- Hermetic Legends and Their Influence on the Development
of Science During the Period of the Renaissance: - According
to Frances Yates, the urge for scientific development during
the Age of the Renaissance stemmed in part from a tradition
that originated during the Rise of Christianity, around
a historical Egyptian figure named Hermes Trimigestos Who
lived at the time of Moshe and the Exodus from Egypt and
was also linked to the banishment of Adam from Eden and
to man's creative powers. This legend intimated that man
has the power to acquire knowledge and that it is his duty
to perfect God's creation and to be a creator himself. The
message of this legend was that labor is not contemptible,
but rather noble since it has the power to refine knowledge.
Galileo and the Factors that Influenced Scientific Research
During his Lifetime: - Galileo was a Catholic from Northern
Italy who lived at the end of the 16th- beginning of the
17th centuries. He studied physics and mathematics, focusing
primarily on the celestial bodies. Coming from an indigent
family, he needed the financial support of wealthy and often
also powerful individuals, and therefore developed a relationship
with the Great Duke of Medici and also with the Pope himself.
Galileo's fame spread even during his lifetime, and his
telescopes sold well throughout Europe, making him considerable
profits. Galileo faced serious financial and religious pressures
to develop his scientific theories in accordance with religious
beliefs and texts. He refused to succumb, however, insisting
that rather than tailoring his scientific findings to conform
with accepted religious interpretation, religious writings
should be reinterpreted in accordance with scientific findings.
In other words, whenever these two contradicted each other,
Galileo concluded that the original interpretation of the
religious writings had been mistaken, and that scientific
discoveries could facilitate a more correct understanding
of the religious texts. The realism that had already begun
to take hold of Europe, however, demanded that every hypothesis
must be consistent with science as well as the Church's
interpretation of religious texts. When Galileo was summoned
to Rome to be tried by the Inquisition for his ideas, his
theories were rejected on scientific and religious grounds.
Galileo's belief that the earth revolved around the sun
was considered both scientifically erroneous as well as
absolute heresy. In order to avoid being punished as a heretic,
Galileo recanted. Scientists - who were not Protestant and
who did not live in such close proximity to the Pope, faced
fewer restrictions on their scientific beliefs. The Protestant
Tycho Brahe based much of his science on Copernicus' theories,
with the support and encouragement of the King of Denmark
who left at his disposal an island with various equipment
including a sophisticated printing press. Scientific research,
during this time, faced not only the external censorship
of the Church, but also internal, self-imposed censorship.
Kepler, for example, who first published his findings in
1596 was a committed Protestant, who felt duty-bound to
only publicize ideas that were consistent with religious
texts. Galileo, in contrast to Kepler, did not concern himself
with this issue, though he did attempt to reconcile his
findings with religious texts. Galileo lived at a time when
the success of scientists depended on their ability to find
benefactors and patrons. The patron would generally provide
the scientist with a regular stipend or, as in the case
of Brahe, with scientific equipment and supplies. A scientist's
rank and status depended on the size of the stipend he received
from his patron, relative to those received by other scientists.
