Skip to main content

Science

Copernicus (which is a Latinized version of his original Polish name Mikolaj Kopernik) has gone down in history as the person who developed the heliocentric theory. That is, Copernicus developed a model of the solar system where the Sun was at the center and the planets revolved around it, instead of the old Aristotelean/Ptolemaic model where the Earth was at the center and everything else revolved around it.  Despite being a deeply religious man (an ordained canon of the Catholic Church), Copernicus’ work would be suppressed and censored by the Catholic Church and derided as heresy by Martin Luther. His master work, De revolutionibus orbum coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), would be one of the most famous banned books of the 17th and 18th Centuries.

Like many ideas in science, Copernicus’ theory was neither entirely new (ancient Greek astronomers and medieval Arab astronomers both had heliocentric models) nor widely accepted at the time it came out. Copernicus’ book was not published until either right before he died or just after his death on May 24, 1543. It is believed that he never actually saw a copy of the book that he spent the last 30 years of his life finishing.

Two astronomers in the 17th Century picked up on Copernicus’ work and made it popular. One was a prominent German Protestant astronomer, Johannes Kepler, who discovered that the planets made orbits that were ellipses around the sun, not perfect circles, as Copernicus believed. The other was an Italian Catholic, Galileo Galilei, who used a newfangled device called the telescope, to discover that not only did the Earth rotate on its axis, but so did the other planets. And even the Sun! And not only did Earth have a Moon, but Jupiter had four of them.

Feb. 19, 2023, marks the 550th anniversary of the birth of a man that changed modern science forever, Nicolaus Copernicus. His observations drastically altered the way we see ourselves in the wider universe and became the foundation for astronomy, but they were also banned for some hundred years. Since his time, censorship and suppression of science have changed, but are still around today.

Copernicus’ observations

Copernicus was born in Torun, Poland, which was then a part of Royal Prussia. He came from a relatively wealthy family, which meant he had access to good education and benefitted from familial connections. He first studied at the University of Krakow where he received a liberal arts education, studying everything from art to ancient greek. At university, he discovered his deep interest and talent for astronomy, the study of the heavens. Throughout his life he made a variety of observations of the night sky with his bare eyes, looking at eclipses and the alignment of the stars. From his notes, he began to piece together a new model for the universe. His model put the sun, not the earth, at its center.

At that time, the commonly accepted model of astronomy was geocentric, meaning it held the earth at its center. The earth was thought to be an immovable object, with the stars, planets and sun all revolving around it. Copernicus shattered this belief with his observations. He saw that the sun, not the earth was the center of our solar system. He also believed that the earth spun on its axis once every 24 hours, and that a slight tilt in the axis accounted for the seasons. His work, titled “On the revolutions of the heavenly spheres” was published in 1543, the same year that he died.

It was only several years after his death that the book presented itself as a problem. The church took issue with the work after the prominent astronomer, Galileo Galilei spent time defending it and building on Copernicus’ work. Martin Luther has been quoted in opposition to his work, stating that the Bible claims the earth is the immovable center of the universe, thus Copernicus must be wrong. His book was placed on the index of forbidden books in 1616 and was only removed in 1758.

How science has changed

Since Copernicus’ time, science has changed a lot. It has opened up as a field, with hundreds of sub-specialties being discovered and studied. Who does science has also changed. Since becoming an institution, science is no longer just a wealthy European’s game but boasts a rich diversity of people that dedicate their lives to studying how things work. Science as a field is still sometimes suppressed though when the truth stands to upset the status quo.

According to Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, the most recent example of scientific suppression came out of the Soviet Union in the 1920s. A scientist named Trofim Lysenko rejected Darwinian biology and pushed against the well-accepted theory of natural selection in which an organism best suited to its environment will go on to survive. Through his rejection of Darwin and modern genetics, he claimed to know how to cultivate massive crop yields through his own technique. His beliefs and ego proved deadly. Thousands of scientists who spoke out were impressed and some were executed and his bad science assisted in creating a deadly famine, where seven million Soviets starved.

Suppression today

Fortunately, there hasn’t been an example as extreme, widescale or immediate as Lysenkoism since the 20s, but scientific suppression is still around. Fossil fuel companies have been found guilty of understanding the science of climate change and its impact on the environment and have suppressed the growth of the field in favor of their own interests. In many states, legislators advocate for more relaxed regulations on scientific teachings that would enable evolution to be taught as a “theory” instead of accepted science, encouraging creationism in the classroom. During the Trump administration, several government agencies had limits placed on their communications with the public regarding science, and the phrase climate change was even banned from some.

“People or institutions in positions of power censor science, when they think it's in their interests in one way or another,” said Mr. Branch.

Much of these abuses of power come from some ingrained interest, whether that be making money or earning respect. Mr Branch says that the suppression of science is very dangerous.

“Suppressing science can obstruct the progress of science itself…Openness promotes scientific progress in enabling scientists not to have to reinvent the wheel. It can obstruct the development of technology," he said.

In order to keep suppression in check, he recommends supporting watchdogs that hold people accountable for censorship. He also says that supporting politicians who understand the value of science and will fight to keep it open is crucial.

On the anniversary of Copernicus, hopefully, we can take a lesson from his life to understanding the value of science and how much is lost when it is suppressed.

