Idealization in the Face of Aristotelianism

I approached this article, Pendulum Motion: The Value of Idealization in Science, with trepidation.  I honestly thought that 5 pages about the pendulum were probably about 4 pages too long.  How wrong I was.  The opening paragraph made me aware of my ignorance . . . “despite its modest appearances, the pendulum has played a significant role in the development of Western science, culture, and society.”  I expected some scientific applications to be discussed, but having an effect on culture and society?  I was quickly realizing just how wrong my original assumptions were.   Beyond the advantages that science (and the world consequently) gained from Galileo’s study of the pendulum, this piece was aimed at a bigger picture.  The pendulum was key to the ideas being introduced here, but it was really just a vehicle for the true point of the article . . . the importance of idealization in the face of empirical evidence.

My favorite line from the article is the following from Nancy Cartwright, “. . . if the laws of physics are interpreted as empirical or phenomenal, generalizations, then the laws lie.”  Let me begin by stating the meaning of empirical.  Empirical is defined by Merriam-Webster as, “Relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.”   If Galileo had not stepped “outside the box” and questioned the widely held beliefs of the Aristotelian philosophy of observation, science and the world might look quite different than it does today.  The article points this out quite plainly, “. . . the seventeenth century’s analysis of pendulum motion illustrates a different way of thinking that is he methodological heart of the Scientific Revolution . . . the larger methodological struggle between Aristotelianism and the new science.  This struggle is in large part about the legitimacy idealization in science, and the utilization of mathematics in the construction and interpretation of experiments.”  Galileo was making waves that would be felt for centuries to come.  An article found in the Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1999 titled The Role of Idealization in Science and Its Implications for Science Education by Mansoor Niaz stated the following, “As compared to Aristotle and the Middle Ages, when ideal situations were thought to be incommensurable with reality, Galileo makes a sharp break with this tradition by pointing out that, ‘. . . the limiting case, even where it did not describe reality, was the constitutive element in its explanation’” 

How wrong I was indeed.  If not for Galileo’s study of the pendulum, the way we tell time would be vastly different (and apparently off by as much as “plus or minus half-an-hour per day,” which is no trivial amount).  Without these advances in telling time, one could surmise that the Scientific Revolution may have come much later . . .  if it came at all.  This article does an expert job at pointing out the importance of idealization in the face of the unknown.  It is thanks to idealization, more so than the pendulum, that science has advanced as far as it has today . . . and the reason why it will continue to advance.  Thanks to Galileo’s work, Christiaan Huygens was able to continue research into accurate time measurement and create the first pendulum clock, which was accurate to plus or minus one minute per day and eventually plus or minus one second per day.  The world of science opened up in the presence of accurate time measurement.  The article finishes by giving us a glimpse at what accurate timing gave the world of science, culture, and society, “This then launched the era of precision timekeeping that enabled western science to rapidly progress.  It also enabled the longitude problem to be solved, facilitating global exploration, trading and conquest by the European maritime powers.”