No scientific community existed at this time that could
evaluate scientific discoveries, as will be evident in the
case of Hobbes discussed below, so patronage was the determining
factor. The patronage of an admired leader conferred social
status, and even sometimes enabled one scientist to organize
patronages for other scientists, and thus prove his power
and standing. Patrons were common also in the fields of
music and art in general. The system of patronage insured
that a scientist did not ignore scientific criticism, since
it had an affect on one's own patron's standing among fellow
patrons, and a scientist owed his patron respect. The system
motivated scientists to prove themselves, and to publish
their discoveries. Galileo, for this reason, felt obliged
to follow in the footsteps of Copernicus, to take upon himself
the difficult weighty task of fighting for his beliefs,
a fight, which ultimately landed him in the dungeon of the
Inquisition. The scientist and his scientific method, during
this time period, were thus pawns in the hands of opposing
social forces. According to Elizabeth Eisenstein, the dearth
of scientific research by Protestant scientists in the year
1640 stemmed from Luther's declaration against scientists
and against Copernicus' theory and all proponents of his
theory. Luther asserted that according to Biblical texts,
it is not the earth that moves, but rather the sun, and
thus it is not conceivable to suggest the opposite. Luther's
views had influence, for some time, over Protestant scientists,
just as the Catholic Church's opposition to Galileo had
influence over Catholic scientists. Thus, around the year
1640, Protestant scientific activity declined, until with
the passage of time the weight of Luther's declarations
diminished, and scientific activity resumed. It emerges
from this description that a range of conflicting, competing
factors existed in Europe that affected the development
of science. These factors were apparently essential to scientific
development, and it is logical to suppose that similar factors
had influence later on in history, and even today. The Emergence
of the Scientific Community to Steer Scientific Research
as Exemplified by Hobbes and Boyle: - In the case of Hobbes,
controversy took place in the years 1660-1670, in England,
between two scientists, Hobbes and Boyle. Hobbes supported
the philosophy of the natural sciences while Boyle advocated
scientific development through the method of experimental
science. Boyle designed an air pump that was recognized
and applauded by the royal scientific community in London,
and by which he proved that vacuums are possible, at least
under laboratory conditions. Hobbes also was recognized
and venerated for his achievements - in the realm of society
and morality - for his book, Leviathan, while in the realm
of natural sciences he was censured, and even accused of
plagiarism. Hobbes did not realize that in criticizing Boyle's
air-pump, he was criticizing an invention and a person who
enjoyed the status of a national hero, and who was a source
of national pride for England. Hobbes claimed that, in contrast
to Boyle's experimental approach, proponents of a philosophical
approach to science are members of an elite class of true
intellectuals and scholars, and not mere laboratory assistants.
This statement peeved those who were meant to adjudicate
between Hobbes and Boyle, members of the royal scientific
community, individuals who held Boyle's methods in great
regard. They considered Hobbes' words a vilification of
a British national hero and a denigration of his means of
employment. Hobbes refused even to submit to the judgment
of the royal scientific community, insisting that they were
biased in the matter, a claim that implicitly accused them
of corruption. Hobbes' attitude alienated the scientific
community and caused them to reject his scientific methods,
even though theoretically both Hobbes and Boyle's methods
both possessed their share of flaws. It is fitting to include
here the words of Thomas Kone, a writer at the beginning
of the 20th century who described the role of the scientific
community in the acceptance of Western scientific theories.
His book, which earned the approbation of that very community
about which he spoke, claims that when a majority of scientists
are persuaded as to the truth of a new theory, then it replaces
an old one, only to be replaced itself when a newer theory
becomes popular in the same way. This is a limited social
process that is not dependent on natural forces, but rather
on the bias and predisposition of members of the scientific
community. Thus, the social game played a significant role
in the development of science in the West. Protestantism,
Bourgeoisie, and the Industrial Revolution - Max Weber,
noting that Western man gloats in the fact that he surpasses
Eastern cultures, explores the reason for this phenomenon.
Leaving aside the possibility that the cause is anthropological,
and observing that Western Protestants outperform Western
Catholics, he discusses differences between Protestants
and Catholics, and the development of a form of capitalism
that is based on rational organization of free labor, steering
of the production according to free market and separation
of the business from family maintenance as well as logical
bookkeeping and a clear system of law. In his opinion, Protestants
have succeeded in these areas more than Catholics because
Protestantism demands more of its followers than does Catholicism.
