Historical Development of Experimentation and Theory

In the history of scientific development, there has always been some lag between the gathering of data in nature and the theories that describe these observations. Of course, they cannot be done simultaneously, but there have been countless instances of scientific theory that developed decades, or even centuries, after the supporting data was recorded. Lately, fields in physics and mathematics have emerged that focus almost exclusively on theoretical science, in which researchers advance beyond the current data to determine what should be able to be found or occur in nature. In this paper, I will focus on this recurring theme of the separation between experimentation and theory in the history of science, as well as how this split is influenced by the culture, philosophy, and technology surrounding the scientist. I will focus on three main epochs in scientific history: science in early cultures, e.g. Egyptian and Greek empires; the Middle Ages and Scientific Revolution, with a focus on Europe; and modern science.

The first question that must be answered is: “Who was able to be a scientist, and why?” The accessibility of the profession varies greatly with time and location. Several examples will be given and analyzed to provide some continuity and appropriate unification to the ideas and practices of scientists throughout history. Early scientific inquiries were closely linked with philosophy. When agricultural methods became sophisticated enough to allow for a surplus of food a new profession grew as well. This was the life of a philosopher; someone who was fortunate enough to avoid the daily work of hunting and gathering and could instead enjoy leisurely pursuits of the mind and world. The Greek culture became locked in history as one which had enough of these free individuals to form a philosophical tradition, while the Egyptians and several other cultures focused on the more experimental and result-oriented art of alchemy.

Beginning with the Greek tradition, we see that a science based on philosophy closely resembles a theoretical science; admittedly, one with less of a foundation than the current practice, but important nonetheless. The first scientifically-minded aim of Greek philosophers was to unify existence into a single underlying element. This movement became known as “monism”, and resembles the effort of both philosophers and scientists over history to contract all of knowledge and existence to one irreducible factor. The most well-known monists included Thales of Miletus, who believe water was the most fundamental element, and Anaximenes, who preferred air (ether). The importance of this group was that they preferred a secular approach to explaining nature, as they found a base in nature itself instead of anthropomorphic deities. This shift allowed for future experiments in an attempt to understand the workings of nature instead of mythology. The monist school was later replaced by a pluralist philosophy. The pluralists abandoned the search for a single fundamental element and instead favored a model of multiple elements that could not be reduced into each other. Parmenides, who introduced the idea of the world as unchanging and eternal, contributed to the pluralist movement when his view of existence as a whole was applied to these elements. These developments are noteworthy in that they foreshadow basic tenets of chemistry of physics, namely, the periodic table and conservation of energy, respectively. We see in the Greeks a pattern of individual philosophy being applied to the external world. The monists arrived at their concepts of nature by reason. Anaximenes rejected Thales' foundation of water based on an argument of exclusivity and extremes, which clearly shows philosophy impacting the scientific community. The incorporation of Parmenides into the pluralist school of thought also highlights a moment when philosophy would be embodied in the natural world, as well as providing an interesting contrast to Newton's law in which an observation of mechanical physics leads to a similar theoretical standpoint. This loosely exemplifies a theory that emerges but is not supported by any strict experimentation until a later date. This is not a perfect example in that Parmenides' view was not a norm in science and Newton did probably did not set out to disprove or support an ancient Greek philosophy, but the connection remains. More focus on early scientific practice belongs to alchemy. Alchemy originated in Egypt and spread into Greece through the influence of Hermes Trismegistus. Unlike the philosopher's influence on science, alchemists traditionally placed a great emphasis on actual experimentation. The economic and political goal of alchemists was to find a solution and methodology that would transmute base, or common, metals into gold. For the practicer, however, this goals was in fact just a means of achieving a spiritual transformation into a more perfect form. They believed through dedication and practice they, too, could rise from a condition of imperfection to realize a golden soul, which would be the ideal state of being.

The connection between experimenting and perfecting the process of transmutation of metals and the improvement of the soul also resembles the theme of macrocosm and microcosm association. This model was used to explain natural phenomena in this world by basing them on heavenly behavior, and vice versa. It is apparent that the alchemical advancements were made largely due to a personal religious goal as well as political pressures. While metals were not turned into pure gold during this time, the pursuit itself and the spiritual motivations were enough to justify the time spent by the alchemists, and the allure of the possibility of infinite riches kept the investors interested as long as some results were produced. Alchemy laid the foundations for many ideas we now associate with modern chemistry. For example, alchemists developed the process of distillation and were able to produce powerful acids that are still common in chemistry classes. Perhaps the most important contribution to scientific theory was the micro-/macrocosm relationship that alchemists so strongly believed in. This tradition continued well into the next era of scientific development and can be seen in examples such as the circulation of blood and the application of the forces in physics to macrocosmic scales. Another noteworthy progression was the contrasting parallel between science's goals and the political goals. The alchemists accommodated the rich financier's demands, but performed their work for more independent reasons.

