Jake Friedlein 1

Experiential Evidence in On the Natural Faculties

Experiential Evidence in On the Natural Faculties

Enamored with nature’s intricate design, Galen devotes On the Natural Faculties to

showing that Nature possesses certain abilities allowing her to provide for all living creatures.

In particular, Galen argues that the natural faculty for attraction exists and develops his position

with a series of experiments, observations, and commonsense generalities. As a whole, Galen’s

use of experiential evidence reveals defining characteristics of his method of study.

I. Distinguishing the Forms of Experiential Evidence

In order to analyze the use of experiential evidence in On the Natural Faculties, one must

first make distinctions among three forms of experience: experiment, observation, and

commonsense generality. First, according to Jim Bogen, “To experiment is to isolate, prepare,

and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence” (Bogen 2006). So, a

procedure must have two characteristics to be considered an experiment. First, the procedure

must be methodically set up. The experimenter has to ensure that the environment in which he

is experimenting will not alter his results, and he must manipulate “things” – that is, he must

interfere with his experimental subject’s natural setting. The second characteristic an experiment

must possess, according to Bogen, is purpose. Thus even if a procedure is methodically set up

and executed, it will still not be an experiment unless the experimenter plans to obtain evidence

with which he can build knowledge.

 Jake Friedlein 2
Experiential Evidence in On the Natural Faculties

Observation also carries this requirement of purpose, but it differs from experiment in

that it is a process of learning by perceiving things in their natural setting. Bogen writes that one

way to define observation is “noticing and attending to interesting details of things perceived

under more or less natural conditions” (Bogen 2006). When one observes, he uses his senses to

notice properties of objects or phenomena which he is studying. Finally, for an act to be

considered an observation, it must be done in the course of purposefully studying that which is

being observed.

Finally we must define commonsense generalities. Commonsense experiential evidence

is obtained not by carefully studying an object or phenomenon, but rather by incidentally

noticing that which we experience in everyday life. For example, Aristotle did not develop his

assertion that heavy objects move toward the center of the universe by carefully studying rocks

falling off cliffs or any other phenomena; rather, he used the common knowledge that when

something heavy is released, it falls.

Having distinguished experiment, observation, and commonsense, we can turn to

Galen’s use of these forms of experiential evidence.

II. Experiential Evidence in On the Natural Faculties

In On the Natural Faculties, Galen theorizes that “everything which exists possesses a

faculty by which it attracts its proper quality” (Galen: p. 85). Then he gives an example of this

natural faculty at work in an animal. He explains that kidneys attract and separate urine from

the body and then deliver the urine to the bladder via the ureters. Asclepiades, an atomist,
 Jake Friedlein 3
Experiential Evidence in On the Natural Faculties

opposes this explanation. He says urine is resolved into vapors and then absorbed by the

bladder. Galen refutes this explanation with an arsenal of experiential evidence. First he

introduces two commonsense generalities. He notes that

practically every butcher is aware [that urine travels from the kidneys

to the bladder], from the fact that he daily observes both the position of

the kidneys and the duct (termed the ureter) which runs from each kidney

into the bladder, and from this arrangement he infers their characteristic

use and faculty. (Galen: p. 51)

Galen also points out that people with kidney stones experience pain between their kidneys and

their bladder just before they pass the stone. This, Galen says, suggests that urine passes from

the kidneys to the bladder.

Next, Galen turns to an experiment. He writes that some of his opponents argue that

urine cannot pass from the kidneys to the bladder because when a bladder taken from a dead

animal is filled with water and then squeezed, the water does not flow out of the ureters. To

defend himself, Galen sets up a carefully devised experiment in which he opens the peritoneum

of a living animal and ligatures the ureters. Later, he checks that the animal’s bladder is empty

and that its ureters are “quite full and distended” (Galen: p. 59). Next, he removes the ligatures

and observes urine filling the bladder. This procedure has the characteristics of an experiment

because Galen manipulates his subject by surgically tying off the animal’s ureters, and he

performs this procedure for the purpose of getting knowledge about the function of kidneys.

Further, Galen isolates the animal’s kidneys from its bladder by tying off the animal’s ureters. In

this way, he is able to study the kidneys independently of the bladder.

