Who Invented Science? Driving the Infidels From the Temple of Science.

[mark kennedy]

`Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest,' (Albert Einstein)

During these debates it has become increasingly obvious that far too much is assumed about 'evolution' and 'science', specifically what those terms really mean. Francis Bacon developed the inductive approach to science as a systematic philosophy. Discrepancies in our perception of the world of sense have to be addressed using inductive reasoning. He believed that “Our only remaining hope and salvation is to begin the whole labor of the mind again; not leaving it to itself, but directing it perpetually from the very first, and attaining our end as it were by mechanical aid. (Francis Bacon,1620). Science is about understanding controlling the natural world. People are grossly ignorant about what science really is. If it can't be confirmed or denied by an experiment people think that means its not true.

Bacon developed this inductive approach to the philosophy of natural science but it was Newton who actually established it. He did a lot of experiments with prisms. He wanted to prove that light was actually made up of seven colors. at that time it was believed that the colors from a prism were from the prism. Newton proved that anyone who did this experiment exactly like he did would get the exact same result and natural science was born. If thousands of years from now if natural science has a Genesis account of its creation, Newton would be the first Adam.

“If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory.” (White, the Last Sorcerer)​

What you might find is that a definition of science is in order, it might interest you to know that science literally means 'to know'. The Scriptures are clear, for instance, that we 'know' certain things about God's divine attributes and eternal nature so that we are without excuse (see Romans 1:18-21). So how do we 'know' that God acted in time and space or that God even exists? Immanuel Kant in his ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ says that knowledge comes to us through experience but that experience alone is not enough, “General truths…must be independent of experience, -clear and certain by themselves.” Here he is telling us that the main problem of metaphysics is parody. For reason to transcend the particulars there is a need for singularity. Socrates in his discussion with Meno deals with this, “Meno; I should answer that bees do not differ from one another as bees. Socrates; and if I went on to say Meno; tell me what is the quality in which they do not differ but are alike.” (Titus, Discussions in Philosophy). This is a search for the transcendent principle of commonality. The substantive element in reality. This singularity is what Kant called apriori; a thing in and of itself, apprehended by us as an idea. Examples he gave were God, freedom and immortality. How are the sciences the same, rather then different? Think about this one because experimentation is a wrong answer.

Natural science before the 1600s was the same as theology, they saw no differences in the two forms of knowledge. When Galileo made discoveries using his telescope the Catholic church said that it couldn't possibly be true because it contradicted Scripture. He said that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, it doesn't tell you how the heavens work. The Catholic church did not accept Galileo's work until about 10 years ago. You have to admit, there is a profound difference of opinion here.

People began to think that science and religion should be keep separated as independent disciplines. The idea of separation of church and state is more or less the same idea. Now lets just assume for a minute that the reasoning on both sides of the debate is flawless, even though one of them is wrong. What is the difference that makes them diametrically opposed to one another?

Aristotle did not like experimentation and the ancient Greeks were not really interested in controlling nature. Aristotle's science could be just as readily used as a basis for theology and was by the Catholic church. In Aristotle’s logic our thinking must be theoretical as well as practical in order to ‘know’ anything with certainty. R.W Ross describes this parody and progression “From what sort of proposition he should demand proof (singular) and what sort of proofs should be demanded” (plural).

So what do you think? Who actually invented science? While you are considering your answer, consider this discussion of science from a man who is considered one of the most important scientists of the 20th century:

In the temple of science are many mansions -- and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them there.

Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, it would be noticeably emptier but there would still be some men of both present and past times left inside -- . If the types we have just expelled were the only types there were, the temple would never have existed any more than one can have a wood consisting of nothing but creepers -- those who have found favor with the angel -- are somewhat odd, uncommunicative, solitary fellows, really less like each other than the hosts of the rejected.

What has brought them to the temple -- no single answer will cover -- escape from everyday life, with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from his noisy cramped surroundings into the silence of the high mountains where the eye ranges freely through the still pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity...

...Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it -- .He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience -- .The supreme task -- is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them -- .​

The passage is from a 1918 speech by a young German scientist named Albert Einstein.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calypsis4]

Thanks, Mark. That was good.

Best wishes to you.

 

[shernren]

Francis Bacon developed the inductive approach to science as a systematic philosophy. ... Newton proved that anyone who did this experiment exactly like he did would get the exact same result and natural science was born.

Wow, mark, you speak as if Hume had never existed.

Go back to your (pseudo-)genetics; you are no less in error there, but at least we can actually figure out what you're trying to say.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Modern science is distilled from many different ideas and people. I don't think it really matters who "invented" science.