Galileo Galilei was an Italian astronomer from the 1600s who caused a major controversy with the Catholic Church.

On 26 February 1616, Galileo Galilei was formally banned and banished by the Roman Catholic Church for teaching and defending the opinion that the Earth orbits the Sun. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.
It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

On April 12, 1633, Galileo was tried and found guilty of heresy against the Church.
When Galileo (1564-1642) first published his Dialogo in 1632, defending the Copernican heliocentric view of our cosmos, the Catholic Church put him under house arrest and banned not just the Dialogo but also all of Galileo’s earlier writings. This censorship only fueled the demand for his works and several editions of his writings were published in France, England and the Netherlands throughout the 17th century.

But as far as Italian editions were concerned, the 1710 printing of the Dialogo was only the second of its kind, due to the fact that it remained on the Index of Forbidden Books. And so it should not come as a surprise that an identifying printer’s mark or publisher’s device was missing from the volume. With this information missing, how do we know who was responsible for this clandestine undertaking? And that it had indeed taken place in Naples instead of Florence?

The sources which were consulted enlightened us to the fact that the introductory letter to the reader at the beginning of the volume provides us with an important clue: the signature Cellenio Zacclori is (with the exception of one missing letter) an anagram for Lorenzo Ciccarelli, a Neapolitan lawyer who ran a print shop in Naples that specialized in the publication of forbidden books.

According to Vincenzo Ferrone, there is evidence that Ciccarelli’s shop was tolerated by some of the more progressive members of the Catholic Church, which helps to explain how he was able to elude shut-down by the authorities.

It wasn't untill hundreds of years later that the Catholic Church admittted it had made a mistake with Galileo.

Today, in 2023, free speech is under attack from all sides. By this I mean that the “left” has made it clear that “insults” (especially against Jews, homosexuals, transgenders, blacks, women, immigrants, any “minorities”, Muslims, etc.) will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, these people believe that every group or individual gets to decide what is or is not an “insult”, with the result being that free speech no longer exists in the West because of this extreme “political correctness”, as I call it.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. It is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. Disproportionate punishments are routinely meted out to targets of public shaming by institutional leaders conducting "panicked damage control". We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, thinkers, philosophers, politicians, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. In the last half decade, a number of figures have been shamed online for making comments considered offensive by some, including on topics of race, gender and sexuality. In some cases, employers took action against the individual after sustained and targeted criticism.

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

People are being hounded for perceived moral slip-ups. It has become a modern-day witch-hunt of political correctness which has the most chilling effect on free speech and freedom of opinion. For example, in June 2020, the New York Times' opinion editor resigned amid outrage over a piece by a Republican senator calling for military forces to be sent to cities where anti-racism protests had turned violent. And in January of that same year, publisher Flatiron Books cancelled author Jeanine Cummins's tour after her novel American Dirt was strongly condemned for stereotypical descriptions of Mexicans.

During the recent covid-19 pandemic and surrounding debates, an older white American, who was simply trying to participate in the debate about how to avoid being infected with covid, threw out the idea that perhaps black Americans had higher rates of covid because they didn’t wash their hands as often as white Americans. This was just an idea, and democracies work when people are allowed to express their ideas, and debate them. Science works when scientists form a hypothesis around an idea and then test it. Unfortunately, the response from society to this man’s idea was to so demonize him that he was fired from his job and could not find another, was branded the worst sort of racist, and was ostracized and harshly “punished” by society at large. Anyone defending him was also punished and made to appear to be a racist of the worst kind.

This is such a good example of what is wrong with America and the world today: censorship pervades all facets of society, and freedom of speech, opinion and association is being abridged more and more each year. A “litmus test” of “political correctness” is being applied to anyone who participates in societal and political debates, and American society is becoming increasingly polarized – namely because absolute freedom of speech is no longer allowed. When people criminalize criticism, as certain groups of people have been doing in America for a half-century or more now, then polarization increases and society moves towards battle and civil war, rather than towards the peaceful co-existence that absolute freedom of speech allows.

Various politicized groups are now censoring free speech on any issue that upsets their belief structures, so much so that there is now a severe restriction of the debate about scores of cultural, social, economic and political issues – important issues which are on most people’s minds today.

Recent outcries on “racial justice” and “social inclusion regarding people who choose non-mainstream sexual and gender orientations” have fueled a stifling of open debate. There now exists a vogue for public shaming and ostracism and a blinding moral certainty over very controversial issues. The “politically correct” do not want a debate, they want blind obedience to and acceptance of their points of view.

On the right of the political spectrum, free speech is also under attack, with environmentalists and serious ecologically-minded scientists being censored, so that what they say or report does not harm powerful interests and businesses like the fossil fuel industry, or orthodox religion, etc.

Science needs the freedom and liberty to search for the Truth without fear of censorship or reprisal if the Truth does not fit with the ideological, political, economic, or religious beliefs of those who have and wield Power.

April 30, 2023

Censorship by the Right

Authors
Summary

On the right of the political spectrum, free speech is also under attack, with environmentalists and serious ecologically-minded scientists being censored, so that what they say or report does not harm powerful interests and businesses like the fossil fuel industry, or orthodox religion, etc.