|
Notes on an Outmoded World View
|
|
by Mordecai Plaut
|
|
(Page 3)
|
|
Notwithstanding the clearly positive results of the scientific myth of heliocentrism, we can identify it as an inevitable source of tension. (Note: there is no valuative or ironic intent in the use of the phrase "scientific myth." The words are meant both seriously and somewhat technically. This should become clear later.) Despite a weakening acceptance of the view of twentieth century empiricism that sense impressions constitute the ultimate source of all objective knowledge, there is no doubt that such information has a privileged status where it occurs. Try as we might, no amount of reference to the train/station analogy will ever present to us the motion of the earth. At best that analogy can only explain away the apparent motion, but it cannot change appearances and it is the sun and stars rather than our own planet that always appear to be moving. The use of the Copernican system, then, sets up a constant and pervasive undermining of the evidence which we receive from our senses. Tension is a result, for our senses continually provide information -- we cannot think it away -- and the belief in heliocentrism is very firmly entrenched. A qualitative description of our immediate neighborhood in the universe (the assertion that the earth and planets revolve around a central and relatively stable sun) is assimilated very early in a child's development. It can almost be said that it is in general learned at one's mother's knee. The early incorporation of these beliefs into our personal cosmologies is beneficial in that we encounter what would otherwise be a severe shock at an age and stage when we are best equipped to absorb it, but it is unfortunate in that this move becomes a basic component of our approach to the world, so deeply buried that its effects are not likely to be traceable. Traceable or not, a conflict between the gross evidence of appearance constantly received and our basic beliefs about the "true" picture of things, cannot fail to have some effects, the most benign being a tendency away from skywatching at a popular level. To avoid misunderstanding, we should emphasize here that we do not represent tension as something to be avoided at all costs. There is no doubt that it is uncomfortable, but it is not necessarily bad. In any case in which we are convinced that the world is in fact different from the way it is perceived through our senses, a concern for truth dictates that we unhesitatingly accept such proposals and cope with the resulting tension. However, we have earlier and at great length pointed out that the heliocentric system is no more true than a geocentric one. This same point guarantees that there is no element of condescension. There is no suggestion of two standards of truth, one for science and one for the "masses" embodying some alleged limitations. Such undemocratic thoughts need not even be entertained, for the geocentric system passes any scientific tests for truth as easily as the heliocentric. As a result we can and should consider other aspects of the alternative theories, and that is where the uncomfortable effects of the Copernican theory count against it.
|