I’m going to talk a little about what may have been the greatest paradigm shift we’ve ever experienced. If it wasn’t the greatest, it was certainly very significant: truth came to be defined through experimentation, which could actually prove or disprove hypotheses. I’ll talk a little about Plato, Aristotle, and finally Galileo. Don’t worry, this isn’t a pointless debate; these are vital arguments for making fairer decisions today. Let’s begin with Plato.
Plato
Plato thought it more important to philosophize about the forms of triangles than to observe the world around him. This was because he considered the natural world inferior to the world of ideas.
Aristotle
Aristotle, Plato’s student, left his mark on the history of science because he disagreed with his teacher. He was one of the first to oppose the philosophical disdain for the natural world.
Aristotle devoted methodical attention to nature and kept an exquisite record of his observations.
He also used his newly codified logic to study the cause of everything he observed and thereby provide a rational, consistent explanation. From that point on, scientific observation acquired its distinctive character, setting it apart from the merely curious way in which people had always looked at the world. Scientific observation is methodical; that is, it follows a method, rules that define what, how, and when to observe in order to gain as much information and insight as possible about what is being observed.
But something was missing from Aristotle’s way of doing science. Methodical observation and rational conclusions alone do not guarantee a correct explanation of the causes and mechanisms of phenomena, since we cannot be sure that every factor influencing the phenomenon in question has been properly and accurately observed and analyzed.
This is where Galileo comes in. Through his approach, Galileo introduced one of the scientific method’s most indispensable characteristics: a good observation and explanation of a phenomenon are not enough; methodical experiments must validate that observation and explanation.
Galileo Galilei
With Galileo, science gained another requirement: it became experimental. From then on, knowledge was obtained empirically, that is, by observing and experimenting with what we perceived in nature.
With this conviction, Galileo challenged another Aristotelian dogma: the idea, widely accepted at the time, that Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun and stars revolved around it (geocentrism). The idea was not Galileo’s; it had already been proposed in detail by Copernicus and Kepler. But through his experiments he was able to demonstrate the flaws in the geocentric theory, and although the Inquisition’s authority silenced him at the time, his ideas have endured to this day. Everyone working at an institution of higher education today should at least be aware that Galileo greatly influenced this modern way of seeing the world.
After that, people became aware that the world does not revolve around them; that, compared with the universe around us, we are nothing but dust; and that our continued existence depends on many factors we often don’t even imagine.
After that introduction, let’s get to the point. If we are no more than cosmic dust, then let’s at least understand what dust can do, whether in an academic institution or in society in general.
We should remember that a single particle of dust can damage an entire hard-drive storage system.
Let’s compare this speck of dust to the hugely inflated egos of professionals who don’t understand the true meaning of their titles and let themselves be led by appearances and status, hiding behind their job titles (I discuss this in my post: getting real about your career). To make matters worse, some people have a rotten attitude and make no effort to develop a systemic, participatory perspective (I discuss systems thinking in the post enough complaining). These people only know how to complain about everything around them and do nothing to improve what is at their side.
This kind of professional has the same harmful quality as dust inside a hard drive. When this kind of professional is valued in any institution, the environment becomes polluted, unjust, and inhumane. Just as Galileo had to admit to things he knew were not true before the Inquisition, this system begins to idolize professionals using methods that have not been empirically proven. It is trapped in Aristotelian logic: the idea that something is proven simply because it makes sense or is logical, while experimentation is left aside.
Countries can fall behind because of this shortsighted, non-experimental perspective. One case here in Brazil is the attempt to regulate the systems analyst profession, saying that it may only be practiced by people who have attended college in a technology field (computer science and related areas). Remember that there have also been other attempts.
This is a picture of the Aristotelian outlook that still persists. If we put Galileo’s ideas into practice, we will easily see that among the best IT professionals are people who studied on their own (self-taught), who did not identify with the rigid university system, as well as professionals from many other fields such as physics, mathematics, and engineering. (The argument about professionals from other fields, along with other arguments, is detailed in this letter.)
A law like this is a setback for the country, because it ranks people by something that does not prove professional ability or commitment (a degree), usually sets the bar low, and is a step backward.
Now let’s go back to talking a little more about dust.
If we are demonstrably insignificant as individuals compared with everything around us, then the only thing that can strengthen us and give us a greater purpose is to base our relationships on respect and on the awareness that we are not perfect and must do something to improve the environments we spend time in. By acting this way, we find part of the meaning of existence that we seek so much, and begin to feel integrated, useful, and finally human.
One analogy is a sand dune on the beach: a single grain of sand couldn’t make one. The only way to create the natural beauty of a dune is through millions of grains working together.
Genipabu Dunes - Source: Sônia Furtado
Applying this paradigm to an educational institution means that everyone in the institution should be treated first as a human being and second according to the tasks they perform. You may be thinking: What about the degree? A degree doesn’t enter into this paradigm, because we are using the experimental method Galileo began. So let’s continue the discussion about experimentation.
Although a degree is used for hiring in our country, we should remember an educational institution’s main role: to prepare students for the future.
Based on this premise, we will continually determine whether teachers with the highest degrees are actually preparing students, building relationships based on leadership and active student participation, and, in short, creating a more humane way of learning.
By conducting this experiment, we can find out to what extent a professional is truly committed to the institution and contributing to its growth. We will move from the Aristotelian model of “I have the degree, therefore I am good and the universe revolves around me” to “I earned my qualification, but that means my responsibility toward the people and environment around me has increased. I must behave respectfully, recognize that I am nothing on my own, and guide those around me so that we can grow together.”
In the example I gave earlier of the law for IT professionals, it is clear that it has no basis in experimentation, and anything that cannot be proven through experimentation is doubtful and can be harmful to our society. In this case, it is obvious that the law would lower the standard of IT professionals in our country, allowing incompetent people to take positions (Note: not everyone is incompetent; the point is that a degree does not guarantee competence) just because they have a piece of paper that doesn’t match reality, since reality can only be proven through experimentation, the very thing Galileo gave us.
I want to repeat the title of this post: Let’s honor Galileo! That means honoring his ideas and questioning packaged opinions; allowing ourselves to experiment and only accepting something after testing it. Let’s realize that we are nothing but dust, that one person acting selfishly can damage an entire workplace or society, but that our strength together can help us grow as human beings.
Why the lucky stiff
To finish, I want to repeat a sentence by why the lucky stiff, or simply _Why, an artist and excellent programmer, taken from his now-deleted Twitter account:
When you don't create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. So create.
When you don't create things, you end up defined by your tastes rather than your abilities. Your tastes only narrow your perspective and exclude people. So create.
Pages consulted: