Theories vs. 'Facts' by EUGENE JAMES January 29, 2001 DALLAS, TX As I sat through my philosophy class today, something struck me a bit funny. We were discussing the Copernican Revolution; so naturally we started by examining how people were thought to have viewed the world and the universe up until the time of Copernicus. Our professor put forth the idea that many people used to view the Earth as the center of the universe and that, furthermore, some cultures even believed the mountains held up the sky. These ideas drew more than a few chuckles from the classroom. The notion that people may have believed these ideas didn't strike me as particularly funny. But the chuckles from my fellow students did. It seems many of us assume the ancients were superstitious idiots. I would not wholly disagree. But I believe most of us, including myself, could in turn be fairly described as mindless idiots in many areas.

EXPLORE CST... Bad Poetry -- submissions welcome Toonage -- cyber toons Ask Jay Crew... -- an advice column Coffee Talk -- complete CST archive Total Linkage!!! -- perfect newsie homepage E-mail CST -- comments, complaints? .

There are so many scientific conslusions which we accept, simply because we've been told that really smart people arrived at these conclusions after devoting a seemingly sufficient amount of time towards their study. Often we don't have the time to study these areas on our own, so we take others' words for it. Of my classmates who laughed at these ancients' bizarre ideas, I wonder whether any of them could fully convince an equally intelligent ancient Grecian of the legitimacy of their take on the universe, such as the Earth's roundness or the motions of the planets. Let it be said that I don't necessarily feel that my classmates, who so easily chuckle at others' views, need to understand astronomy as well as, say, Stephen Hawking. I just think that perhaps they are no more justified in holding their beliefs than an Ancient Grecian was in holding his. Both are basically taking someone else's word for it. I stroll slowly towards my point. In any given field -- be it science, music, or philosophy -- it's the specialist or even the genius who advances that field. Most of the population lacks the time and aptitude (or the need!) to understand a particular theoretical view. As long as the leaders in a field are able to pass on the information to its next generation of scholars, the information will be safe. However, once a society has reached its zenith and begins accellerating towards a concluding point, its scholars may no longer have the time or resources to further their research. They may continue their efforts to preserve their knowledge for future generations, but there's no guarantee that future anthropologists will chance upon, much less understand their writings. So, what's my point? I feel it's very possible that the ancients may have attained greater "knowledge" than they are given credit for by most. First off, I think we can agree that the most advanced scientists in any given field during any given epoch have a far greater understanding of their science than does the popular culture. From these scientists' points of view, is it necessary that the general population understands their discoveries? Would it behoove those in power to reveal to the general population every scientific advancement? I say no. I'm no expert on ancient Babylon or the Mayan Indians, but I've read that both had very accurate calendars which could predict astronomical events more accurately than 19th century Western science. Most conventional anthropologists, however, tend to argue that these were very primitive peoples who thought the stars were controlled by divine intervention. I have two problems with this viewpoint: First off, from my admittedly small knowledge of anthropology, it seems that whenever anthropologists come across something which they don't understand (perhaps because they lack education in other sciences such as astronomy, perhaps not), they often attribute it to religion or supernatural beliefs within the culture. I feel that this shows arrogance to no small degree. Of course, I don't have trouble believing that they may have found writings, which attributed the motions of the stars to divine intervention. However, it's possible that this was how ancient scientists explained things to the general population, who in turn took their word for it (and don't we do the same today?). It is well documented that witch doctors/"astronomers" would predict eclipses of the sun or moon to amaze and scare people. Why spend time and resources teaching astronomy to the rest of society when you've discovered a tool by which you may lead it. We may never know what the Maya really thought about their world, since the Spanish conquistadors and missionaries destroyed many Mayan writings in mass. And I won't lose sleep awaiting proof that the Maya did suspect the Earth is round and that it's not at the center of the Universe. But I believe that the ancient commoners were no more superstitious than we are today. I also believe that it's at least possible that the scientific revolution in Ancient Greece was not the first instance in history in which people looked at things in a scientific way. Actually, it may be the first time cutting edge science was made available to more than an elite few. And so for Ancient Grecians, the "scientific revolution" may have already occurred, or never had to occur at all.

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times contributor Eugene James.