Goethe’s Scientific method: its growing relevance in current science
By Worth Attention on 19-Oct-11 03:28:34 PM
The following article has been kindly donated by Dr. Judyth Sassoon, Departments of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen’s Road, Bristol, BS8 1RJ. Email: js7892@bristol.ac.uk. It is a summary of a talk given to both the Anglo-German club, Abingdon and to members of the Anthroposophical Society Gloucestershire.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1748-1832) has been described as one of the last true polymaths. He was a magnificent poet, play-write and artist, who successfully extended his genius to science. He absorbed himself in a range of scientific subjects, including botany, osteology, optics, meteorology and geology. In the field of optics he famously came into conflict with the established ideas of Newton, a clash leading to accusations of dilettantism from some of his contemporaries (Sepper, 2003). However, in the biological sciences Goethe made generally accepted, lasting contributions, such that his work is cited even up to the present day (one need only search for J.W. von Goethe on “Google Scholar” to confirm this).
Goethe’s science emerged from his particular way of observing nature, which stemmed from his artistic genius. He was able to grasp phenomena simultaneously with the eyes of an artist and the rigorous discipline of a scientist, perceiving the totality or “wholeness” (Bortoft, 1996) of phenomena in a dynamic way. In biology, this gift lay behind a number of significant discoveries, including his description of the premaxillary bone in humans (von Goethe, 1784), heteroblasty in plants and his work on animal and plant metamorphosis (von Goethe, 1790; 1817; 1824).
Goethe’s work “The Metamorphosis of Plants” (von Goethe 1790) is now firmly established within botanical literature. His idea that all the organs of flowering plants can be derived from a foliar, leaf-like structure has full affirmation. Darwin himself referred to Goethe’s botanical studies in Origins of Species “It is familiar to almost every one, that in a flower the relative position of the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils, as well as their intimate structure, are intelligible on the view that they consist of metamorphosed leaves, arranged in a spire.” (Darwin, 1859). Indeed, Goethe was searching for an underlying “type” (typus) in the plant and animal kingdoms. He initially interpreted the “type” as a structural subunit, with the potential to develop into all plant or animal forms. He even thought it might be possible to come across a plant that fully expressed the form of the “type”. He eventually realized that such an organism did not exist in nature and instead proposed the leaf as the “type” for the various organs of the plant kingdom. Then, having established a “type” for the plant kingdom, he set about trying to find a similar structure for animals-and came up with the vertebra (von Goethe, 1824).
Goethe’s vertebral theory of animals was not accepted by the establishment as easily as his foliar theory of plants, largely due to lack of direct experimental evidence. Indeed, embryological evidence seemed to contradict it altogether (Filler, 2007). However, the idea of common plans manifesting early in embryological development and subsequently specializing into all the various plant and animal structures is being revisited and explored today with the techniques of molecular biology. This new biological discipline is called evo-devo (a contraction of “evolution” and “development”) (Carroll, 2005). Consequently, some contemporary scientists are hailing Goethe and his idea of the “type” as “ahead of its time” (Filler, 2007).
The very fact that some of Goethe’s work is currently being re-interpreted by evo-devo biologists can be regarded as a testimony to the effectiveness of his method (Kuratani and Schilling, 2011). Intensive study of “Metamorphosis of Plants” (von Goethe, 1790) and subsequent works leads to a deeper understanding of the way his discoveries emerged from this method (Steiner, 1883; Bortoft, 1996). It soon becomes clear that Goethe’s greatest legacy was not any actual discovery, brilliant as they were, but rather his way of “seeing” nature. In addition, one is faced with the uncomfortable fact that what is currently being hailed by evo-devo enthusiasts as Goethe’s prescience is a rather superficial interpretation of his real contribution to science.
Initially, Goethe was searching for a physical subunit, with the potential to develop into the various plant and animal forms. However, as his ideas developed he redefined the “type” as something other than a mere subunit. Goethe’s “type” is not a simple structure containing the potential to develop into more complex forms. It is something much more subtle, and its perception is intimately connected with Goethe’s way of seeing. However, this “way of seeing” is not something subjective and personal to Goethe. It is something that can be learnt and applied by anyone. It is best demonstrated as an observation exercise, the aim of which is to see form as movement. Some practitioners of Goethean science demonstrate the principle using plants (Boeckemühl, 1992; 1997). As a tribute to Goethe’s osteological work, I generally use a mammalian vertebral column as the object of study.
If one observes a vertebral column in its structural totality, ignoring initially any biological function it may serve, it is clear that there is a uniting “theme”, a movement or progression running through it. The theme is expressed in the sequence of its component elements, the vertebrae. The vertebrae all have a certain structural similarity and also a number of differences. However, the unity of movement within the column cannot be derived from any single vertebra, regarded in isolation from the rest. If we choose one of the simplest e.g a tail vertebra, we can see it holds little information that could lead us to the structure of the more complex elements. Similarly, by taking one of the structurally more complex vertebrae e.g. a thoracic, the forms of the other vertebrae can only be derived from it by subtracting structural information. In either case, studying vertebrae in isolation from the rest causes the perception of progression to dissolve away.