It imposes ethical duties, including diligence and honesty,
as is most apparent in New England, the home of the Puritans
and Protestants, and in contradistinction to Catholic values
from the Middle Ages and earlier. According to Protestant,
and specifically Puritan teachings, though every individual
should be paid according to his output because otherwise
productivity will decline, financial compensation should
not be the motivating factor but rather the view that one's
job is a religious calling. Protestants, in general, and
Puritans, in particular inculcate their children with such
a work ethic, and this education has resulted in a serious
approach towards work, a willingness to make do with little,
and an attitude that one is fulfilling a religious calling
through one's work, a calling that has its dividends, and
whose dividends are reinvested in the factory, over and
above the factory owner's needs. He must invest these profits
in his factory, in order to expand his business, and in
this manner a 'capitalist spirit' developed. The constant
attention and effort that the business demanded ultimately
became a life force, and man began to live to work, rather
than the reverse. Protestantism deemed the pursuit of profit
- which Catholicism so denigrated, as described in the writings
of Thomas Maquines - extremely laudable. This approach began
with Luther's reformation, and his emphasis on fulfillment
of national obligations, from which the notion evolved that
all honest labor finds favor in God's eyes. Weber speaks
at length about the Calvinists, a sect that branched off
from Protestantism, which taught that man must prove his
faith by working the land. While Thomas Maquines, according
to Catholic theology, claimed that man's place in the world
is random and haphazard, Luther believed that the classes
and professions of man are the products of the historical
objective order, expressions of the divine will, and thus
it became a religious imperative to remain in one's preordained
class. The Puritans already affirmed man's right to change
occupations, even for the sake of increased financial reward,
since personal wealth is considered an acceptable goal,
as long as it does not lead man to slothfulness and sinful
pleasures, and as long as society ultimately benefits too.
Calvinists and Baptists took these convictions one step
further, believing that through their industriousness and
diligence, they fulfilled a divine obligation. Over the
course of time and the development of capitalism in the
West, the religious component was lost, and only bald latent
utilitarianism remained. Western philosophy has always been
permeated by the motif of utilitarianism, whether personal
or communal, material or spiritual. This process began with
Kant, continued with Bentham's theory, until the liberal
communitarianism of today, Rawls and post-modernism. Weber's
description contrasts sharply with Chinese culture, which
was based on Confucianism, on loyalty to the emperor, father,
and master, and on the generosity of these individuals to
those beholden to them. In such a system, there is no concept
of man trying to better himself or aiming to raise his social
standing, since there is no higher good than fulfillment
of obligations in general, and faithfulness, in particular.
Fathers and Sons and Division Between Family and Work- Weber
already spoke about how the bourgeoisie was built on a division
between one's work and employment on one hand, and family
life on the other. He did not, however, relate to changes
in family relations that resulted from this split. This
chapter will explore this issue, in particular the status
of the mother-wife in the narrow family unit, and the changes
that transpired in father son relations in the US during
the 19th century, as a result of the Industrial Revolution
and urbanization. John Demos describes how - the shift from
an agricultural life, in which the entire family, including
the children, participated, to an alien, even precarious
atmosphere, in which the father-husband concentrated on
providing financially for his family, and the mother-wife
concentrated on the education of her children and on domestic
affairs - affected family dynamics. A son's connection with
his mother intensified and became intimate, while his feelings
towards his father became emotionally estranged and competitive.
A son sought to prove himself equal or superior to his father,
while possessing warm, intimate, almost sexual feelings
towards his mother. These feelings were so strong that when
soldiers went out to war, they would sing songs proclaiming
their desire to fight 'for the sake of their mother,' for
whom they were willing to even sacrifice their lives. Towards
their fathers, however, they felt they owed nothing. Demos
considers the Industrial Revolution one of the factors that
caused the father-husband's disconnection with the family
home, in 19th century American society. Perhaps, though,
Demos has reversed the cause and effect. Perhaps the changes
in the family (that stemmed from urbanization, and the perils
of city life that drove women to seek the shelter of their
home, leaving their husbands to make their way on the outside
alone) enabled the father-husband to work in industry and
factories. Perhaps the son's sense of competition with his
father and need to prove himself, impelled him to aspire
higher than his father, to excel in his work and perhaps
open his own business or factory. The mother-wife's role
in the home became primary, while the father-husband became
somewhat of a peripheral, alienated factor, responsible
for "bringing home the bacon," but playing an
absolutely secondary role in the home. The mother's increased
authority and influence in the home, and the sense of estrangement
the son felt towards his father, distinguished Western culture
from Chinese culture. In Imperial China, disrespect of one's
father was inconceivable. Respect for one's mother was also
valued, but it was secondary to respect for one's father.
A child in 19th century America had far greater freedom
to forge his own way than did his counterpart in China.
This factor, among others, had a major impact on the development
of industry, or lack there of, in America and China.
