Superstitions – Kepler, Galileo & Newton

Superstition is a belief system or behavior of an individual that cannot be justified with evidence and logic. It is usually associated with people who do not (or do not want to) think critically. From the history and philosophy of science, we learn that a few famous thinkers of the past had some form of belief that can be termed superstitious. Of course, they were products of their times and environments, but it is always interesting to learn about the contradictions.

Take, for example, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. They were 3 important figures who laid the foundation of classical mechanics (along with many other things). But they also had their pet beliefs that were neither logical nor scientific.

In the preface of his book, Karl Popper has to say about the superstition of the 3 individuals mentioned:

Each of the three intellectual giants was, in his own way, caught up in a superstition. (‘Superstition’ is a word we should use only with the greatest caution, knowing how little we know and how certain it is that we too, without realizing it, are caught up in various forms of superstition.) Galileo most deeply believed in a natural circular motion – the very belief that Kepler, after lengthy struggles, conquered both in himself and in astronomy. Newton wrote a long book on the traditional (mainly biblical) history of mankind, whose dates he adjusted in accordance with principles quite clearly derived from superstition. And Kepler was not only an astronomer but also an astrologer; he was for this reason dismissed by Galileo and many others.

Of course, I am bringing this up not to justify any superstition. But to highlight the fact that people whom we call ‘heroes’ are humans and have their beliefs and flaws. We may derive inspiration from their work, but not all aspects of their character may be suitable for emulation.

We will have to adapt what is good and discard what is not. You may ask: what is the definition of ‘good’? Well, that is a topic for a different debate, but in this context, I would say ‘good’ are the ideas and methods developed by the abovementioned that are testable and falsifiable. Karl Popper may be happy with that definition.