We are told a wonderful story about the history of modern science, that of singular geniuses and big breakthroughs. These geniuses, driven solely by logic, could see what others had not. In this story, new ideas are accepted promptly when the data and logic supports it. In this story, new theories arrive without rough edges. The real story is more complicated. The creation, acceptance and rejection of a new concept or theory isn't always driven by logic or the weight of data. New theories do arrive with holes in the theory (see Wegener and Continental Drift). And some of the most important work in science isn't glamourous at all; it is only possible because of mind-numbing repetition and attention to detail (see Mendel and Darwin). Modern science is much more than the sum of the work of famous scientists. It is the storybook version of the history of science that we see in discussions of the church and science. Perhaps the discussions can be improved if they reach beyond that storybook version.
What is missing from the storybook? There are elements of science that are not that glamorous; the science of the skeptic and the science of the 'lesser lights'. Theories and experiments must be vetted before they are accepted by the wider scientific community. This is a very necessary skeptical side of science. The 'lesser lights' are also very important. Minor advances in science can accumulate to the point where a breakthrough is almost inevitable. And just because a scientist isn't famous doesn't mean that he/she couldn't be as important to science as the more famous scientists. Popularity is a poor measure of importance in science. Modern science also can't stand on its own; it needs enablers. Two important enablers are technology and universities.
Popular histories of the Scientific Revolution are often criticized as simplistic and naive. This simplistic view is helped by an equally simplistic and naive view of science. In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Thomas Kuhn argues that scientific communities do not embrace radical new ideas without resistance [_1_] . This is true even when the new ideas are more consistent with the data than the status quo. New ideas that challenge the status quo are scrutinized much more carefully and sometimes openly ridiculed. And when these new ideas are ridiculed, they are likely to be ridiculed by some very important scientists. In 1672, when Laurent Cassegrain proposed the design used in most modern research telescopes (see Reflecting on History), he was publicly ridiculed by perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton. Galileo ridiculed Kepler for suggesting that the Moon could affect the earth's tides [_2_] .
There is a disconnect between storybook tales of the singular genius and common practice in science today. You can see this disconnect by looking at the beginning and end of most published papers in scientific journals. At the beginning of the papers, you will see that there are often multiple authors to a paper. At the end of the paper, there is a list of citations that the work depended on. This communal nature of science shows in the recipients of Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine as well. Multiple Nobel Prize recipients is the norm not the exception.
Just because a great scientist is credited with a discovery doesn't necessarily mean they deserve it. Mythologies often grow around famous scientists (see The Galileo Myths). And great scientists sometimes benefit from the Matthew Effect. The Matthew Effect is a historical term that gets its name from a Bible passage above. Very simply, the Matthew Effect says that it is naive to assume that the credit for a discovery would go to the most deserving and that it is more likely that it would go the person associated with the discovery that is already famous (see The Matthew Effect in Science by Robert K. Merton).
Skeptics are the whipping boys in popular histories of science. We all know the stories of those who doubted Galileo and Darwin. But skeptics play a very important role in science. New theories and discoveries must be vetted. Theories are scrutinized to see that they have no obvious flaws, that they fit the data as well or better than existing theories, and that they have explanatory power equal to or greater than existing theories. This helps prevent false (or inferior) theories from being widely accepted. Experiments are supposed to be scrutinized too. It is expected that an experiment's methods be described and that it be repeatable by other scientists using those methods. This scrutiny of theories and experiments can easily be interpreted by naive commentators as "reactionary".
It is possible to be on right side of history and still be on the wrong side of science. That's because being right is not good enough in science. Our current theory of evolution is based largely on what Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species in 1859. After some initial enthusiasm for the theory, it was rejected by biologists. Were these biologists reactionary? Darwin's theory had a very big hole. It required that the beneficial traits acquired through natural selection be passed on whole. Given the understanding of inheritance at the time, this would have been impossible. This hole was not plugged until the 1900's when Darwin's theories were modified to account for Gregor Mendel's work on heredity (see Mendel and Darwin)
Another important part of science is what Kuhn refers to as 'normal' science; the science of the lesser lights. This work is often ignored. Sometimes this work is important within a discipline but the work hasn't caught the attention of either historians or the general public. Sometimes, the work, taken individually, is actually not very important. Taken together, these minor incremental advances can be extremely important. These small incremental steps can accrue until a major discovery is almost guaranteed.
These lesser lights may not shine simply because their story has not been told. Gregor Mendel might have been forgotten by history if there had not been a priority dispute between three botanists (Correns, de Vries and Tschermak) studying inheritance decades after Mendel's death. Referencing Mendel put an end to the priority dispute. How many Mendels have been forgotten or ignored. In biology, homeostasis, energy processing (e.g. photosynthesis,respiration), and cell structure and function are every bit as important as evolution and inheritance. None of these areas of biology have a widely known 'hero'.
