Galileo & the Tyranny of Truth
September-October 1996

Commentary on the essay "Galileo and the Tyranny of Truth" by Paul Feyerabend, collected in the book, Farewell to Reason.

Philosopher Paul Feyerabend is one of a new breed of philosophers of science who questions the "objective" nature of modern science and is trying to reintroduce a healthy respect for a biblical approach to human knowledge. Scientists generally despise the men in this group because they challenge the cherished assumptions of the "objectivity" and alleged epistemological superiority of modern science over other forms of knowing. Of the group, Feyerabend is considered the most notorious, radical, and dangerous by the scientific community for his refusal to accept that the current weltanschuuang or "reductionist scientific world view" is in any way superior to other possible models including those of a boldly religious nature.

As a consequence of Feyerabend's iconoclasm, he has chosen the unenviable but noble task of defending the integrity of the Catholic Church and St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine in the dispute with Galileo over whether the earth or the sun was the center of the universe.

At first glance this seems like a futile effort since everyone now "knows" that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa. But is that true? We must remember that none of the proofs for heliocentrism proposed by Galileo was convincing either then or now. His heliocentric model had as many epicycle problems as the standard geocentric model and failed to make accurate predictions of planetary movement. The one model that made accurate predictions was proposed by Kepler based on Tycho Brahe's measurements. This view was specifically ridiculed and rejected by Galileo. Furthermore, we now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that according to Einstein's theories of relativity there is no absolute point of geometric centrality to the universe so that wherever the observer stands is the center for him. In essence the humanistic, phenomenological, and biblical approach to the question of the universe has won out after all.

The testimony of history is that Galileo got it wrong both in his own day and in retrospect. But he is still considered one of the "martyrs" of science because the "reactionary" Catholic Church refused to accept the "truths" which he "discovered". Wasn't the Church just scrambling to preserve its dominant stranglehold on knowledge by which it controlled society? Absolutely not!

This is where Dr. Feyerabend presents a view that vindicates the Church's objections to Galileo's actual claims and summarizes Bellarmine's critiques of his methodology. Dr. Feyerabend points out that the real issue was whether or not science is the ultimate arbiter of all knowledge about the natural world. He points out that scientific models are themselves only designed to predict possible outcomes based upon limited assumptions. They are not designed to describe what is "really" happening but only what can be expected to happen. He points out that relativity for large objects and quantum theory for subatomic particles are quite successful in making predictions in their respective realms, but that they are not derivable from each other and all attempts to unite them have so far failed. The point is that no matter how successful a scientific theory is as a scientific theory, that does not indicate that it is a realistic description of the world.

He further quotes from St. Robert's letter on the Galileo case to show that indeed the Church was concerned with truth and willing to alter its way of looking at the world or interpreting the Scriptures if there were a sufficient reason to do so. Galileo in his day did not present any sufficient proof by the common admission of history. As such, Feyerabend believes that St. Robert was right in saying that the Church should not commit itself to the current "fad" in science and alter a large portion of its world view until a sufficiently powerful case had been made to warrant it.

In fact he sees the modern scientific types as coercive barbarians who lack the sensitivity to discern the social damage their reductionist views do when promulgated as naked "truths" and who refuse to accept the fact that their own presuppositions are no more sacrosanct or superior to that of the Catholic Church. The tone of this essay is very upbeat toward the Church's right to speak her mind on fundamental issues and actively encourages her to do so.

The essay in this book was initially presented to the Pontifical Academy in Krakow, Poland, via a tape recording and rewritten for inclusion in this volume. There are a few other mentions of the Galileo/Bellarmine conflict in the other essays of this book. Dr. Feyerabend also covers some of these matters in his book, Against Method. I would recommend all of this material for further perusal by the interested —Arthur C. Sippo MD, MPH.

[ St. Catherine Review ]