Science in the 16-18th centuries in Europe was much more active and more closely resembles the way science is conducted today. Figures such as Francis Bacon and René Descartes are prominent figures in the transition, as they reduced the need for a philosophical basis for theory and tried to make the process of transforming data into theories more systematic, respectively. As a result, scientists in this period began to embrace empiricism over rationalism. Rather than trying to explain the world based on religion, tradition, or an idealized system, they bracketed out these meanings previous scientists obsessed over and instead examined nature as the foundation of its own field. However, this sometimes created a sense of distance from the general population which held onto their cultural traditions and was unable to replicate the more involved experiments. A great example of this new empiric approach can be seen in the sudden advances in electrical studies. A basic understanding of current, voltage, and other properties allowed scientists to observe electrical behavior and develop new devices to show what could be accomplished with electricity. Many attributes were given to electricity, such as the property of making plants grow faster or causing weight-loss in humans. Leyden jars are one example of a device that became familiar to experimenters through a somewhat circumstantial discovery. Benjamin Franklin used a Leyden jar to capture charge from a kite during his famous experiment that linked lightning to electricity. Because of these observations and experiments, many ideas about what electricity was emerged. The most common theory was to visualize it as a fluid. Franklin subscribed to the single-fluid theory, in which electric charge was thought of as a deficit or abundance of the fluid. The opposing theory that later emerged was the two-fluid theory, which claimed that electricity was actually governed by two opposing fluids, which could exist independently or balance each other out when found together. The two-fluid theory was introduced by Robert Symmer in 1759, almost fifteen years after the Leyden jar was invented. The accumulation of knowledge related to electricity and magnetism based on experimentation is an instance of practice preceding theory. Of course, as soon as these effects were observed, scientists found ways to explain the phenomena, but there were many conflicting theories and it took a large span of time to reach any kind of consensus in the scientific community. Even the “two-fluid” theory would not be anywhere close to satisfactory for explaining all the nuances of electrical theory that is understood today, but it displays how one theory among many can be accepted as the most convenient and then built upon to be either accepted or rejected later in history.

Many other problems of chemistry and biology followed the same development: observations created conflicting theories that took decades, or even centuries, to untangle. The next example worthy of consideration is the oxygen theory, which overcame the phlogiston model. The latter described the way combustible materials burned and metals rust. This theory became discredited with the research of Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier. Priestley observed that the gas mercuric oxide could be separated into two new airs, one of which caused candles to burn brighter and mice to live longer, both of which are consistent results with the current understanding of oxygen. Priestley called this substance “dephlogisticated air”, which showed the connection to the previous theory but disputed its view of dephlogisticated substance as the basic constitution of an object (the calx). Lavoisier's contribution to discrediting the phlogiston theory was discovering that “dephlogisticated air” was actually a chemical element and accurately describing the process of combustion. In an experiment which involved heating tin and observing the flow of air into a container and the mass of the tin, he concluded that some of the air previously in the container had been consumed. Lavoisier called this the “vital air”, which was responsible for both combustion and respiration. Lavoisier and Priestley's work gives an example of how research in one field furthers understanding of another field and provides a theory that unifies them. While combustion had been observed for thousands of years, a new approach of measuring the substances involved in the process allowed for a huge leap in the understanding of both chemistry and biology. It is seen here that a change in the framework something is examined under can lead to new concepts about some basic functions of life. The final example from the Scientific Revolution that will be included is the problem of taxonomy and how it relates to Darwin's evolutionary biology. Taxonomical systems are peculiar in science in that even if the field did not exist, every person would still have an understanding of what classification is and how it can be accomplished.

As discussed by Immanuel Kant, the human mind automatically forms classifications for convenience and structure. For example, every child learns a kind of “folk taxonomy” and can separate nature into birds, chickens, cows, grass, trees, etc. The problem then becomes how to separate our disposition towards certain structures and replace them with a strictly scientific one. The first attempts at this were based on examining the properties of the organism and choosing what one might call the “most important” features to divide life into groups. On a small scale this is simple; a carrot is clearly not in the same family as a mouse. But on higher levels with more closely allied forms, the distinctions become completely arbitrary which leads to disagreements between scientists both all over the world and within countries. Of course, scientists attempted to construct more rigorous methods of taxonomy, but these methods could be accused of being just as arbitrary as the distinctions made for classification itself. A taxonomy that quickly became widely accepted was Linnaeus' system of organizing from general to specific (kingdom to species, respectively). While this did not settle the persisting issue of arbitrariness, it helped smooth out some of the inconsistencies in how classification was organized in itself. Once most researchers accepted the model of genera, family, classes, etc. they were able to organize their taxonomies consistent with others in the field, even if the specifics were still not uniform.

