ARGUMENTS FOR HUMANS AS THE UNIVERSE'S ONLY INTELLIGENT LIFE FORM FROM ...

286 Pages·2012·1.73 MB·English

by  Joseph Packer

“BECAUSE WE ARE ALONE…” ARGUMENTS FOR HUMANS AS THE
UNIVERSE’S ONLY INTELLIGENT LIFE FORM FROM ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS
TO TODAY’S SCIENTISTS

by

Joseph Clayton Packer

B.A., University of Mary Washington, 2005

M.A., Wake Forest University, 2007

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

University of Pittsburgh

2012
i
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

This dissertation was presented

by

Joseph Clayton Packer

It was defended on
October 31, 2011
and approved by
Philip E. Smith, Associate Professor, Department of English
Barbara Warnick, Professor, Department of Communication
Brent Malin, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication
Dissertation Advisor: Ronald J. Zboray, Professor, Department of Communication

ii
Copyright © by Joseph Clayton Packer
2012
iii
“BECAUSE WE ARE ALONE…” ARGUMENTS FOR HUMANS AS THE
UNIVERSE’S ONLY INTELLIGENT LIFE FORM FROM ANCIENT
PHILOSOPHERS TO TODAY’S SCIENTISTS

Joseph Clayton Packer, PhD

University of Pittsburgh, 2012

Does alien life exist? This perennial question has driven some of humanity’s oldest
scientific debates, going back to the ancient Greeks. My work investigates the way
individuals have rhetorically deployed speculations about the impossibility of
extraterrestrial life to advance other values and beliefs. Specifically, my research traces
the unity-of-the-world cosmology or “unity,” for short, meaning the belief that humans
are the only intelligent life form in the universe, in contrast to the “plurality-of worlds”
one, or “plurality,” which holds open the possibility of multiple intelligent life forms. The
unity rhetorical cosmology connects the absence of alien life with the idea of human
value and transcendental, absolute ethics. Because “we” are alone, “we” are special, the
thinking goes.
My dissertation traces the way cosmology serves as an argument in religious,
political, and philosophical debates. Specifically, it examines the way that individuals
have used claims of the absence of alien life to justify moral absolutism, teleology, and
anthropocentrism, from Plato to the present day. The dissertation examines major
historical figures as case studies including: Plato, Aquinas, William Whewell, and Alfred
Russel Wallace. I draw on Kenneth Burke, Roland Barthes, and rhetoric-of-science-
iv
literature (as well as many other sources) in order to unveil the hidden rhetorical meaning
of a cosmology.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... VI

PREFACE ........................................................................................................................ IX

1.0
  INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1
  LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 7

1.2
  METHODOLOGY AND CHAPTER OUTLINE ...................................... 10

1.3
  LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 17

1.4
  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 30

2.0
  PLATO’S RHETORICAL COSMOLOGY: THE UNITY OF THE WORLD
AS FOUNDATIONAL MYTH ...................................................................................... 33

2.1
  STATE OF COSMOLOGY AND PLATO’S EARLY DIALOGUES ...... 39

2.2
  MYTH AND RHETORIC IN PLATO’S DIALOGUES ........................... 46

2.3
  SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND EMPIRICAL ARGUMENT IN
PLATO’S DIALOGUES ........................................................................................ 55

2.4
  PLATO’S RECONCILIATION WITH COSMOLOGY .......................... 56

2.5
  PLATO’S COSMOLOGY: MYTH OR SCIENCE? ................................. 68

2.6
  PLATO’S RHETORICAL COSMOLOGY ................................................ 74

2.7
  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80

vi
3.0
  THE DOMINANCE OF THE UNITY COSMOLOGY: UNITY FROM
PLATO TO GALILEO .................................................................................................. 82

3.1
  ARISTOTLE .................................................................................................. 85

3.2
  EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND COSMOLOGY ....................................... 88

3.3
  AQUINAS ....................................................................................................... 93

3.4
  AQUINAS’ LEGACY ................................................................................. 102

3.5
  THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM ................................................................. 107

3.6
  GALILEO AND HIS TELESCOPE .......................................................... 112

3.7
  THE SHIFT TO PLURALISM .................................................................. 118

3.8
  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 126

4.0
  WILLIAM WHEWELL AND ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE: UNITY
COSMOLOGY IN THE MODERN ERA .................................................................. 128

4.1
  WILLIAM WHEWELL ............................................................................. 132

4.2
  THE VESTIGES OF CREATION ............................................................. 143

4.3
  PLURALITY OF WORLDS AND THE UTILITY DEBATE ................ 150

4.4
  PLURALITY OF WORLDS: TIMAEUS .................................................. 156

4.5
  THE RESPONSE ......................................................................................... 166

4.6
  A. R. WALLACE: BRIDGE TO THE 20TH CENTURY ......................... 172

4.7
  SOCIAL DARWINISM .............................................................................. 175

4.8
  WALLACE’S SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTION ............................................. 180

4.9
  PUBLIC BATTLE ....................................................................................... 189

4.10
  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 192

5.0
  TIPLER AND BARROW .................................................................................... 194

vii
5.1
  THE STATE OF THE DEBATE ............................................................... 197

5.2
  TIPLER’S RHETORICAL ANALYSIS ................................................... 201

5.3
  THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE .............................................................. 206

5.4
  THE SCIENTIFIC FRAME ....................................................................... 210

5.5
  THE UNITY RHETORIC .......................................................................... 214

5.6
  ABSENT ALIENS ....................................................................................... 222

5.7
  RECEPTION ............................................................................................... 226

5.8
  EXPLAINING THE SUCCESS ................................................................. 232

5.9
  PUBLIC RECEPTION ............................................................................... 236

5.10
  TIPLER’S LATER WORK ...................................................................... 242

5.11
  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 248

6.0
  CONCLUSION: MAN AS THE MEASURE VS. THE UNITY OF THE
WORLD ......................................................................................................................... 250

6.1
  THE RHETORICAL PROBLEM OF UNITY ......................................... 252

6.2
  THE DANGERS OF UNITY ...................................................................... 253

6.3
  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 255

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 256

viii
PREFACE
I have many individuals to thank for helping me bring this project to fruition.
I am thankful to have come in to the Communication Department at the
University of Pittsburgh with such an amazing cohort: Tom Dunn, David Landes, Brita
Anderson, Josh Beaty, Candi Carter Olson, John Jasso, and Heather Liebling. The
nickname “demon cohort” seems to best encapuslate the experience. Along with my
cohort, the graduate student community helped create an amazing atmosphere. During
my time as a Pitt I attended a mock funeral, held a poetry reading outside the Cathedral,
paraded around a cardboard cutout of Josh Beaty, and went sky diving. On occasion we
grad student even got some work done and I would like to thank Brita Anderson, John
Rief, and Michael Vicaro for editing parts of the dissertation for me.
I began my dissertation project at Wake Forest and I would like to thank Ananda
Mitra, Allan Louden, Mary Dalton, and Michael Hyde for beginning me on the project
that ultimately took the form of this dissertation.
At the University of Pittsburgh I owe a debt to many scholars outside of my
committee, who I would like to thank. John Poulakos helped brainstorm with me about
my chapter on classical Greece. John Lyne offered sage advice on my use of rhetoric of
science literature. Paul Scade (despite being out of the country and working at a different
university) read several drafts of my chapter on Plato and offered a crucial philosophical
ix
perspective. Finally, I owe a great debt of gratitude to Mary Zboray, who basically acted
as an unofficial member of my committee, reading and commenting on countless drafts.
I was lucky to have an amazing committee, who shepered me rather painlessly
through the process. Philip Smith took a chance on a whacky idea and agreed to be my
outside reader (and also provided amazing copy edits). William Fusfield represented an
enthusiastic voice in support of my work from the getgo. Babara Warnick graciously
agreed to step in for my defense when William was unable to attend due to illness. Brent
Malin offered excellent feed back throughout the process. Finally, Ronald Zboray played
a crucial role in shaping my dissertation. I literally could not have written this document
without him.
I am indepted to Tim O’Donnell, who changed the course of my life when he
convinced me to go to grad school instead of law school and has done much to guide me
through my academic career.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, whose endless sacrafices on my behalf
gave me the opprotunity to pursue my passions: my father who encouraged me to follow
my dreams and my mom who pushed me to excel.

x