The fight of heliocentrism to impose reveals the critical thinking of expert astronomers, to whom perhaps we owe recognition in the International Year (2009) of Astronomy. Furthermore, 2009 is also the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, and in order to innovate, we often have to question what has been established. This, questioning what was established, was done by astronomers such as Aristarchus, Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei….
We must not confuse the critical thinker who seeks truth, with the critic who seeks fault; the critical thinker denoting curiosity, with the critic denoting dissatisfaction; the critical thinker who contrasts all the information, with the critic who remains only with what supports his judgments… Critical thinking is necessary in companies, both in continuous improvement and inexcusable innovation. But let us go briefly to the history of heliocentrism.
Heliocentrism
First, it is believed, Aristarchus of Samos who conceived the Earth revolving around the Sun, and then it took 18 centuries to propose it again in the West. In the end, as is well known, reason prevailed, and there were no shortcomings in the matter, or wrong compromise solutions, as if it were a negotiation of interests and not so much to accept a certain fact; but let's go step by step.
In the 3rd century BC, Aristarchus, a Greek astronomer and mathematician born in Samos, proposed the Sun as the center of the universe, and the Earth as another planet, revolving around it and also on its own axis: a kind of heresy for the astronomical, philosophical, religious, physical and mathematical tradition. Faced with the tradition and criteria of the prestigious Aristotle in the previous century, the Samos astronomer gathered foundations to support his, including the relative size of both celestial bodies and the distance of the stars; but we can say, nevertheless, that his contribution was openly rejected in his time (also by Hipparchus of Nicea a century later, to whom he relates to the ingenious mechanism of Anti-mesquite, found by chance). Let's underline it: in the 3rd century BC, if not earlier,there was already a scientific basis, although considered "heretical", to doubt the official worldview.
After Christ, in the 2nd century, Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemy, 85-165), a follower of the geocentric vision and working in the Library of Alexandria, came to collect what was known about the universe and add his conclusions and theories about it. Its complex orbital models were eccentric and epicyclic (assumptions already raised by Apollonius of Perga in the 3rd century BC), compared to Plato and Aristotle's circulars, and it should also be remembered that he identified 48 star constellations. The fact is that his writings significantly influenced astronomical studies carried out until after the Middle Ages. Ptolemy's system included the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn revolving around the (fixed) Earth, and it seemed to be the common reference of the West until the conclusions of Copernicus reached.
Without referring therefore to astronomers from the East, we can jump to the illustrious Polish multifaceted Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), father of modern Astronomy, who arrived in Italy at the age of 23 and founded his heliocentric model in the first decades of the 16th century. of circular orbits, not without some prevention on possible reactions in the religious and scientific world; in fact, he did not see his revolutionary studies published, prudently dedicated to the then head of Catholic power, Paul III. About a hundred years before the arrival of the telescope, but 18 centuries after Aristarchus, this astronomer was finally coming to put the celestial bodies in their place.
The Copernican model was not perfect, but it was rationally convincing. In the following decades, he had some - not many - followers because his description was formulated with rigor and clarity. He regarded the Sun as fixed, accurately described the translation, rotation, and precession of the Earth, and thus explained the retrogradation of the planets. In those years it was Protestants, rather than Catholics, who openly condemned the conclusions of the Polish astronomer. It can be said that the Catholic Church was silent until the times of Galileo, and this can be related to the exemplary prudence displayed by Copernicus.
Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) was born three years after Copernicus' death and had great respect for his work; but he shared beliefs with the society of that time and worked on the tolomeico model. To explain some unknowns, this Danish astronomer and alchemist, perhaps the last great astronomer before the telescope, came to propose in 1586 what today can be seen as a compromise solution, acceptable by the ecclesiastical hierarchy: the geoheliocentric model (also called Ticonic, in reference to the author), according to which the Sun would rotate around the Earth (motionless) but the rest of the planets would do it.
Brahe (with whom the young Kepler collaborated, although in a relationship not without mistrust) pinpointed with great accuracy the position of more than a thousand stars and planets, but he is best known for his tonic, politically correct solution: a proposal, by true, already suggested in the 4th century BC by Heraclitus of Ponto, who also pointed out the daily rotation of the Earth on its axis. (In truth, it is worth asking why the advance in the knowledge of the cosmos was blocked for so many centuries).
