How Does Science Give Us Knowledge?
How would I know? (Joke- that works on several levels)
I would like to begin with a more fundamental
question: What is science?
Probably a good idea to go back to the origins of
science.
The following section of today’s lecture I lifted
directly from my lecture on the origins of Philosophy because:
So…
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Philosophy
(Side note: At FIU no philosophy course has a prerequisite. This means it is often the case that I have
students taking an upper division course with me in, say, the Philosophy of
Religion, who are not familiar with philosophy.
This lecture I created as a way of making sure everyone is on the same
page.)
There are 2 parts of this
introduction to philosophy:
1. Methodology of Philosophy (Critical Thinking)
2. Subject Matter of Philosophy (Perennial Issues of Philosophy)
Today I will be concentrating
of #1 and only making passing remarks about #2 for reasons that, I believe,
will become more clear.
Best Explained by:
1st (Western)
Philosopher Thales of Miletus
(Ionia) (624-546 B.C.)
Thales was from Ancient
Greece. (Actually, Miletus, a Greek Colony on the coast of modern day Turkey.)
But…
However, these “answers” were
not so much explanations as they were “Mythos”
(e.g. Narratives which attempt to unify experiences into a single coherent
whole, often employing supernatural agents and forces which are believed to
underlie the visible- e.g. Gods & Goddesses, magic)
Note, nothing is more natural
than for humans to form a narrative out of various disparate experiences in
order to make sense of things and gain perspective. For instance, when you come home after your
classes and your mother asks to tell her about your day, what do you do? You turn it into a story.
“Well I got up a little late so I
rushed out the door without the paper that was due today. But I couldn’t come back to get it because I
had a test in my first class. So after I
my first class was over I went to the library to see if I could print out my
paper from my Dropbox account. At first
I couldn’t get it to work at all and I was worried that I would be late for my
second class, but at the last minute I figured it out. So then I finally got to class with my paper
and the professor told us that he was extending the deadline! After all of that I decided I needed to treat
myself so I bought a smoothy. I met my
study group around 3:00 PM and then gave Becky a ride home when we were done.
Now notice what you’ve
done. You took all the experiences of
the day, focused on some, filtered out others and turned the day into a
coherent narrative whole. This is not
unlike what goes on in myths.
Example:
"Why do the seasons change?" A:
Demeter/Persephone Myth
Note: Mythos-narratives were not meant to be testable
hypotheses. Two important
features of the Greek Myths:
The reason for condemning the
heretics was because they were considered to be questioning the gods
authority. The political climate was not
liberal since the survival of the community depended on everyone conforming to
the same rules. The city-states of
ancient Greece were like lifeboats of civilization outside of which a decent
human life (family, friends, creature comforts, security) was impossible. The last thing you want in a lifeboat is
someone “rocking the boat.”
Back to Thales-
He was curious about the notion of change. In any change there must be "something" which is changed. If
this is true then every change presents us with a paradox; there is that which remains constant
through-out (the something) and that which is changed (the same something?).
Example: Grass to Milk-
When a cow eats grass it changes the grass into
milk.
Thales reasons that there must be some
enduring stuff (substratum, substance -stand under-) which undergoes
the change. The substance supports the
apparent qualities (green, solid, and later, white, liquid etc.), but while
these apparent qualities ”change” the substance endures. And change is going on all the time and
everywhere. It’s ubiquitous. So, Thales reasons, there must be a basic
substance of everything.
What could this basic substance of everything be,
which underlies all reality? Well… you already
have his answer.
Hypothesizes that “everything is water.”
His choice of water was
probably due to the fact he was already working within a frame framework of
four elements (Earth, Fire, Water and Air) and water seems most versatile
-assumes all states of known matter: solid, liquid or gas.
Since he “thought it up all by himself” and it was
not given to him by the gods, he is not claiming the theory to be a myth with divine
authority; it had no more authority then that of an ordinary human.
His students questioned him. The
pointed out counter-examples.
Counter-examples (to a theory): Facts or observations which are
incompatible with the truth of theory and thereby show the theory to be wrong,
incomplete or otherwise flawed.
They (students/successors)
took on the challenge coming up with a better account.