If the vertebral column is disarticulated and the components mixed up, the progression can be made to re-emerge again, when the mind recognizes that there is some relationship between them. This can be demonstrated by presenting a disarticulated vertebral column to someone with little knowledge of anatomy and watching them reconstruct it, more or less correctly. The human mind is able to see the positional information within the structure of the vertebrae, but only when they are viewed in relation to each other. Only then is it possible to see the continuity of movement that enables a correct reconstruction to be made. The individual vertebrae are then viewed as “snapshots” of a continuous, graded movement.
Within the context of the whole movement, no single vertebra has greater significance or importance than any other. Each vertebra, from simplest to most complex is perfect and complete, with respect to the totality, the “wholeness”, of the vertebral column. The movement running through the column reflects both the similarities and differences between the vertebrae. Each vertebra is contained within the movement and at the most profound level, each vertebra also contains the movement within itself. This is because each vertebra contains the idea of the movement within its structure and position, with respect to the others. If this were not so, the individual vertebrae would not be perfectly integrated into the whole. The progression that appears as the spinal column is a continuum, specifying the individual vertebrae by creating them within movement. Individual elements can be seen as arrested stages in this mobile transformation and though they do not manifest the full movement individually, they are governed by it. The movement itself is the “law” determining the forms of the vertebrae (Bockemühl, 1997).
Human beings are able to perceive the vertebral column as a progressive movement because we can marry the sense perceptible information from the physical structure to a mobile concept. The concept of movement in structure emerges from the mobile capacity of our human imagination (Deikman, 1973, Bortoft, 1996). We see the movement as arising from the shapes and positions of the vertebrae, but it is not something that is perceptible to the sense organs as such. To become perceptible, it also requires the activity of the imagination working with accurate sensory information. Here is an example of a situation in which the imagination is used to perceive something objective. Goethe had developed this ability to perfection and was able to apply it universally. It is possible for anyone to train themselves to see as Goethe saw (Bockemühl, 1992; Bortoft, 1996; Colquhoun and Ewald, 1996). The result of doing so is that natural phenomena suddenly appear as integrated wholes, with intrinsic holistic value rather than as fragmented, separate events only to be understood by further dissection.
.jpg "goethe")
That Goethe was seeing natural forms in terms of movement is clear from his writings (Steiner, 1883). When he developed his concept of plant or animal “type”, he was in fact speaking of a perception of movement not a concrete form. The” type” is not a subunit (Filler, 2007) nor is it a perfect Platonic archetype standing above and apart from the phenomenon (Bortoft, 1996). Goethe’s “type” has no actual form, because it is spacial-temporal metamorphic movement. Goethe nominated the leaf as the representative of the plant typus and the vertebra as the representative of the animal typus, because these structures expressed metamorphic movements most clearly. It may be said that the vertebrae and leaves are the footprints of phenomena that exists as metamorphic movement in the realm of the invisible (Bockemühl, 1992).
References
Bockemühl, J. 1992. Awakening to Landscape. Goetheanum, Naturwissenschaftliche Sektion. Dornach, Schweiz.
Bockemühl, J. 1997. Aspekte der Selbsterfahrung im phänomenologischen Zugang zur natur der Pflanzen, Gesteine, Teire und der Landschaft. Ms of lecture „Phänomenologie der Natur-ein Projekt.“ G. Böhme.
Bortoft, H. 1996. The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe’s way toward a science of participation in nature. Lindisfarne Books. ISBN 0-940262-79-7.
Carroll, S. 2005. Endless forms most beautiful: The new science of evo-devo and the making of the animal kingdom. W.W. Norton & co. ISBN 1405-19500.
Colquhoun, M. and Ewald, A. 1996. New eyes for plants: Workbook for plant observation and drawing. Hawthorn Press. ISBN 10-186989085X
Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. 1st Ed: John Murray. ISBN 1-4353-9386-4.
Deikmann, A.J. 1973. “Bimodal consciousness” in The Nature of human Consciousness, ed. Robert E. Ornstein (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman)
Filler, A. 2007. The upright ape: A new origin of the species. New Page Books. ISBN-10: 15641 49331.
Kurtani, S. and Schilling, T. 2011. Head segmentation in vertebrates. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48, 604-610.
Sepper, A.E. 2003. Goethe contra Newton: Polemics and the project for a new science of colour. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521 531322
Steiner, R. 1883. Goethes Naturwissenschaftliche Schriften, Einleitungen. Allgemeinen Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft. Dornach, Schweiz. GA 001.
von Goethe, J. W. 1790 Versuch die Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu erklären. Gotha: Carl Wilhelm Ettinger.
von Goethe, J.W. 1784. Dem Menschen wie den Tieren ist ein Zwischenknochen der odem Kinnlade zuzuschreiben. Sämliche Werke, 2, 530-545.
von Goethe, J.W. 1817. Zur Naturwissenschaft überhaupt, besonders zur Morphologie. Stuttgart, Tübingen.
von Goethe, J.W. 1824. Schädelgrüst aus sechs Wirbelknochen aufgebaut. Zur Morphologie, Band 2, Heft 2.
