Did Hugh Nibley Quote Mine Galileo?

While reading Hugh Nibley's The World and the Prophets as a missionary, I was struck by something he wrote about Galileo. Nibley was making the point that pure objectivity in science is an illusion and that our preconceptions affect what we see.

Listen to the great Galileo reporting his observations of Saturn. Others had suggested that there were rings about the planet, but there was no place in Galileo's system for such nonsense; he speaks as the pure observer: "I have resolved not to put anything around Saturn except what I have already observed." Couldn't he see the rings, then? He could indeed; his telescope was quite adequate for the task, and yet, looking right at Saturn, he did not see them: "I, who have observed it a thousand times at different periods with an excellent instrument, can assure you that no change whatever is to be seen in it. And reason, based upon our experiences of all other stellar motions, renders us certain that none ever will be seen." On the strength of direct observation this great scientist categorically denied that the rings of Saturn existed, though they were as plain as day before him; he denied that there ever was any change in the planet's appearance—though it was constantly changing before his eyes; and he declared that no changes ever would be seen in it to the end of time. How could he speak with such finality? Because his past "experiences of all other stellar motions" had completely conditioned him to what he should see and not see. [p. 271]

As I said, I was struck--by how blind and intransigent Galileo was.

Last week I happened to come across that passage again and I thought I would take a deeper look. I looked at Nibley's endnote: S. Drake, ed., Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (New York: Doubleday, 1957), 101-2. I don't have a copy of the book, but I found that I could search it for "Saturn" at Amazon.com. Here is the passage that Nibley quoted.

For the same reason I have resolved not to put anything around Saturn except what I have already observed and revealed--that is, two small stars which touch it, one to the east and one to the west, in which no alteration has ever yet been seen to take place and in which none is to be expected in the future, barring some very strange event remote from every other motion known to or even imagined by us. But as to the supposition of Apelles that Saturn is sometimes oblong and sometimes accompanied by two stars on its flanks, Your Excellency may rest assured that this results either from the imperfection of the telescope or the eye of the observer, for the shape of Saturn is thus: oOo, as shown by perfect vision and perfect instruments, but appears thus: [picture of bulging oval] where perfection is lacking, the shape and distinction of the three stars being imperfectly seen. I, who have observed it a thousand times at different periods with an excellent instrument, can assure you that no change whatever is to be seen in it. And reason, based upon our experiences of all other stellar motions, renders us certain that none ever will be seen, for if these stars had any motion similar to those of other stars, they would long since have been separated from or conjoined with the body of Saturn, even if that movement were a thousand times slower than that of any other star which goes wandering through the heavens.

Alright, now let's go over Nibley's claims.

1. "Others had suggested that there were rings about the planet" - I can't disprove this statement. However, from what I can find, credit for the suggestion that Saturn has rings goes to Christiaan Huygens in 1655, by which time Galileo was dead (d. 1642).

2. "Couldn't he see the rings, then? He could indeed; his telescope was quite adequate for the task" - This is contradicted by Nibley's source. On page 74, the book explains that Galileo had discovered "the curious shape of Saturn, which his telescope was unable to resolve into the well-known rings, and which he interpreted as being caused by two stationary satellites adjoining the planet."

3. "this great scientist categorically denied that the rings of Saturn existed" - see numbers 1 and 2.

4. "he denied that there ever was any change in the planet's appearance—though it was constantly changing before his eyes" - He did deny that Saturn changed appearances (although whether or not it had by that point is a matter of speculation). However, Galileo's original observations of Saturn took place beginning in 1610. Toward the end of 1612 the two "stars", that Galileo had previously observed flanking Saturn, disappeared. Galileo wrote:

Now what can be said of this strange metamorphosis? That the two lesser stars have been consumed, in the manner of the sunspots? Has Saturn devoured his children? Or was it indeed an illusion and a fraud with which the lenses of my telescope deceived me for so long--and not only me, but many others who have observed with me?