Anaximander:
(6th century BC)– the basic substance is “the Boundless”; Aperon.
This in turn was criticized as
too vague.
Democritus: (ca. 460-360 BC) the basic substance of
everything is minuscule particles he called “no-splits” –atoms. Change is the result
of the composition or dissolution of aggregates of atoms, that is atoms moving
in a the void of space.
It’s worth noting that it was
not that far (intellectually, temporally or even geographically) from Thales’
“Everything is water.” to Democritus and atomic theory.
Back to Thales-
Thales is considered founder
of Westerner philosophy NOT because his theory was so well received. In fact it was shot down almost immediately. The importance of Thales is that he presented
a theory that could be shot down, and specified the criteria by which it
could be shot down. Thales is considered
founder of Westerner philosophy because he starts the philosophical
conversation and set up the rules for the dialogue; (Logos vs. Mythos[2]
as mode of explanation.)
Philosophical
Methodology (4 steps)
1. Theory Postulation
2. Justification
3. Critical Review
4. Revision (if necessary)
NB: But note, #4 loops us back
to #1. The revised theory is a new
instance of Theory Postulation which calls for new Justification, further
Critical Review, potentially new Revisions, etc..
This is called a Dialectic.
Dialectic: The art or practice of arriving at the truth by
the exchange of logical arguments
Offers a different sort of/mode
of rationalizing our disparate experiences from Mythos.
“Logos”
But of course, this is not
only the methodology of philosophy, it is also the methodology of science, at
least in broad outline. Thales dialectic
continues today in philosophy and in science.
So if philosophy and science are similar in that they share methodology,
how do they differ?
Well, for a LONG time, they
didn’t. Science (scientia) was
understood a “inquiry” generally. What
we call “natural science” today would have been referred to as Natural Philosophy
differing in the object of inquiry,
but not the mode. Any adequate understanding of the
world/reality required asking and answering questions that, today, would belong
to the separate disciplines of philosophy and science. Understanding how and why that changed will
go some way to understanding “How (modern) Science Gives Us Knowledge” and
perhaps as importantly the kind of knowledge that science can
give us.
Medieval Science (No, this is not an oxymoron.)
However bad the ancient Greek
philosopher Aristotle’s physics, astronomy, meteorology, etc. were, he is
recognized as an important scientist and biologist. His careful biological observations were not
surpassed until the invention of the microscope. He had his former student, Alexander the
Great, send him specimens from across Alexander’s empire for careful
study. But Aristotle’s science (theory
of everything) suffered from several impediments from the Modern Perspective:
Ptolemaic Cosmology
Aristotle believes (along with
the rest of the world) that the earth was the center of the universe and all
the heavenly bodies revolve around it.
Theory of the Five Substances
The terrestrial (sublunary)
world is comprised of four elements, each with its own nature and
characteristic way of behaving/ changing/ moving. (Earth, Water, Air and Fire) The celestial realm however, was eternal unchanging
and thus perfect. It must, he reasoned,
be comprises of a fifth element (quintessence) which is unlike anything
terrestrial and the perfect motion of these entities must be powered by a
perfect (unmoved) mover. The celestial
and the terrestrial were governed by different sets of causes.
Insistence on Syllogistic Structure
Real science must proceed deductively
valid syllogisms where the first premise is a fundamental necessary principle
of nature.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore:
Socrates is mortal
The major premise of the
syllogism is a necessarily true claim arising from our knowledge of the “nature”
if humankind. The minor premise is an
observation of the essence of Socrates.
(He is essentially a man; he is only accidentally snub-nosed.) And the conclusion, which follows necessarily
from the premises, deduces an effect/consequent from the cause. Socrates’s mortality is a necessary effect
caused by his form: humanity.
Now there’s nothing wrong with
deductively valid categorical syllogisms.
A problem arises however, as to how we are to get the necessary
universal first principles. Aristotle
never satisfactorily addresses this nor did centuries of adherents to his view
of science to come after.
If we had more time, we might
unpack each of these. But for our
purposes today, mentioning them is probably sufficient. The only one I would like to dwell on today
is the last of the five: The Doctrine of
the Four Causes.