Sometimes singular geniuses aren't so singular. Multiple Discoveries are common in the history of science. Here several researchers make the same breakthrough independently around the same time. Is this just coincidence or is it because the time was ripe for the discovery? Around the time Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity so did Henri Poincare and Hendrik Lorentz. While Newton gets credit for the development of infinitesimal calculus, Leibniz developed infinitesimal calculus around the same time. There are many other examples of multiple discoveries.
Science doesn't stand on its own. Some disciplines in science would not even exist if it weren't for a specific technology. Without microscopes there would be no microbiology. The astronomical discoveries of seventeenth century astronomers such as Galileo and Cassini are widely celebrated. These discoveries were only possible due to centuries of progress in the craft of lens making. By the end of the seventeenth century craftsmen such as Giuseppe Campani were developing lenses that were ground and polished with such precision that their spherical curvature was as good as can be made today. The image below shows a continuous rotation lathe that would be used to grind lenses. It had been devised in the fifteenth century.
If you go to a scientific conference anywhere in the world, you will find that most (if not all) of the speakers and attendees were university-educated. The model chosen around the world for higher education in science originated in Europe in the eleventh and twelfth century. Universities are important as research centers, for training new scientists, and for communicating scientific information. They are important now and they were always important. If you were to believe the storybook version of science they become even more important. It really wouldn't have mattered how brilliant and accomplished Newton and Galileo were if they existed in a vacuum. The university system had expanded throughout Europe so there was no vacuum. Regardless of how sophisticated these men's work was, they had many contemporaries who could understand it, and in some cases carry it forward (see Galileo's Contemporaries). The map of universities (1614) below may explain why Europe was ready when Galileo, Descartes, Kepler and Newton arrived (modified from here).
Discussions of the church and science highlight what is wrong with storybook science. These discussions focus almost exclusively on the famous scientist. Like many discussions of great historical figures these are often peppered with myths. Galileo is a favourite in church and science discussions. While many scientists have a few popular myths about their life, Galileo spawned at least 16 major myths about his life (see The Galileo Myths). These myths trap noted science communicators (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan) as easily as they do idle netizens. You will find all the other flaws of storybook science in Church and science discussions as well. You will see examples of the Matthew Effect, the demonizing of skeptics, and a narrow view of science that ignores the communal nature of science and the importance of 'normal science', technology and universities.
Galileo is credited with the discovery of the Law of Free Fall. The Law of Free Fall is so important because there is so much behind the Law. The mathematical descriptions of the constantly accelerated motion associated with free fall signalled a new mathematicization of the study of nature. Galileo was able to prove the nature of this constantly accelerated motion both experimentally and geometrically (via a diagram). Along the way, a short cut to calculating the distance travelled by constantly accelerating objects, the Mean Speed Theorem, was also developed. To understand this monumental achievement in the history of physics, it might be better to read the Book of Matthew 25:29 than to read any physics book. The mathematical description of constantly accelerated motion, the geometric proof of the times square law, and the Mean Speed Theorem had all been developed about 250 years before Galileo by Roman Catholic clerics writing on natural philosophy at the Universities of Oxford and Paris. The works of these men, known as the Oxford Calculators and the Parisian Doctors, were very popular and had a strong following in universities throughout Europe. In fact, the Law of Free Fall had been published in one of the most popular physics textbooks of the time, before Galileo was born (see Galileo Myths:Myth 10).
Discussions of Galileo and his defense of the Copernican Model commonly paint his skeptics as irrational. The skeptics did have a rationale, but it was based on what was known then, and what was observable then. If the earth really revolved around the sun, there should be some evidence of Stellar Parallax. None was found until 1838. Even back in Galileo's time, astronomers could measure the angular error of predictions from the different astronomical models. What people are not told is that the Copernican Model did not predict planetary positions any better than any of the competing models [_3_] . In fact, by the time of Galileo's trial, any competent astronomer with an open mind should have had some room for doubt about the Copernican Model. Gassendi's Transit was an important experiment conducted in 1631 that confirmed one of the major predictions of Kepler's Model.
Discussions of church and science rarely venture beyond a few famous scientists. Galileo had many contemporaries who made advances to different areas of science (see Galileo's Contemporaries and Galileo-Contemporaries-Timeline). This was possible because of a huge network of universities spanning from Scandinavia down to the southernmost parts of Spain and Italy. Galileo's debt to his technologists is also ignored. Galileo made some very important advances in the production of telescopes, but he had help. He spent his entire professional career a short distance from two of the hubs for lens manufacturing in Europe (Florence and Venice). The expertise that was available to him through these artisans would culminate by the end of the century in lenses whose curvature compares with those manufactured today.