What had happened was that Saturn was positioned such that its rings were viewed edge-on from Earth, making them invisible. By at least 1616 Galileo could see the "stars" again, although he still didn't know that they were rings.

5. "he declared that no changes ever would be seen in it to the end of time" - Yes, but his point was that if the two "stars" were moving (i.e. orbiting Saturn) then he would have been able detect the motion.

6. "his past 'experiences of all other stellar motions' had completely conditioned him to what he should see and not see" - His past experience was with Jupiter and its moons. One would think that he would have been conditioned to see the "stars" orbiting Saturn rather than remaining stationary.

In summary, it appears that Nibley got pretty much everything about Galileo wrong. Of course people make mistakes--I'm not arguing that Nibley intended to misrepresent Galileo. And Nibley's larger point is right; our preconceptions can color what we see. And it's certainly possible that I'm missing something that would justify Nibley's take on Galileo. However, for now I conclude that Galileo was a better observer than Nibley thought and, ironically, Nibley may have been his own object lesson in lack of objectivity.

Further Reading:

Historical Background of Saturn's Rings

The Galileo Project: Saturn

---

Continue reading...

Anti-Uniformitarianism or Causes Without Effects

Mormonism has a long history of viewing miracles as being in accordance with the laws of nature. Brigham Young said:

The providences of God are all a miracle to the human family until they understand them. There are no miracles, only to those who are ignorant. A miracle is supposed to be a result without a cause, but there is no such thing. There is a cause for every result we see; and if we see a result without understanding the cause we call it a miracle.

Similarly, Parley P. Pratt wrote:

Among the popular errors of modem times, an opinion prevails that miracles are events which transpire contrary to the laws of nature, that they are effects without a cause.

If such is the fact, then, there never has been a miracle, and there never will be one. The laws of nature are the laws of truth. Truth is unchangeable, and independent in its own sphere. A law of nature never has been broken. And it is an absolute impossibility that such law ever should be broken.

Uniformitarianism

With this in mind, I want to highlight a 1983 BYU Studies article, "Hutton's Uniformitarianism", by (retired?) BYU professor of geology Jess R. Bushman. Uniformitarianism is sometimes misunderstood, but Bushman explains it clearly.

Uniformitarianism, or cause and effect, is a very important and basic concept in geology. The heart of the concept is that there is order and regularity in the operation or functioning of natural laws. This consistency is what gives significance to cause-and-effect patterns. What we see happening today helps us to identify the results of natural processes which were active million of years ago. We observe ripple marks being formed by wave action on beaches today; when we see similar ripple marks in ancient sandstone, we use cause and effect or uniformitarianism to suggest that the ripple-marked sandstones were once part of an ancient beach....

Violent events such as volcanic eruptions, which are convincing evidence that not all change occurs slowly, are still part of uniformitarianism change so long as there is a pattern of cause and effect that reflects the orderly function of natural laws.

Uniformitarianism is traditionally contrasted with catastrophism.

Catastrophists support the idea that the earth is just a few thousand years old, and they are determined to discredit the evidence of slow gradual change. They insist that rates of erosion, for example, were much more rapid or violent in the past than they are today. Catastrophists ignore the cause-and-effect relationship which indicates that if you change the rate you also change the results. For example, if the rate or energy of stream erosion is increased to that which occurs with a destructive flood, it produced thicker and coarser deposits with numerous erosion channels within the deposits. On the other hand, very fine grained evenly laminated sedimentary deposits indicate that deposition occurred in low-energy quiet water. The rock record contains evidence of not just the type of process but also the rate at which it occurred.

Bushman's descriptions are probably accurate enough today, but they belie some of the historical excess and nuances of these competing approaches to geology. (Bushman notes that Charles Lyell was the source of some of that excess.) The rest of the essay presents uniformitarianism as it was described by James Hutton, followed by some supporting statements from Mormon tradition and scripture, including the quote above by Brigham Young.