Doctrine of the Four Causes:
Aristotelian
Doctrine which holds that to truly know what a thing is, and thus to gain a
complete scientific understanding of the thing, one must know four things about
it. That is, to explain what a thing is
as it is and why behaves as it does one must know four things about it:
1.
Material Cause: (What's it made of?)
2. Efficient Cause: (Who or what brought generated it.)
3. Formal Cause: (To what species and genus does it
belong?)
4. Final Cause:
(What is it supposed to do?)
Imagine
a thousand years from now someone is digging around in his backyard and comes
across a curious object that he can see is very old, but he does not know what
it is. And he wants to find out. So he takes it to his chemist friend. “What is this?” he asks. And his chemist friend replies, “Why I can
tell you what it is: it is steel with some iron and chrome. There is also a bit of rubber here.”
Despite
the fact that what the chemist has said is true, our discoverer is not
satisfied. “Yes, that’s fine, he says to
himself, but what is it?” So he takes it
so another friend of his, this time an Economic Historian. “What is it?” he asks. “Oh my, that’s an artifact, that is.” she
says. “It was designed by Franz
Wagner. It was produced in Underwood
factories in New York sometime in the very early 1900s.”
Ok,
so now this guy knows how it came to be and who made it, but still, “What is
it?” He sees a third friend, an
archeologist this time. “Yes I’m certain I can help you. I know precisely what it is. It is an
Underwood number 5. It is very similar
to the Densmore, but differs from that kind in that it is a 4-bank frontstrike version. It differs from the Daugherty in that it was
less likely to have its keys jam. Well
now our discoverer understands the object’s type, that is, he can
recognize another one of the same type when he sees it and he can distinguish
it from things of a different type. He
knows that class of things it belongs to in that he knows its form, but there
is a sense in which he still does not know what the thing
is.
Finally
he takes it to an expert on Religion and Culture from the early 20th
Century. “I understand your difficulty,”
he says. “You know what it is made of
(Material Cause) and how it came to be (Efficient Cause) and the class of
things it belongs to (Formal Cause), but what you what to know is ‘What is it
supposed to do; what’s it for?’ (Final
Cause). Well I can help you there. This was called a Typewriter. This was a machine by which people in the
early 20th Century communicated with their gods. They would sit in front of it all day and use
the keyboard to type messages of praise or petitions for help to the deities.“
Now
another friend is walking by and overhears this and says, “What? Don’t be ridiculous! That was not the telos of this thing. The telos of this machine was to make
music. It was a percussive instrument
and people would use it to play all sorts of complicated rhythms throughout the
day. Note the little bell on the side.”
Well
if our discoverer believed either one of these stories he would be wrong, of
course, and there is a sense in which he would still not know what this thing is. He would still not know what the telos of a
typewriter was and thus his knowledge of the typewriter would consequently be
incomplete, this despite the fact that he knew the material cause, the
efficient cause, and the formal cause.
He would still not know the final cause of the object. And thus he could not tell a good one
from a bad one.
Telos:
Greek word for “end” or “purpose”.
Teleology:
A system of ends and purposes./ The study of a system of
ends or purposes.
Aristotle
had a teleological worldview. Natural
living things (apple trees, baggers, fruit bats, date palms, etc.) had purposes
too. But for natural things their final
cause (telos) was their formal cause.
And to truly know what a thing is one must know its function or
purpose (final cause).
The Function of Natural Living
Things:
What
are apple trees supposed to do? Aristotle
claims that the only things that apple trees are supposed to do is to BE APPLE
TREES. – Presumably be the BEST DARN
APPLE TREES they can be. But that just
means, do all and only the “apple tree things” (i.e. fulfill apple tree nature). Thus, for natural organisms, the nature of
the organism’s species, that is, the thing’s formal cause, is also the goal of
the thing, its final cause. (And most often the efficient cause as well- i.e. the
parents)
Further
these formal and final causes explain why the thing moves/ changes in the way
that iot does. They determine the
thing’s potential and actual properties.
Aristotle was still dealing with the problem of change. (See Thales.)
