If the germ theory is relatively new, how do they think fermentation was happening (like wine, ale, yogurt etc.) thousands of years ago?
In: 613
People in the Tudor era had a vague understanding of yeast. It was the woman’s job to make ale for the family, so when it came time to start a new batch, she went into the grain field and sent out a plate with water to “catch the spirits”. Today, we know this as yeast. This seemingly superstitious phrase gives us the word “spirits”, aka alcohol.
It’s really hard to explain history of science topics like you’re five, but here’s my best go.
If you want some historical sources of thought on this topic, check out [book IV](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.4.iv.html) of Aristotle’s Meteorology (despite the title, the fourth book is actually not about meteorology at all). Aristotle discusses at length the way that different terrestrial bodies can change and be changed. He didn’t have a theory of fermentation per se, but it and a number of other processes (digestion, cooking, smelting) are considered to be part of the same family of processes. You’ve got to think about things in terms of bodies with certain properties having their properties changed, not in terms of atoms. Fermentation is just another way by which people can change the properties of certain bodies.
Much later, the great alchemist Paracelsus also writes about fermentation as an analogue for the elixir of life. For him, yeast and other agents of fermentation just have a special preservative property to fix things in their current state. This kind of thinking is common in alchemical and non-alchemical texts alike – all the things in nature just have special god-given properties, and it’s up to the clever alchemists to find them. Paracelsus says:
>”We call this preservative an elixir, as if it were yeast, with which bread is fermented and digested by the body. Its virtue is to preserve the body in that state wherein it finds it, and in that same vigour and essence. Since this is the nature of preservatives, namely, that they defend from corruption, not in any way by purifying, but simply by preserving. The fact that they also take away diseases is due to the subtlety which they possess. So, then, they do not only preserve, but they also conserve. They have a double labour and duty, that is to say, to prevent diseases and to keep the essence itself in its proper condition”
>
>- Paracelsus, *The Archidoxies of Theophrastus Paracelsus*, Book 8, *trans*. Waite
Essentially, some stuff just has the power to act on other stuff in a way that preserves it. This isn’t all that weird on an ancient or early modern worldview. Some rocks just have the power to attract iron! Some plants have the power to induce vomiting! This kind of magical essentialist thinking is a major feature of western science up into the 17th century. It may seem like a bit of a cop-out explanation to us, but it worked pretty well for them.
I could probably teach most random people how to set up a PCR experiment. I wouldn’t have to explain what is going on, they could just mix the ingredients, put it on the machine, etc.
Same concept.
You don’t need theory for something to work.
Heres how a science theory comes to existence:
1. someone see something happening, in nature or artificial.
2. they wonder how it happened.
3. they come up with a hypothesis.
4. they test it out with experiment.
5. they create a new theory once the experiment shows support.
You can leave it at step 1, step 2~5 is not required to replicate the product.
If someone left the oats in water because of procrastination and led to spicy water. They don’t need to understand the mechanics behind that to recreate the process.
Fortunately, some firsthand info exists- in particular, the [Hymn to Ninkasi](https://vinepair.com/articles/hymn-to-ninkasi-infographic/).
It’s both a hymn of praise to the Sumerian goddess of beer (also seduction, fertility, and warfare…so they had the full beer thing going on) and a bit of a recipe for how to make the stuff.
The WEST came up with the germ theory but do not think for a second that ancient cultures did not know about germs and cleanliness. There is lots of ancient literature discussing this. The West took a lot of time catching up and dying in the process….
Thanks to modern science we now have this cultural drive to try to explain in rational terms everything that we observe. You see something curious and you automatically start to think how it could have happened. You make theories, you discuss with other people, you look for more information, etc.
But for a long time in history this mindset wasn’t the default. There were too many unexplained events happening and too little knowledge and tools to study them. There was also no urge to do it. Instead, it was more natural to accept things as they are and not ask questions that couldn’t be answered anyway. God knows best. Ancient philosophers and medieval alchemists were members of the higher layers of the society – they had time and resources to ponder those questions, but often they treated it as a hobby and were coming up with fantastic theories instead of something resembling science. Those who really tried were few and far between. So even though we know about people like Archimedes, Galen, or Avicenna, who were rigorous in their studies, their methods didn’t get popular recognition. That changed only fairly recently.
There’s the theory that someone wanted sweet water. So they put honey and water into a jar mixed it, took a few sips, closed the lid and put the stuff away for a few days / weeks. Then opened it again and drank from it again, unknowingly being the first person to drink alcohol. And mead at that.
Then they wanted more of the stuff, so they repeated the process. And then they experimented.
People probably knew about it in some capacity, but didn’t have the means to articulate it.
Yeast. It’s visible and interactive and recognizably alive. One does not need to understand cellular life to observe or farm yeast.
Latest Answers