Planet 9 and the bug on the leaf

I wrote an abstract in preparation for a paper on life and death in Shepherd’s philosophical writings. Then I found myself having to narrow down the topic for conferences which required only a couple of thousand words or so. Thus, I ended up focusing on the afterlife and the analogies Shepherd uses to explain it. I decided not to submit this abstract and 2,000 word paper because the Call for Papers was not specifically for history of philosophy and continued to work on it and develop it. Then I submitted another version of the abstract to the British History of Philosophy annual conference at Sheffield University and it was accepted. So the paper has now expanded into two longer versions, one abridged version I presented and one extended version¹.

As a result, I have become fascinated by this question of immortality and an afterlife. Is death just another life phase? Why do we feel the need to think/believe there is a life after death? Is there a life after death? Atheists think not but all religions try to address this human concern. Shepherd (1827) was writing in the late 18^th century and possibly early nineteenth century and uses two analogies to help explain her view². She was a Christian but, nevertheless, felt everyone should be able to follow her philosophical thoughts regardless of faith. These two analogies fascinate me because they are linked to scientific method behind discoveries today.

One such example I read about recently is the Planet Nine theory which is akin to her bug on the leaf analogy. As can be seen in this video (see below³), the science researchers discovered why the sun tilts by reasoning about how Planet Nine impacts on things around it in the solar system rather than through empirical observation of the sun and Planet Nine. Indeed, scientists are yet to find the exact location of this planet but hope to do so soon⁴. So similarly, Shepherd talks about the afterlife not as something to be empirically proven initially but to be logically and rationally explored first. She gives the example of a bug’s empirical experiences being restricted to its leaf which makes it ignorant of the possibilities beyond what its senses discover. This illustrates situations in scientific discovery too. Had these scientists restricted their thinking to only directly observable phenomenon rather than working through various logical possibilities about the cosmos, they may never have hit upon the best explanation. Now they are somewhat in the position of the captain in Shepherd’s (1827) other analogy. The captain has a rough idea of where north, in reality, is and uses the compass reading to navigate there. Similarly, the scientists now have a conceptual idea of how Planet Nine is interacting with the sun and then expect to further it with empirical observation later.

I think Shepherd’s (1827) approach to metaphysics and scientific method (of rationalising through a topic as far as our minds will go before expecting any empirical evidence to confirm it, as well as the usefulness of rough ideas for initially guiding us to the truth) is also seen in the way Batygin⁵ describes the discovery process. First there was reasoning about possibilities, resulting in more than one theory. This can be seen when Batygin states “I actually had theorized this in 2012 and wrote about it and the theory was almost exactly the same, except for it wasn’t Planet Nine doing the torqueing but a companion star.”⁶ Shepherd (1827) also provides more than one possible explanation, leaving open which may be closest to the truth about the afterlife. This open-mindedness is also useful in science where hypothetical theories try to resolve tensions about a phenomena. This can be seen when Batygin describes the puzzle of the tilting sun and the latest theory: “It does help us understand planet formation because planet formation theory dictates that all things must start out co-planar, in the same plane. The fact that the Sun is tilted with respect to the rest of the solar system is almost a violation of that very fundamental principle, so understanding what’s going on there is important.”⁷

So, I think Shepherd (1827) outlines an analytic philosophical approach which suits scientific methodology and discovery. This is interesting because it would be easy to assume that an empiricist would match up with science better than a rationalist. However, as can be seen here, scientists often work from hypothesis to observation rather than invariably working the other way round. Hence, I think Shepherd’s logical and rational analysis of things that are not fully comprehended about the world and human life is not only fascinating within the history of philosophy but is a relevant approach for modern science today.     

¹ See my academia profile for the 2,000 word (2016) and abridged version (2017) of these papers, available at: https://independent.academia.edu/LibaKaucky

² Shepherd, M. (1827). Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation (first edition ed.). Piccadilly, London, London, United Kingdom: John Hatchard and Son. Available at (last accessed 27/05/17):  

https://archive.org/stream/essaysonpercepti00shep/essaysonpercepti00shep_djvu.txt

³ The video I refer to in this blog, of the science researchers, M. Brown, K. Batygin, E. Bailey who theorised Planet Nine’s impact on the sun, is available at (last accessed 27/05/2017):

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/other/the-tilt-of-the-sun-could-be-caused-by-undiscovered- planet-9/vi-AAjaZ1W?ocid=spartandhp

⁴ ibid

⁵ ibid

⁶ Batygin interviewed by Astronomy Magazine, online article, ‘Planet Nine may be responsible for tilting the Sun: How our possible rogue planet may be messing with our solar system’, By S.  Stirone, Published: Wednesday, October 19, 2016, available at (last accessed 27/05/2017):

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/10/planet-nine-tilting-the-sun    

⁷ ibid