This model can be seen to contrast somewhat with how Darwin presents his theory of descent, despite having found much influence in the works of Linnaeus and Lyell. If imagining the history of life on Earth as a tree that branches out into all the forms found today and containing a point for every species that ever existed at any point in time, we can find a new basis for classification in biology. Each branch on the tree could represent a new family, genus, species, or even kingdom. This essentially reverses the problem previously faced by Linnaean taxonomy. It is now apparent where the species diverge and how they are related to each other, but the cutoffs for each level of the taxonomy become arbitrary. In addition to this lies the main problem of most of Darwin's theory: without knowledge of every organism that ever existed, some amount of faith is necessary to allow descent with modification make sense. This hole in theory also creates holes in the imaginary taxonomical tree. We don't know what existed at the point when trunk split and every time new branches are formed, let alone what could have existed from all the severed branches and twigs. While this could perhaps be preferred to previous attempts at classification, it comes plagued with the incompleteness of our knowledge of the past.

As discussed above, taxonomy provides us with a very interesting case of theory against evidence. It began as a passive process occurring in people's unconscious (and could be said to be a simple product of language), but as the plethora of life became more explored, the need for a science dedicated to organizing the life in the world became significant. Interestingly, a theory was developed that forced nature to conform to it. Scientists set out with preconceived objectives on what they were going to classify and how they would do so. When confronted with a new type of organism, the scientist typically attempted to fill a spot in their taxonomical structure rather than reorganizing the structure to best accommodate the new species or genus. It is true that there are many exceptions to this, but those would pale in comparison to the importance and convenience of maintaining the conceptual framework of the taxonomy over truly incorporating each species. Finally, Darwin's theory of descent provides a convenient outline for creating taxonomical structures, but even with the advances made up to today in genetics, the attempt to base taxonomy purely on common ancestry remains imperfect.

A recent, interesting tendency in fields such as physics and mathematics is what is attempted to be accomplished by their theoretical side. We have seen that the early Greek philosopher scientists used reason supported by some underlying philosophy to reach conclusions about how the world is and works. In contrast, the alchemists used their experiments and tangible goals as a concretization for their spiritual goal of finding an inner perfection. In the scientific enlightenment, the problems of origins and ends were abandoned in favor of experimentation before theorizing. However, it can be said of most scientists at the time that they were unable to completely shed that weight; they would either be looking for confirmation of a belief they had based on religion or tradition, or try to create religious doctrine out of their scientific conclusions. The total divorce of the religious and scientific pursuits of a scientist is much more common in the dozen decades or so. Science has been done for science's sake, resulting in a new approach to applying conclusions and for experimenting in the first place. Different branches take results from others regularly, such as psychology and sociology borrowing from neuroscience, which in turn borrows from chemistry and biology. A more relevant development for this paper can be found in physics. On the frontiers of knowledge, speculation is advancing far beyond the field's actual reliable foundations.

New physical theories such as quantum and particle physics, string theory, and other unifying ideologies take a limited range of realizable data and combine it with existing theories of how objects behave, and in some cases, advanced mathematics, to produce a kind of future portrait of physics. This is radically different than in the past, where theories were taken and applied to theology, philosophy, politics, society, etc. While the general populace of nations still tends to do this quite frequently, many scientists themselves bring their theories right back onto their own fields. Virtually any hour-long special on the History Channel will outline how a basic set of data is expanded to grand theories and collapsed back down onto the future of physics or astronomy. Things such as string theory still mirror the idealized systems of the monists and pluralists of ancient Greece, despite our willingness to trust (or perhaps simply hope) that scientists today have more of a foundation for their work than philosophers did 2600 years ago.

My major is computer science, so the example I will use relates to this field. The future of computing is said to lie in quantum computers, which are based on the laws of particle/quantum physics rather than classical mechanics. For more than twenty years, researchers at universities and companies such as IBM have been figuring out how such a computer might be possible. Everything they published, and even patented, is based almost exclusively on theories coming from physics and was not even tested for practicality until rather recently. Another example of theory coming from small amounts of data could be found in astronomy and cosmogony. The study of how distant stars and galaxies operate is based on delicate readings taken from space, and these sets of data are used to form theories about nebulae, supernovas, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc. The last (CMBR) is actually an excellent example of a theory only later supported by data. It came about based on electromagnetic properties and mathematical predictions of the amount residue radiation created at the beginning of the universe, and was verified to exist and strongly support the Big Bang theory. We have seen how the relationship between theory and experiment has changed over the years in Western cultures, as well as the purposes associated with each.

The sciences discussed here began with a strong link to the philosophy of the individual scientist and had a definite controlling aspect over the experiments themselves. After all, the alchemist does not care too much what happens in a particular reaction if he does not believe it will lead to a precious metal. This grew into the Scientific Enlightenment, which sought to reveal the way the world worked through experimenting and forming theories based on what could be observed. Some sought to reveal how God's creation (and therefore His mind) worked, while others pursued more of a secular truth or order behind nature. Currently, we find ourselves in a situation where experiments are conducted to form theories that, depending on the theorist, are content to explain a phenomenon or unify existing theories. These theories are often the applied to the future of the scientific field and are used as a springboard for looking for new data, as in the case of cosmic microwave background radiation. The examples of the separation between experiment and the formation of theories show that several factors play a role: general acceptance, reception and recognition from fellow scientists, sponsorship, and simply looking at things in a new way or testing for different sets of data. In this way, science continues to expand its boundaries and hopefully approach some truth in nature