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), imperial mathematician (replacing Brahe) of Rudolph II of Habsburg, was a key figure in the scientific revolution that opened the doors of modernity in the 17th century. From his student days in Tübingen (Germany) he was a follower of the Copernican model, but the collaboration with Brahe, from whom he managed to inherit the works developed, allowed him to take important steps in defining the Solar System. Despite being deeply religious, Kepler did not hesitate to reject the official and geocentric vision of Ptolemy and the ticonic of his teacher; but it does seem that he had a certain conflict of conscience to dismiss the perfect - the work of God must be perfect - circular orbits proposed by Copernicus, and end up adopting the ellipse:one of the conic sections that the aforementioned great geometer Apollonius of Perga had described (the truth is that the ellipse would respond to the sum of the circumference and the line, and that we can relate this to the translation of the Sun that we know today). Let us recall his three well-known laws, without forgetting, of course, that Kepler had, to propose them, the valuable measures inherited from Brahe:
- The planets describe elliptical orbits in their displacement around the Sun, being this one in one of its foci (1609). The radio vector connecting a planet and the Sun sweeps equal areas of the ellipse in equal times (1609). The square of the orbital period of each planet is proportional to the cube of its average distance from the Sun (1618).
In 1609 and still without using the telescope (which would be available a year later), Johannes Kepler had already published his first two great formulations, and explained, among other phenomena, the retrograde movement of Mars studied by Brahe. Obviously, his heliocentric writings were blocked by the Church of Rome, but as a result of his dedication and what we would call professionalism today, he went from a geometric vision of the cosmos to a physical vision, and came for example in 1627 to predict the transit Venus ahead of the Sun in 1631 and its 130-year cycle. In his later years he served General Wallenstein and, anecdotally, it seems that his version of the tides as the effect of lunar attraction was attributed to some senile dementia.
And let us remember now that the Lippershey (or perhaps Joan Roget) telescope arose at the beginning of the 17th century as a result of chance (today we speak of serendipity), and that the event had great resonance. In 1609 and through different sources (including a disciple of his, Jacques Badovere, who wrote to him from Paris), Galileo learned of the momentous find and soon built a more powerful one that would allow him to make interesting observations. The truth is that the first great uses of the telescope were warlike: more practical for the needs of the moment; But Galileo did direct it immediately to the firmament, to the benefit of the advance in this field. Among other observations, he studied, for example, the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus, and for all this he adopted Copernicus's heliocentric model without reservation.
In fact Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who had seen his prestige increased with the telescope, did not make especially revolutionary contributions to Astronomy beyond betting firmly on heliocentrism, nor did he pay enough attention to the studies of Brahe and Kepler. It seems that he did not relate, for example, the tide with the Moon but with the movement of the Earth, which gave him one more argument to defend the Copernican model. In this defense we do have to give him great merit, although in parallel Kepler was going much further in his vision of the universe.
It is known that the Catholic hierarchy persecuted Galileo and forced him to publicly denounce himself in a humiliating way in 1633, occupying the Urban VIII papacy; but we can also attribute a certain desire for confrontation, if not defiance, to the astronomer of Pisa. Its success seemed to lead to an excess of security and confidence that culminated, as will be remembered, with the publication of his "Dialogue on the two great systems of the world" in 1632: a skillful critique of the geocentric model, to which he could no longer compromise Pope.
Up to here I wanted to get with the characters: Aristarchus, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo; but remember that, fortunately, better times would come for science. In the 18th century, years after the English astronomer James Bradley (1693-1762) discovered the nutation movement and the aberration of light, and thus contributed to consolidating scientific astronomy, Pope Benedict XIV annulled the condemnation of the heliocentric model, without this still implying its acceptance. It was not really until the 19th century that the movements of the Earth began to be spoken with freedom and certainty. Leo XIII took another step in 1893 in the acceptance of heliocentrism, but it would be said that science was already sufficiently self-regulating and did not depend for it on the Church. And already in 1992,John Paul II explicitly admitted the error in Galileo's condemnation, although the scientific model had been imposed much earlier by its own weight: science had earned its independence from religion.
The reader will also remember Newton, his law of universal gravitation and other contributions to Astronomy, including the most recent ones; Yes, there is much more to remember about it, but I just wanted to focus here on the heliocentric worldview, because of the conceptual, revolutionary leap it brought about. Perhaps the Catholic hierarchy had overstepped its anthropocentrism: either it failed to notice the weight of the evidence then, or it seemed unwilling to expose its reading of the scriptures, or it chose to avoid trouble. Of course, sooner or later, other sages would have come who, loyal to their science and conscience, defended that the Earth moves, and that it is possible to speak at least of translation, rotation, precession and nutation.
