? Indeed, Galileo himself at certain points notes that we should not think that the universe operates only in ways that we are able to understand clearly. The actual events that happen in the universe are not limited simply by what we find to be reasonable and credible.
The upshot of all of this is that there is no single method that can be used infallibly to find the truth. Mistakes will be made when searching for the truth. Trial and error are both important in the quest for knowledge. Galileo thinks that we must accept that our searches for knowledge may not always yield knowledge. We must have intellectual courage in the face of this daunting fact. Not only do we need courage but also freedom in order to perform science. Freedom is necessary in order to pursue alternative explanations and to try to explain things in new ways.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Galileo's Scientific Method
The most basic feature of Galileo's method is that we must rely on data and evidence. We cannot judge without evidence and facts. We must first take notice of data before we can judge. Science should not be based on a priori principles, meaning that science should not be based on principles that we have before we actually get evidence. Science should be done in an a posteriori manner, meaning that science should be based on evidence and experience. In short, sciences should be empirical. Also, a scientist should not just cherry-pick evidence that already confirms the beliefs that she or he holds. Recalcitrant evidence, or evidence that seems to go against one's presuppositions, is the most important evidence. Scientists should not be concerned with confirming presuppositions but they should want to explore all of the evidence and let the data itself determine the progress of the sciences.
Once we have the data, scientists should provide a causal account. For example, we can explain the movement of billiard balls by explaining how forces are transferred between two entities when they come in contact with one another. The scientist aims to identify necessary and universal links that explain the relationship between causes and effects. A ball moves because it is hit by a cue or by another ball. If this is truly a discovery of cause and effect, then it must be the case that in general, all balls will move when hit by a cue or another ball. Scientific principles thus seek to provide general truths that apply to a broad class of events and occurrences. The power of such principles is that we can use them to predict the motion of, for example, billiard balls or constellations in the sky. Because sciences identify universal truths, they can predict the future.
Causal accounts should be represented in mathematical form. Effects should be calculated from causes. If we formulate causal principles in mathematical form, then we can deduce certain effects. For example, if we know that f = ma, and we know the mass and acceleration of a certain object, then we can calculate the force of that object. Not only can the sciences predict, but they do so with mathematical certainty. Galileo thought that humans can have perfect knowledge of mathematical truths. Indeed, he thought that our perfect knowledge of mathematical truths was comparable to God's knowledge of mathematical truths.
One example of this method in Galileo's work is his discussion of the surface of the moon. Aristotle, for example, thought that the moon was made of ether, or an unchanging substance. The moon was popularly thought to have a smooth, glassy surface that was unchanging. Galileo, using a telescope, saw that the moon's surface was actually rough and included many features. This was evidence that directly contradicted Aristotelian physics. Dr. Bencivenga notes that Galileo's knowledge of techniques used in perspective painting may have allowed him to correctly "read" the combinations of color and shadows on the moon as evidence of mountains and other features. To show that the moon had a rough surface, the characters in the dialogue show how the rough surface of a wall reflects light in a more uniform way than a mirror does. With a mirror, light is reflected in a very directed way. With a rough wall, light is reflected in many directions, creating a more uniform appearance of light. Rough and irregular surfaces have many different angles off of which light can be reflected. This means that no matter the angle from which one is viewing the surface, light will be equally reflected. On a smooth surface, in contrast, light is only reflected at one certain angle. Here we see how Galileo 1) used empirical evidence to 2) challenge presuppositions and then 3) theorized about how the evidence can be explained.
Another point that Galileo made about the moon is that the light that comes from the moon is actually a reflection off of the earth.
Once we have the data, scientists should provide a causal account. For example, we can explain the movement of billiard balls by explaining how forces are transferred between two entities when they come in contact with one another. The scientist aims to identify necessary and universal links that explain the relationship between causes and effects. A ball moves because it is hit by a cue or by another ball. If this is truly a discovery of cause and effect, then it must be the case that in general, all balls will move when hit by a cue or another ball. Scientific principles thus seek to provide general truths that apply to a broad class of events and occurrences. The power of such principles is that we can use them to predict the motion of, for example, billiard balls or constellations in the sky. Because sciences identify universal truths, they can predict the future.
Causal accounts should be represented in mathematical form. Effects should be calculated from causes. If we formulate causal principles in mathematical form, then we can deduce certain effects. For example, if we know that f = ma, and we know the mass and acceleration of a certain object, then we can calculate the force of that object. Not only can the sciences predict, but they do so with mathematical certainty. Galileo thought that humans can have perfect knowledge of mathematical truths. Indeed, he thought that our perfect knowledge of mathematical truths was comparable to God's knowledge of mathematical truths.