Some had argued that change is impossible since is would require
something be what it isn’t that something come from nothing. Others had argues that change is all there is
and nothing exists in a deliberate definitive way. Plato had split reality into two realms to in
order resolve this dilemma (the Realm of Being and the Realm of Becoming). Aristotle on the other hand resolves it by
pointing out that there are more than one way thing can be said to “be.”
Being in actuality and
potentiality
I do not speak French.
However I do possess the ability to speak French. That is, I AM the sort of thing (human) whose
nature permits him to learn and speak French.
Aristotle would say I have the ability to speak French in potentiality,
but not in actuality. An apple tree
possesses the potentiality to speak French NEITHER in potentiality nor in
actuality. And even French speakers
possess the ability to speak French in potentiality only when they are sitting
quietly doing a water color painting or knitting etc. (That is when not ACTUALLY speaking French.)
Any change in a substance is the “actualization” of a
pre-existing potentiality. What actual
and potential characteristics a thing has are determined by the thing’s nature
or “form.” Note further the only thing
that could “move” a thing from potential to actual is a mover (impetus) outside
the moved thing.
There are several senses what a thing is said to 'be' Answers to the question “What is that?”
You might see me walking down the hall, point and ask “what
is it?” Were someone to respond, “That’s
a human being.” he or she would have answered correctly. But that would not be the ONLY correct answer
since that is not the only way I “be.”
One might also correctly respond, that’s an FIU professor, or, less
kindly, that an overweight middle-aged consumer.
You might see a certain red bird landing on a tree branch,
point and ask “What is it?” Were someone
to answer, “That’s a cardinal,” he or she would have answered correctly. But that would not be the ONLY correct answer
since that is not the only way the thing can be said to “be.” A person might truly reply, That’s red.” Now “redness’ DOES exists, to be sure, but
redness only exists as a property of things that can exist on their own, what
Aristotle termed “primary properties.”
Since “redness” cannot exist on its own Aristotle classified it as a secondary
substance. Aristotle would say that
“redness” is a secondary substance, while the cardinal is a primary
substance. Further, while being a
cardinal is essential to that primary substance’s nature, being red is
accidental. (Being human is essential to
my nature; being 185 pounds is accidental… let’s hope.)
So primary substances have formal causes (essences) which
determine why they are the way they are and why the develop/ move change as
they do (potential and actual properties).
Some of these properties are accidental and others are essential.
The primary sense
of "to be" is to be a substance.
e.g. To Be a human
The secondary sense
of “to be” to is be an instance of a quality or quantities.
e.g. To Be a Tall (secondary) human.
So note that I am essentially a human; I am only
accidentally a 185 pound philosophy professor.
I could lose weight (undergo an quantitative change) or get another job
(undergo a qualitative change) but I would still be a human. When I die, I undergo a substantial change. I am no longer a human; in fact “I” no longer
“am” at all. In my place in a new
substance: an human corpse.
Primary Substances can stand alone. (ontologically
independent e.g. The Cardinal).
Secondary substances cannot. (ontologically dependent e.g.
The Redness of the Cardinal)
A Primary Substance is a combination of Form and Matter.
Note: For Aristotle Form does not/ cannot exist apart from matter
(though separable in thought- we can imagine
Michelangelo’s "David" apart from the marble that actually
constitutes it- done instead in Cheese say).
Primary Substances are individually existing objects with
inherent essential natures.
Humans, Cardinals, Lumps of Gold
Secondary substances are those “objects” constituted by
particular individual primary substances.
Philosophy Teachers, Blonds, wedding rings.
A change of the Primary Substance is a Substantial Change.
It destroys the thing in question and replaces it with a new thing.
·
If I cut a Sphere in half, the sphere
no longer exists; instead two hemisphere exist.
·
If I separate water into oxygen and
hydrogen, water (along with its water nature/form) no longer exists. The new substances (oxygen and hydrogen) have
quite different potentialities and actualities (e.i. different nature/ form)
than does water.
·
Death is a substantial change; the
human is destroyed and the corpse come into existence.)
Human-made products cannot be considered to be true
substances because they do not have their
own immutable nature. They are not “natural kinds.”
Therefore they cannot be identified with an immutable nature. (Ex: table,
chair, or bed.)