Causes Without Effects

Modern criticisms of uniformitarianism are usually religious in nature. In fact, two such articles have appeared in the Ensign [1], and similar writings exist elsewhere in LDS literature. Donald Parry, the author of one of these articles, described uniformitarianism as follows:

Uniformitarianism...proposes three primary concepts: (a) there were no processes (such as geologic processes) operating in the past which are not operating now; (b) there are no processes operating now which were not operating in the past; and (c) process rates have not changed.

To be fair to Parry, there have been some historical excesses in defining and applying uniformitarianism, as noted above. But notice the contrast between the descriptions offered by Bushman and Parry. Bushman's definition focuses on concern for cause-and-effect relationships; Parry's definition is an obvious intellectual straight-jacket.

Parry's version of uniformitarianism is easy to reject, and that serves the purpose of his article, which is to support the reality of a global flood. But he and other similar critics usually excuse themselves from doing the needed rearrangement of cause-and-effect relationships. This allows them to cast doubt on science without engaging it. If I may invert Brigham and Parley's critique, their miracles are causes without effects.

The Earth Divided

To use a different example, let's consider the division of the continents. According to one Biblical interpretation, following Noah's flood the continents were separated as indicated by Genesis 10:25.

And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

The observed distances between the continents today requires that this separation--which allegedly occurred a few thousand years ago--was a catastrophic event. A number of scientific lines of evidence support the idea that the continents have joined and separated over time, and the theory of plate tectonics describes how the movement of the continents is possible. However, these movements have been measured and are on the order of inches (or centimeters) per year. Superficially, it appears that we have a simple choice to make based on whether we are willing to believe that movement of the continents has always been slow. Why couldn't a catastrophic or miraculous event cause quick separation?

Can a rock change its stripes?


We need to look deeper [2]. Mid-ocean ridges are mountain ranges on the ocean floor where seafloor spreading occurs as tectonic plates move away from each other. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge runs north-south between the the Americas on the west, and Europe and Africa on the east. At these ridges magma is released, cools, and adds to the crust. Magnetic minerals within these volcanic rocks align with the earth's magnetic field and are frozen in place as the lava cools. Periodically the Earth's magnetic field reverses, and these reversals are reflected in the alignment of the magnetite in the crust. Mapping of the ocean floor has revealed that mid-ocean ridges are sandwiched between symmetrical bands of rock with differing magnetic polarity. These bands can also be dated radiometrically and compared to other volcanic rocks on land, and scientists have found that there is good correspondence in the magnetic polarity of land and ocean rocks of the same age. These ages also show that the magnetic field reversals occur on the order of tens of thousands of years. This is strong evidence that the movement of the continents has been a slow and gradual process.

Dismissing the accepted time period for the continental movements as mere uniformitarianism without explaining these findings just won't do. If South America and Africa were ripped apart by a catastrophe, or even a miracle, the resulting gash in the Earth's crust would have to be filled with something--presumably with the magma underneath. Under such a scenario we would expect the magma to cool more-or-less simultaneously, and the magnetic polarity of the newly formed crust should be uniform. Furthermore, the new crust should give a uniform radiometric date. But this is not what is found. To ignore this contradiction and maintain a catastrophic separation of the continents is to decouple cause and effect by asserting that a catastrophic event caused the effects of a gradual process.

Conclusion

When viewed as concern for cause-and-effect relationships, it becomes clear that the principle of uniformitarianism provides a foundation for reasoning that extends into everyday life. Instead of an arbitrary assumption born of human arrogance, it is a practical guide in a lawful universe, which is why Bushman sees ties between uniformitarianism and LDS theology. This view also reveals most criticism of uniformitarianism to be scientifically empty rhetoric that subtly undermines the basis for belief in a lawful universe.

---

Notes:

1. The Flood and the Tower of Babel and The Gospel and the Scientific View: How Earth Came to Be

2. See This Dynamic Earth, especially here and here.

---

Continue reading...