One example of this method in Galileo's work is his discussion of the surface of the moon. Aristotle, for example, thought that the moon was made of ether, or an unchanging substance. The moon was popularly thought to have a smooth, glassy surface that was unchanging. Galileo, using a telescope, saw that the moon's surface was actually rough and included many features. This was evidence that directly contradicted Aristotelian physics. Dr. Bencivenga notes that Galileo's knowledge of techniques used in perspective painting may have allowed him to correctly "read" the combinations of color and shadows on the moon as evidence of mountains and other features. To show that the moon had a rough surface, the characters in the dialogue show how the rough surface of a wall reflects light in a more uniform way than a mirror does. With a mirror, light is reflected in a very directed way. With a rough wall, light is reflected in many directions, creating a more uniform appearance of light. Rough and irregular surfaces have many different angles off of which light can be reflected. This means that no matter the angle from which one is viewing the surface, light will be equally reflected. On a smooth surface, in contrast, light is only reflected at one certain angle. Here we see how Galileo 1) used empirical evidence to 2) challenge presuppositions and then 3) theorized about how the evidence can be explained.
Another point that Galileo made about the moon is that the light that comes from the moon is actually a reflection off of the earth.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Intro to Humanity & Nature
Science is the method through which we encounter the third "other" with which we can compare and contrast humanity: nature. Dr. Bencivenga is providing an introduction into the modern conception of science. This interpretation will be coming from the sciences itself. Specifically, we will be looking at Galileo and Heisenberg.
Galileo is regarded as the founder of modern science, including the scientific method. Dr. Bencivenga will introduce this method and critique it, as well. We will also be looking at a dialogue between two important theories about the universe. These two views are coming from Ptolemy and Copernicus.
When encountering nature, some of the most basic phenomena that we observe are the sun, moon, stars and planets. Each night and each year, we see shifting patterns in these phenomena. The sun moves in the same direction all the time, but sometimes it appears as if the stars move in an opposite direction. The earth, however, seems to remain still. Based on this most basic data, then, it was commonly thought that the earth was the center of the universe.
Three Ancient Views: Aristotle thought that the entire universe was spherical. Indeed, he thought that it was a series of concentric spheres. The innermost sphere was made of the four basic elements: earth, water, wind, and fire. This allows for things to live, die and change. Beyond the moon, everything is made of ether, an unchanging substance. Ptolemy explained the motions of heavenly bodies by appealing to eccentrics and epicycles. Eccentricity means that the earth is not exactly at the center of the universe. An epicycle is a circle that is centered on the perimeter of another circle. He hypothesized that planets and stars did not merely travel in a circular pattern, but that they traveled in a circle around the perimeter of another circle. Copernicus, in contrast to these other two views, thought that the sun (rather than the earth) is the center of the universe.
The Players: Gallileo's dialogue includes three figures, but the author himself never directly speaks. Simplicio is named after a commentator of Aristotle and he represents the Aristotelian/Ptolemic view. Salviati is the spokesman for Gallileo and Copernicus. Sagredo is a neutral and intelligent observer, but we also see that he ends up sympathizing with Salviati and he straightens the Copernican view. The dialogue takes place over four days. The first day is about Aristotelian physics. The second is about the daily rotation of the earth around the sun. The third is about the yearly rotation around the sun and the fourth is about the tides.
Practical Rhetoric: Dr. Bencivenga notes that the dialogue is meant to be somewhat leisurely and playful, so as to allow for transgressions. He also reminds us of the danger of addressing such issues at the time. It was considered heresy to claim that the earth revolved around the sun. Indeed, one could be executed for such crimes. Galileo himself was tried in 1616 and was forced to recant his views. The dialogue is thus an attempt to distance himself from his own claims. He distances himself from the views he represents in order to try to avoid persecution. His attempt was unsuccessful, however. It took two years for The Church to grant permission to publish the book, which was then revoked. Galileo was then tried and shown the instruments of torture, after which he recanted his views again and was then sentenced as a heretic.
Galileo is regarded as the founder of modern science, including the scientific method. Dr. Bencivenga will introduce this method and critique it, as well. We will also be looking at a dialogue between two important theories about the universe. These two views are coming from Ptolemy and Copernicus.
When encountering nature, some of the most basic phenomena that we observe are the sun, moon, stars and planets. Each night and each year, we see shifting patterns in these phenomena. The sun moves in the same direction all the time, but sometimes it appears as if the stars move in an opposite direction. The earth, however, seems to remain still. Based on this most basic data, then, it was commonly thought that the earth was the center of the universe.