Note: For Aristotle, a “Nature” is what a substance will do if
nothing stops it. (Think “Natural Tendency” or Activity)
In
order to know what apple trees are supposed
to do, (what the “apple tree things” are- apple tree nature- the apple tree
telos) one must engage in an empirical study of the species and see what they do do.
Through careful observation one will be able to distinguish the healthy,
thriving apple trees from the sick, diseased, withering apple trees. Studying the characteristic behavior of the
healthy ones will reveal the “nature” and thus the function of the
species. (Thus the normative force is
provided by health vs. disease: i.e. one ought to be healthy/ excellent, one
ought not be sick/ pathetic.)
Suppose
you, a native Floridian, move up to my hometown in Pennsylvania and you buy a
house, in part, because of the big apple tree in the front yard. However, in the middle of September, you
notice that all the leaves are turning funny colors and start falling off. “Oh no!” you think, “There’s something
terribly wrong with my apple tree.” You
call me up in a panic and tell me what’s going on. “Calm yourself.” I would reassure you. That how apple trees are supposed to
behave. It is natural for apple trees
to lose their leaves in the autumn.”
However, if all the leaves start turning funny colors and falling off
your tree in the middle of May, when then, yah, you got a problem.
Back to Medieval Science
The
medieval philosophers/scientists bought this worldview almost in its
entirety. Reality is a rationally
ordered stable phenomenon amenable to human investigation and understanding
through reason. (The Logos of reality is
accessible to the Logos of the human mind.)
The cosmos is an earth-centered orchestration animated and sustained by
a good and transcendent being. The
natural world is a world of purpose and meaning where all living reality is
tending towards it natural ends, including humans. Human happiness is to be
achieved by understanding our natural place in the world and realizing fully
our human nature. Having achieved our
end we attain our Summa Bonnum, eternal bliss.
I
want to point out, that all the above, they believed was demonstrable by
science/ philosophy and NOT merely matters of blind, unreasoned faith. Faith gave us the names of the players
(Yahweh, Jesus, Spiritus Sanctus, Something About Mary, etc.), but the outline came from observations and
theorizing over those observations.
And
then… (dun, dun, dun)
The Copernican Revolution/ Modern
Philosophy/ Modern Science
Astronomical
Dispute arose over time:
Geocentric
theory ‑ earth at center and everything revolves around
it (church supported this theory).
Heliocentric
theory ‑ sun at center (Copernicus’ theory)
Something
often overlooked is that the Ptolemaic/ Geocentric model did work pretty
well. It was crazy complicated, but it
“worked.” Initially Nicolaus Copernicus
(1473 – 1543) presented his heliocentric model, but using circular orbits
(Aristotle notion of perfect, celestial
motion), and that model worked LESS well than the geocentric model. Johannes Kepler (1571 – 1630), with great reluctance,
relinquished the idea that the celestial motions were prefect circles and suggested
elliptical orbits instead. This greatly improved
the heliocentric model’s predictive ability.
By the time Galileo weighed in on the matter, the two views were of near
equal explanatory/predictive power, but Heliocentric theory much more
elegant/simple.
Nevertheless,
the Geocentric theory had one thing still going for it: even on the
Heliocentric model, the moon orbits earth.
Now if even the Heliocentric theory has to admit that the moon does NOT
orbit the sun, then the moon stands as an anomaly.
Galileo
(1564 – 1642)
Galileo
is considered founder of Modern Physics- used the telescope to investigate
solar system. He was commissioned to
write an analysis comparing the 2 theories; but in the course of his
investigations he found that other planets had moons of their own. Therefore
there was nothing exceptional about the moon orbiting the Earth. In fact the new findings were more consistent
with Heliocentric theory.
This
was a HUGE revolution in science. Humans
have been wrong for thousands of year.
Plus. A lot of other long held beliefs were being over turned. (Objects of different weights fall at
different rates of speed.- Aristotle said so; everyone believed he was
right. Galileo proved it was always
wrong.)
Rene
Descartes (1596 – 1650) – 1st Modern Philosophy near contemporary of
Galileo
Descartes
was dealing with the new revolutions.
Hence his methodological doubt and rejection of belief based on
authority. While he is famous for his
“dualism” and theory of an immortal, immaterial soul, in all other matters he
advanced a mechanistic view of the universe.
