The Importance of History.

Abstract

George Sarton (1884–1956), the person who founded the study of the history of science as a formal academic discipline, described the history of science as “the history of mankind's unity, of its sublime purpose, of its gradual redemption.” Although the study of history is fascinating in and of itself, Sarton believed that a primary reason for studying the history of science is that it would provide “a deeper understanding of science.” The process of science generates an organized body of knowledge. But science is not a mere collection of facts laced together with a network of theories. Science is a method of generating reliable knowledge. By “reliable” I mean knowledge that is capable of withstanding empirical tests. All human cultures value dependable knowledge. Yet there is no consensus on how science itself is to be defined and understood. According to some claims there is a textbook “scientific method” whose steps are analogous to instructions in a cookbook. Other writers have gone so far as to maintain that there is no such thing as a scientific method. Philosophers of science have made contributions to the understanding of scientific methodology but their conceptions are largely theoretical and tend to conflict with each other. If we are to come to terms with George Sarton's goal of obtaining a deeper understanding of science we must study its history. Theoretical conceptions come and go, but history deals with what has actually occurred. History itself is the master science because it deals entirely with facts. From the historical record, we know, without qualification or ambiguity, that the origin of science can be traced to the first invocation of naturalism by Greek philosophers in the sixth century BC. Natural philosophy was superseded by science when Europeans subjugated reason to empiricism. Science as we understand it today came to be defined almost entirely by the activities of Royal Society members in 17th century England. Although these men would have used the term “experimental philosophy” to describe their inquiries, their scientific methods were entirely modern. The activity of science cannot be divorced from human culture. The practice of science is an activity conducted by human beings that bring with them a collection of various prejudices and foibles. The icons of the Scientific Revolution, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, viewed their work as an exercise in natural theology. Their goal was not so much to discover objective knowledge concerning the natural world as to peer into the mind of God as revealed by the order of the cosmos. Science is both an individual and a social activity. It demands rational objectivity from creatures who are irrational by nature. And science, George Sarton noted, “is a joykiller.” It may lead us to truths that are socially unacceptable or even taboo. The ultimate necessity of empirical verification ensures scientific knowledge will increase in accuracy over time. When viewed over a long enough period of time, science is a cumulative and progressive system of knowledge. But in the short run the history of science is the history of error. The heliocentric system was proposed as early as the third century BC by Aristarchus. However Aristarchus' model was rejected and the incorrect geocentric model dominated for nearly 2000 years. Other examples abound. In the early 17th century, Van Helmont concluded that “blood-letting never helps,” but physicians did not abandon phlebotomy as a remedy until the second half of the 19th century. Unless the course of history has stopped, it is likely that everything we now believe to be true will either be supplanted or refined by our descendants. Science is an open system of knowledge that produces provisional truths and eschews dogmatism. History outlines and defines the methods of science. And method is ultimately more important than results. If we have the correct method we will eventually get the correct result. But adoption of a flawed methodology will leave us wandering endlessly in a dark labyrinth of ignorance. Thus a historical note in Groundwater is more than a curiosity or an amusing anecdote. It is a contribution to the critical task of understanding how science operates and how it may be improved.