Three Ancient Views: Aristotle thought that the entire universe was spherical. Indeed, he thought that it was a series of concentric spheres. The innermost sphere was made of the four basic elements: earth, water, wind, and fire. This allows for things to live, die and change. Beyond the moon, everything is made of ether, an unchanging substance. Ptolemy explained the motions of heavenly bodies by appealing to eccentrics and epicycles. Eccentricity means that the earth is not exactly at the center of the universe. An epicycle is a circle that is centered on the perimeter of another circle. He hypothesized that planets and stars did not merely travel in a circular pattern, but that they traveled in a circle around the perimeter of another circle. Copernicus, in contrast to these other two views, thought that the sun (rather than the earth) is the center of the universe.
The Players: Gallileo's dialogue includes three figures, but the author himself never directly speaks. Simplicio is named after a commentator of Aristotle and he represents the Aristotelian/Ptolemic view. Salviati is the spokesman for Gallileo and Copernicus. Sagredo is a neutral and intelligent observer, but we also see that he ends up sympathizing with Salviati and he straightens the Copernican view. The dialogue takes place over four days. The first day is about Aristotelian physics. The second is about the daily rotation of the earth around the sun. The third is about the yearly rotation around the sun and the fourth is about the tides.
Practical Rhetoric: Dr. Bencivenga notes that the dialogue is meant to be somewhat leisurely and playful, so as to allow for transgressions. He also reminds us of the danger of addressing such issues at the time. It was considered heresy to claim that the earth revolved around the sun. Indeed, one could be executed for such crimes. Galileo himself was tried in 1616 and was forced to recant his views. The dialogue is thus an attempt to distance himself from his own claims. He distances himself from the views he represents in order to try to avoid persecution. His attempt was unsuccessful, however. It took two years for The Church to grant permission to publish the book, which was then revoked. Galileo was then tried and shown the instruments of torture, after which he recanted his views again and was then sentenced as a heretic.
Vocab List for Galileo
Data, in its most basic sense, is what is given. Data is the sensory information provided to us by phenomena.
Phenomena are just what we experience. A phenomenon is an appearance, or the way a thing appears to us.
Retrograde motion is what happens when the stars appear to move in a direction opposite of the trajectoryin which the sun appears to move.
Concentric means sharing the same center. Concentric circles are circles that have the same center point. Larger and smaller circles can be organized around the same point.
Quintessence or ether, is a theoretical construct of an absolutely unchanging substance.
The deferent circle is the circle that is centered on a single point.
Eccentricity means that the earth is not exactly at the center of the universe.
An epicycle is a circle that is centered on the perimeter of another circle.
A priori means before evidence or before experience. An a priori principle does not depend on experience in order to show its truth.
A posteriori means after experience. An a posteriori principle is based upon evidence and experience in the world.
Extensive knowledge is having knowledge about a broad range of things. In comparison to God, Galileo thinks that we know a finite number of things compared to God knowing an infinite number of things.
Intensive knowledge is having in depth knowledge about one thing. In comparison to God, we can know some things, such as mathematical principles and proofs, perfectly.
Diurnal means daily. To talk about the diurnal movement of the earth means to talk about the daily movement of the earth, or the movement of the earth in a 24 hour period.
Dogma is a set of doctrines taken as an authority. Einstein praised Galileo for going against scientific dogma.
Phenomena are just what we experience. A phenomenon is an appearance, or the way a thing appears to us.
Retrograde motion is what happens when the stars appear to move in a direction opposite of the trajectoryin which the sun appears to move.
Concentric means sharing the same center. Concentric circles are circles that have the same center point. Larger and smaller circles can be organized around the same point.
Quintessence or ether, is a theoretical construct of an absolutely unchanging substance.
The deferent circle is the circle that is centered on a single point.
Eccentricity means that the earth is not exactly at the center of the universe.
An epicycle is a circle that is centered on the perimeter of another circle.
A priori means before evidence or before experience. An a priori principle does not depend on experience in order to show its truth.
A posteriori means after experience. An a posteriori principle is based upon evidence and experience in the world.
Extensive knowledge is having knowledge about a broad range of things. In comparison to God, Galileo thinks that we know a finite number of things compared to God knowing an infinite number of things.
Intensive knowledge is having in depth knowledge about one thing. In comparison to God, we can know some things, such as mathematical principles and proofs, perfectly.
Diurnal means daily. To talk about the diurnal movement of the earth means to talk about the daily movement of the earth, or the movement of the earth in a 24 hour period.
Dogma is a set of doctrines taken as an authority. Einstein praised Galileo for going against scientific dogma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)