Naturally, in addition to opting for one or the other alternative in the explanation of the movement of the planets, the mentioned astronomers contributed with their observations to progressively expand the knowledge of the cosmos; but we focus here on reflections on the difficulty of questioning an established model. With this reference, let us go on to analyze the profiles attributed to the cited astronomers (we could have cited some others who are equally worth remembering, but we would have extended too long).
The profiles
What can we say about Aristarco? It seems that he was moved by the desire to know more. He reached shocking conclusions for his environment, but he was sure of them and made them known. When we, consulting information, make an interesting daily discovery, do we make it known, or do we reserve it? If we spread it, do we do it to facilitate the work of others, or to be recognized as experts? The Samos astronomer is thoughtful and brave, studious of his field and daring. We remember it after 23 centuries, and it will continue to be present in the history of Astronomy. We would be satisfied with being reminded of us just 5 or 10 years after leaving an organization, and we do not always succeed and we are not remembered for good.Have we even considered being remembered for something positive in our work? The innovator who makes his novelty known is remembered, even if he fails to impose his postulates.
How can we imitate Aristarco? No, it is not necessary to imitate him as if he were a saint full of virtues; let's not imitate anybody: let's be unique. But let us confirm that the desire to learn leads us to learn, and that without this desire we do not learn, nor are we in a position to innovate. This intrinsic motivation is decisive and, if it is lacking, no matter how good a course, we would not learn; no matter how good a book was, we would not take advantage of it; as good as an article was, we would not savor it; As solid as it was a challenge, we would not take it. Aristarch did not settle for what was known: he wanted to know more, like Hipparchus and so many other astronomers of antiquity. He studied the sky with objectivity and insight into the facts, secured conclusions against what was established, and had the courage and assertiveness to make them known.
Here appears an essential faculty in the worker of knowledge and thinking: critical thinking. Different from skepticism or criticality, this is a rigorous, penetrating, quality thought that leads us to ask ourselves the reason for things until we feel convinced; In addition, it makes it possible for the much information that surrounds us today to be duly translated into valuable and applicable knowledge. In the Information Society, taking everything you read or listen to would be risky: we must avoid false learning and build new knowledge on solid, proven bases, capable of resisting possible allegations of rejection.
What about Ptolemy? It is good to learn continuously, but let us observe that in addition this Greek and Egyptian sage, although wrong in his conception of the universe, wanted to collect the existing official knowledge and offer it to posterity; in fact, it came to constitute a kind of reference of Astronomy until the times of Copernicus. In our Information Society we must nurture our knowledge, but also contribute to that of others. In companies, we started talking about knowledge management in the mid-90s, but we may have another pending subject in more than one organization. Remembering Ptolemy means insisting on this: we give flow to knowledge, for the benefit of all and of knowledge itself. On his conclusions, some time later, other more accurate ones could emerge.
Let's talk about Copernicus. If intuition - reinforcing your insight and critical thinking - could guide your studies and conclusions, it seems that it also served your prudence, because it avoided activating the Church against you. He did not hesitate to consider the alternative deployed by Aristarco, and end up adopting the heliocentric model; In this way, he tied several loose ends and completed a solid, compact, attractive, round theory. It was not a perfect model but perfectible; but it supposed an already irreversible conception of the cosmos, which would end up displacing the traditional official one. Today we speak of the "Copernican turn", to refer to a radical change in the way of thinking about something, and this wise man deserves to be remembered with singular admiration.
Copernicus had much to offer in his time, but there was no arrogance in him, but discipline and prudence. He addressed his conclusions to the Pope avoiding that they could be interpreted as contempt or challenge, and thus ensured the desired dissemination of his model: he did not want anything else. He questioned the established knowledge, but not the established power: a nuance to keep in mind, without this meaning that power should never be questioned.
Brahe also displays many virtues, and it is worth noting his hard work, his dedication. When someone puts his head and heart at the service of a purpose, that is, he puts order, rigor and zeal in his work, he often shows caution and suspicion afterwards about the idea of spreading his conclusions: will they be understood? properly? Will they be used in the spirit in which they arose? Indeed, he had doubts about the relationship with his disciple, Kepler (who, nevertheless, respected and respected his teacher, and, although he did not adopt his conciliatory cosmic model, studied in depth and valued his discoveries). The innovator must also be cautious, perhaps with more reasons, when giving flow today to his findings, initiatives, proposals.
