The Challenge of Reason

Last week in one of my history classes, I explained a perhaps apocryphal experiment performed by the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei about 400 years ago.  In holding up a grape and an orange, he asked two Cardinals of the Catholic Church (important because they were among the educated elite) which of the pieces of fruit, the orange or the grape, would strike the table first.  The educated men, along with the host and guests, agreed that the orange would land first.  Galileo asked, "Why?"  They, in different replies, said, "...because Aristotle said so."  Of course, Aristotle claimed that, because the orange weighed more, it would fall faster and, therefore, hit before the grape.  And people, educated and otherwise, believed that for almost 2,000 years.  "What if Aristotle was wrong?" Galileo asked.  What a silly question.  Logic, along with Aristotle, assured that the orange would strike first because of its greater weight.

Galileo, toying with his audience, went to put away the fruit, stopped, and suggested that he, for fun, drop the grape and the orange.  He did and you and I know what happened; they hit simultaneously.  Yes, we know what happened without being there, thanks to Galileo.  Several of the guests, stunned, asked if they could drop the fruit.  They did and with the same results, as we know.  So, Galileo showed these folks that Aristotle was wrong.

Hardly.  Despite seeing with their own eyes, the Cardinals, especially, denied that Aristotle was wrong.  They clung steadfastly to their own, as we know, ignorant views, refusing to concede.  That was a lesson Galileo was trying to teach.  I was also trying to teach a lesson to my students.  I hope I was more successful than the great Italian scientist!  (We'll find out this week when I collect students' essays.)

I've written this before, but think about it often, probably because I fall victim to it, too.  It is easier to believe than it is to challenge.  That was my lesson to my students.  And, to pinpoint the peril of the challenge, they now know that Galileo was put on trial for his work.  It was a Catholic Church court, one which had the power to execute Galileo and more.  More?  Yes, not only could it sentence Galileo to death, the death penalty, it also had the authority to excommunicate him, in essence, the death penalty of the soul.  In the end, Galileo was imprisoned after he recanted what he knew to be true and was later confined to a house arrest of sorts.  All this for challenging.

In a similar yet somewhat different vein, frequently change is not easy.  I know it isn't for me.  This can be doubly so because I don't assume change is synonymous with better.  Sometimes it is not.  For me, this is especially true regarding technology.  Much technology is good, great even.  But I refuse to bow to the god of Technology.  I have been called, vis a vis technology, a Luddite.  I don't run away from such a label.  Sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not.

I am going to try this with my students this week.  I will ask them to name an important/significant person of the 20th Century, just one.  No doubt I'll get a bunch of Hippy Rock Stars, Hollywood-types, etc., but I hope also some folks of more substance.  Then I'll ask them to name one important person of the 19th Century.  This could be more difficult than it seems since I wonder how many students actually know what/when the 19th Century was!  Then, the 18th Century and the 17th and the......  You catch on.  I may have to, in the end, explain my purpose.  (Well, one of them, since mostly I am curious as to how far back we can go.  From my 48 years of teaching experience, I'm not optimistic.)  History isn't just a subject so history teachers can have jobs.  Among a variety of other things, history provides a sense of time, a sense of place; it helps us to explain how the human condition got us to where we are today.  I know, I know......

Finally, I came across this and found it intriguing.  An author cited Seymour Hersh, who he called "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century," relative to a well-researched story behind the death of Osama bin Laden.  Hersh's account was starkly different from the one proffered by Barack Obama.  Yet it seemed the author accepted Obama's story as the true account, not Hersh's.  Hmmm......  I don't understand why.  In the author's own words, "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century" vs a guy who blatantly and publicly lied to us, more than once.  ("If you like your doctor, you can keep him." "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." And "It won't cost you a single dime," or something like that.  Of course, I did keep my health care plan, except it wasn't my health care plan.  It covered less.  There were higher deductibles and co-pays.  And my premiums skyrocketed.  But, then again, I've been accused of lying about that.)  Why in the world would anyone take Obama's word over Hersh's?  Perhaps I've come full circle.  It's easier to believe our leaders than it is to challenge their veracity.