He rejected any sort of animism.
Galileo too investigates matter and is among the first to discover that acceleration
is a mathematically expressible relation between velocity and distance. The scientists of the 16th century
and those following Descartes, built up a mechanical world picture discarding
the multiple “causes” of the Aristotelian worldview/ science. They restricted the “causes” they used to
theorize about the world to materials forces on material objects.
Elsewhere
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and other criticize of central tenants of the
Aristotelian world view: Whether the
world truly breaks itself up into knowable “natural kinds[3]” or whether we merely create this classes by labeling. (And note, if there are no natural kinds,
there can be no natural final causes.)
The old ideas needed to be abandoned for the new mechanistic science to flourish.
Francis
Bacon
there is yet a much more important and profound kind of
fallacies in the mind of man, which I find not observed or enquired at all, and
think good to place here, as that which of all others appertaineth most to
rectify judgment: the force whereof is such, as it doth not dazzle or snare the
understanding in some particulars, but doth more generally and inwardly infect
and corrupt the state thereof. For the mind of man is far from the nature of a
clear and equal glass, wherein the beams of things should reflect according to
their true incidence, nay, it is rather like an enchanted glass, full of
superstition and imposture, if it be not delivered and reduced. For this
purpose, let us consider the false appearances that are imposed upon us by the
general nature of the mind …. (The Advancement of Learning Bacon III [1887],
394–5)
Bacon
emphasized the practical benefit to be derived from science and scientific
investigation. In a way, he prefigures
American Pragmatism which sees the goal on inquiry as not to secure object
truth, but rather to secure useful theories.
Bacon called for a "spring of a progeny of inventions, which shall
overcome, to some extent, and subdue our needs and miseries." Scientific work should aim at alleviating
human misery, and inventing useful things.
This changed the course of science in history, from inquiry and contemplation
aimed as knowing the true nature of things (as it was conceived in ancient and
medieval times) to a practical, inventive enterprise aimed at the practical
manipulation of experiences.
This Ushers in “The Enlightenment”
You
may already know that during the Enlightenment, there was unprecedented
confidence in the ability of Reason, once it has been freed from all
“irrational impediments” to solve any problem.
If only we could be “rational” and conquer our fears, our prejudices,
our unreasoned emotional attachments to doctrines, our superstitions etc. there
would be no problem we could not overcome.
There must be an rational explanation for whatever happens, and the wise
“man of science” is committed to finding that explanation and using this
knowledge to improve the human condition.
During this period, it was believed that what had impeded the progress
of science and knowledge for the previous 1000 years or so was the lack of
reason, or at least a sufficiently strong commitment to reason. It was suggested that we had been too given
to superstition, knowledge as received doctrine and blind faith.
For
instance, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) had claimed that objects of differing weights
fall at different rates of speed. And
this was taught thereafter for nearly two thousand years. Do objects of differing weights fall at
different rates of speed? No. Objects fall at the same rate of speed (when
you account for wind resistance), but no one bothered to question that for
nearly 2000 years! Galileo
(1564-1642 CE) did. Legend has it that he dropped lead balls of
different weights off the Leaning Tower of Pisa and discover the rate of
free-fall is independent of weight. The
point is that the progress of knowledge had been impeded by unquestioned
acceptance of Aristotle's (et alia) authority.
When we adopted this skeptical and critical mindset, we began to make
comparatively swift progress where previously there was only stagnation.
Some
of the important figures from the Enlightenment were champions of this new
mechanistic science (or matter and motion) and vocal critics of religion. This was the theme of the French materialist
philosopher Baron d'Holbach (1723 – 1789) 1761 work Christianisme dévoilé ("Christianity Unveiled") in which
he argued that Christianity and religion in general was an impediment to the
advancement of humanity. Enlightenment
required jettisoning blind, irrational faith, it would seem. There is something ironic and perhaps unfair
however, of characterizing classical theism as sustained only by blind
faith. It was eminently rational on the
older scientific and metaphysical picture of the universe. Only when one abandoned the scholastic model
in favor of the mechanistic one, is theism challenged.
Legacy of Modern
Science:
Lots
of stuff.