It is true, yes, that the ticonic model is spoken of as politically correct (it was later accepted by the Church as a substitute for the tolomeic model), and that political correctness seems to prevail in many companies and especially among managers; but Brahe sought the truth. He considered the Earth motionless due to the observed behavior of the stars. You may also be conditioned by concerns, desires or beliefs, but this is something - feelings, prejudices, desires, mental schemes - that conditions us all every day, without being very aware of it: no one perceives reality as such. How is it.
(Let us remember in effect now, in digrescent parentheses, that things are not usually as we see them at first sight. On the one hand, brain functioning itself, on the other hand, our ways of thinking and deep-rooted beliefs, and on the other hand, our feelings, desires and interests can be associated to make us perceive things different from how they are: so that we interpret them in our own way. Critical thinking is also reflective and self-critical, and favors our objectivity).
And we come to Kepler, the author of the Rudolfin Tables. His willingness to question himself and his beliefs - we have much to learn here - outweighed his ego and his religious imprint; it also certainly put the truth above the engagement with Brahe. Kepler is a mathematician, investigator, perseverant, practical, decisive, forceful, proactive, courageous; It does not seem that we can expect great innovations of profiles lacking of these ingredients. He delved into the available information, made connections, deduced, worked with hypotheses (the ellipse), made checks, and synthesized his findings until formulating his well-known laws: an exemplary scientist, whom perhaps we had not paid enough attention to.
As managers and workers in the knowledge economy, perhaps we do not aspire to that much, but we should evaluate and extract the full meaning of the information we have, establish connections, infer objectively and correctly, contrast the conclusions, generate good syntheses… We know it, but we don't always do it. We lack a better cultivation of so-called informational skills and the power to think. Perhaps remembering Kepler and other sobering references, we can improve, if it was not already sufficiently suitable, our attitude in this regard.
We finish with Galileo, although the story continues without stopping being sobering. Perhaps this famous astronomer is not, for our purposes, as virtuous as Kepler, although having been persecuted, he deserves our solidarity… He may have had plenty of ambition and boastfulness, and lacked humility and prudence, although to sustain this judgment it may be necessary to use more information of the collection in these paragraphs. It would seem that his success in the production of telescopes extended his image of astronomer, although in this science he was surpassed in his time; that their dismissal of the works of Brahe and Kepler questions their greatness; that leaving ecclesiastical power without another outlet was a mistake.
Let us use, as Galileo did with the telescope, all the available tools to be more effective in our work, and advance knowledge and individual and collective competitiveness: this is surely very important in the economy of knowledge and innovation; But let us know that the possible deficiencies in the personal profile are also reflected in the professional one, and that humility and prudence enrich us… The reader will know how to interpret the scope of the latter depending on their environment, and perhaps in some cases opt for reinforce your assertiveness and boldness.
Aristarchus, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo starred in the history of heliocentrism (also Ptolemy without intending to: his official proposals did not convince Copernicus), but let us remember that, in addition to correcting the geocentric error, they made other new discoveries and contributed to extending the field of Astronomy.
Final comments
So, if the reader agrees, the upright professional of our time - zealous in learning, cultivator of knowledge and thinking, loyal to his profession and his company, respectful in his relationships - must deploy his critical thinking to ensure that things are done well enough, or to find new possibilities, more solid and interesting. If, as a result of your dedication and inquiry, you find them, you must be assertive in your formulations while still respecting the legitimate established power; He must even find a supporter for his initiative, if he is sufficiently convinced of his theses. Innovative initiatives can be valuable, but they could also not be, and could even be extravagant, come from complex delusions, or respond to vain conciliatory attempts,as if there were virtuous and stable intermediate points between success and error.
Where to put the emphasis? I think, yes, that there are personal traits of technical innovators, to which perhaps we are not paying enough and effective attention in our day:
- The eagerness to know more and to discover, understood as penetration in the subjects of own competition and establishment of connections, inferences and even abstractions. Critical thinking, understood as the assurance that, at each step, we are right and do not drag errors. Prudence, understood here as self-control and broad-mindedness when managing or implementing innovative initiatives.
It is, first of all, to advance knowledge; second, to ensure that progress is solid and valuable; and third, to properly manage what has been learned or discovered. It would be a shame if a wrong management failed a good proposal. But there is a fourth main feature, which we notice taking perspective: the intrinsic commitment that everyone put into her activity for herself, that made sense and drew her attention to the rewards margin.