 Jake Friedlein 4
Experiential Evidence in On the Natural Faculties

Having introduced his theory for the faculty of attraction with an experimentally

verified example, Galen presents further support by systematically refuting the atomists’

theories of attraction. For example, he challenges Epicurus’ explanation of how a lodestone

attracts iron. Epicurus said that the attraction between iron and lodestone is due to the collisions

between iron and lodestone atoms. Because the atoms of the two substances are of similar

shape, they interlock, and when the atoms rebound from the collision, the iron and lodestone

are drawn together. Galen makes a number of observations to refute this theory. For instance he

observes that two pieces of iron touching each other are attracted to the lodestone even if only

one is in contact with it. Moreover, he observes that even if the two pieces of iron are not

aligned with the lodestone, they are both still attracted as long as they are touching each other.

Galen reasons that according to this theory, the lodestone atoms not only pass through the first

piece of iron, but also inexplicably change direction.

In studying the lodestone and iron, Galen employs the second kind of experiential

evidence, observation. His action here is clearly an observation because he would not

incidentally notice that two pieces of iron are attracted to the lodestone even if only one touches

it. Rather, his curiosity must have compelled him to study this phenomenon more deeply.

Further, this act of studying can be deemed an observation since Galen has a purpose, his

inquiry into attraction, and he uses his senses to notice the behavior of the iron in a natural

setting. Of course, this second point may be contended, for one might say that by arranging the

pieces of iron in specific ways, Galen is interfering with nature and thus carrying out an

experiment. However, Bogen allows for a continuum between observation and experiment by

saying that observation must happen in a “more or less” (Bogen 2006) natural setting. This
 Jake Friedlein 5
Experiential Evidence in On the Natural Faculties

writer asserts that Galen’s manipulation here is minimal enough that he is observing, not

experimenting.

So, Galen clearly uses all three forms of experiential evidence to support his theory of

the faculty of natural attractiveness. First, he introduces his theory by using commonsense

generalizations and an experiment to prove an example. Then he uses observation to criticize

the atomists’ theories, thus answering opposition to his proposal.

III. Historical Comparison of the Role of Experiment

After considering Galen’s kidney experiment, we might wonder about the relationship

between the theory of attractiveness and the example of kidney function. Does the example

support the theory, or is the theory used to explain the kidneys’ function? Galen goes to great

trouble to prove that urine enters the bladder from the kidneys through the ureters, so it would

be reasonable to assume that his primary motivation is to better understand physiology.

However, the final reason Galen examines kidney function is to provide an example showing

that Asclepiades is “compelled to repeatedly deny obvious facts” (Galen: p.49) because he

believes that nature does not possess the faculty to attract appropriate substances. So, we can

see that Galen is more concerned with the theory this knowledge supports than with the

knowledge itself.

This attitude sharply contrasts with the role experiment plays in modern medicine.

While Galen was concerned with why the kidneys functioned as they did, many modern

experiments are focused on how the body functions, or more often, how to make it function

better. For instance, researchers mapping the human genome are not trying to prove some
 Jake Friedlein 6
Experiential Evidence in On the Natural Faculties

theory about why physical traits are coded by DNA. Rather, their goal is to be able to

genetically fix or prevent medical problems such as birth defects. Another example is cancer

research. While it may seem that some cancer research is aimed at discovering why cancerous

cells act as they do, this is not the final goal of the research. The final goal is to learn how to

prevent and treat cancer. So we see that Galen uses experiment to support theories explaining

why certain phenomena occur; whereas, today, researchers seek to discover how to cure

disease.

When we examine the role of experiential evidence in On the Natural Faculties, we obtain

insight into how Galen gains knowledge. For instance, we see that Galen starts his study with

theory, not observation or experiment. Nonetheless, Galen clearly believes that it is important to

find experimental evidence before accepting a theory. Regarding Asclepiades’ assertion that the

kidneys are connected to the bladder by invisible channels, Galen even goes so far as to

sarcastically say that, “It was, of course, a grand and impressive thing to do, to mistrust the

obvious, and to pin one’s faith in things which could not be seen” (Galen: p. 63).

So, we see that Galen’s approach to natural philosophy is simple: focus on theories

explaining nature, but only accept that which is experimentally verified.

 Jake Friedlein 7
Experiential Evidence in On the Natural Faculties

Works Cited

1. GALEN. On the natural faculties.

http://www.google.com/books?id=8HTYJ788kTAC

2. BOGEN, Jim. “Theory and observation in science”. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

2006; accessed 02 Oct 2009.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/