The
Domain of Science (knowledge?)
“If a sentence is unverifiable, even in
principle than it is meaningless.”
Back to Philosophy:
The Subject Matter of Philosophy
What
about questions that science cannot answer?
Are they simply foolish meaningless questions? Are they outside to domain of knowledge? What then of ethics? What of God?
What of beauty and art? What of
meaning, purpose, significance? The soul?
I maintain that the domain of
Philosophy is characterizes by non-empirical questions that are nevertheless
meaningful and important and can admit of better or worse (more or less reasonable)
answers.
Two Branches of Philosophy
Metaphysics: that branch of philosophy which seeks to answer questions about the
types and structure of existence.
Metaphysics talks about
existence and reality in the broadest terms.
Examples of metaphysical
questions:
These questions are
philosophical questions because answers cannot be secured (merely) through
observation.
Example of Metaphysical
Theory:
Physicalism: the view that the only things which exist are material objects and
material forces.
While this might look
unproblematic at first, it is not that simple a story to make out. Consider:
Note: This Physicalism is not itself a scientific
theory. One cannot prove by empirical
means that “immaterial objects” do not exist.
After all, what can a (modern) scientist do qua science, except
look?. But the fact that we do not see
non-physical objects (or hear them, or taste them, etc.) is not itself
sufficient reason to think they don’t exist because we wouldn’t see them even
if they did exist. They are not
empirical items. Therefore, any reasons
one might offer for adopting or rejecting this metaphysical view would be
philosophical reasons.
Epistemology: branch of philosophy that seeks to answer questions about the nature
of knowledge, truth and justification.
Example of epistemological
questions:
Note: The above are not themselves scientific questions.
Could we use science (run an experiment, make an observation or take a poll,
etc.) to prove it true? No. Science assumes that observation and experiments
are good ways of coming to know reality, therefore, there is a circularity
problem because science must use an experiment to prove the value of
experiments. (One is beginning by assuming what one is trying to “prove.”) This
is like writing one’s own “letter of recommendation” and assuring the
prospective employer that she can believe every word of it because you are honest
(as you say in your letter).
Must have a philosophical
discussion to assess the best way of coming to know reality.
Example of Epistemological Theory: (perhaps)
1.
Science provides us with (the most) useful
theories.
2.
Useful theories are true theories.
Therefore:
3.
Science provides us with true theories.
This is a Philosophical Theory known as Pragmatism
(–well.. sort of. This is a very watered
down version). It is NOT a scientific
theory, but rather an epistemological one.
Further, some might question premise 2.
There seems nothing contradictory about a useful, false theory.
Final Note:
Disunity of Science:
There
are those who seeks a unity within science, that is, that the information,
knowledge and theories of one branch of the natural sciences can be translated
into or otherwise accounted for in the language and theories of a more
fundamental branch. For instance, we
might achieve a kind of unity between chemistry and physics is chemical talk
could be reduced to physics talk. But
there seems a problem with biology.
Biology contains teleological talk, perhaps vestigial. For instance, it seems an important
biological fact that the purpose of the heart is to circulate blood, a fact we
were ignorant of for the better part of human history and one we are better off
knowing. But neither chemistry nor physics contain any
teleological notions. If biology is
fundamentally teleological, then no complete reduction is possible without the
loss of knowledge.
Some
have argues that biology is NOT fundamentally teleological, but rather
evolution theory can help is translate talk of purpose and function into purely
mechanistic talk that can be accommodated by the other two physical sciences.
[1] For these sorts of
reasons, the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides (early 5th century BCE)argued
that change was in fact, impossible.
Parmenides of Elea
[2] Logos is the Greek word for “Word, Law, Principle, or Meaning.” These Greeks were seeking to understand the universe, confident that is obeyed a rational order or law. Philosophy and science then are means to discover this rational structure through dialectical reasoning and argument. I am contrasting attempts to understand the world through imaginative narratives and irrational magic (mythos) with attempts to understand the world through rational investigation and testable hypotheses (Logos).
[3] Some championed the ideas of William of Ockham (1288 – c. 1348) that we create classes of things by sorting them in certain standard ways. But that the world is devoid of “natural kinds” essences or “natures.”