 

[Mallon]

Modern science is distilled from many different ideas and people. I don't think it really matters who "invented" science.

Ditto. No single person or entity "invented" science. It has come into its own over the years; people have thrown away what doesn't work and have kept what works. Invoking magic doesn't help us to explain anything; hypothesis-testing does. I suppose we could go back to invoking magic to explain our observations (e.g., resurrect Galileo's explanation that God miraculously holds on the planets in orbit, not gravitational forces), but what would that accomplish?

I'm curious to know more about what the title of this thread means, though.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well that title of the thread was just meant to be thought provoking. I read about about the life and work of Newton and that little excerpt about his series of experiments on the properties of light stuck with me. I have also loved that quote from Einstein, not because it's particularly insightful but because it has a rather poetic style

At any rate, my interest in in reviewing what I have accumulated over the years. One of the most important things I'm looking at is the history and philosophy of science. Here is the kind of thing I had in mind when I started the thread:

This is what Newton believed was how science works:

Newton effectively offers a methodology for handling unknown phenomena in nature and reaching towards explanations for them. The four Rules of the 1726 edition run as follows (omitting some explanatory comments that follow each):

• Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
• Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
• Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
• Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. (Wikipedia Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy)

Just interested in your thoughts on the philosophy of science. Not really looking for a debate on the subject at this time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

BTW- What do you guys think of my picture? It's something I worked on for a banner at the top of a website I am thinking about creating over the holidays.

 

[Mallon]

I don't disagree with Newton's rules, as you've posted them. They seem to just be restating Occam's Razor, which is fairly well-established in science.

You banner is neat, though a bit difficult to make out in detail.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't disagree with Newton's rules, as you've posted them. They seem to just be restating Occam's Razor, which is fairly well-established in science.

You banner is neat, though a bit difficult to make out in detail.

Newton was focused on establishing cause and effect relationships as I understand his rules. It's very different from the Meditations of Descartes' philosophical writings. 'Cogito ergo sum' seems a bit awkward but it's interesting that he uses a word that translates 'sum' in the Latin. Perhaps not what he was thinking but it sounds like I can know if I can do the math or the 'sum' of 2 plus 2 is 4 I can 'know' it with certainty.

At any rate, glad you liked the picture. The idea was that the series of experiments involving the physical elements of light was part of a paradigm shift in the philosophy of science. When Newton was challenged by his contemporaries using deductive principles Newton simply responded if you want to refute what I'm saying you are going to have to demonstrate it. This is the first time that I know of that inductive scientific methods were successfully defended as the core of scientific evidence.

That's the idea at any rate, thanks for your contribution to the thread.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Francis Bacon developed the inductive approach to science as a systematic philosophy. Discrepancies in our perception of the world of sense have to be addressed using inductive reasoning.

The supreme task -- is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them -- .​

The passage is from a 1918 speech by a young German scientist named Albert Einstein.

I found it interesting that your essay began with Bacon's focus on induction and ended with the sentence above from Einstein on the importance of deduction.

To me, that sums up the scientific approach. Start with nature; use induction to focus on some regularity which may indicate a lawful process; hypothesize what the process is; use deduction to figure out the consequences of the hypothesis; return to nature to see if the theoretical deductions are born out by observation. It is the anchoring of this thought process in nature first and last that keeps deduction from flying off in all directions.

Newton was focused on establishing cause and effect relationships as I understand his rules. It's very different from the Meditations of Descartes' philosophical writings. 'Cogito ergo sum' seems a bit awkward but it's interesting that he uses a word that translates 'sum' in the Latin. Perhaps not what he was thinking but it sounds like I can know if I can do the math or the 'sum' of 2 plus 2 is 4 I can 'know' it with certainty.

'sum' is just Latin for "I am".

cogito = I think
ergo = therefore
sum = I am


But Descartes was a mathematician and he agreed that one of the things we can know with certainty are the truths of mathematics.

 

[jacks]

"...But Descartes was a mathematician and he agreed that one of the things we can know with certainty are the truths of mathematics."

Interesting, wasn't he also the one who talked about axioms. (Defined: Propositions assumed to be true without proof in order to study their applied consequences.) So even the truths of mathematics are based on assumptions that can't be proved.

 

[Assyrian]

Newton was focused on establishing cause and effect relationships as I understand his rules. It's very different from the Meditations of Descartes' philosophical writings. 'Cogito ergo sum' seems a bit awkward but it's interesting that he uses a word that translates 'sum' in the Latin. Perhaps not what he was thinking but it sounds like I can know if I can do the math or the 'sum' of 2 plus 2 is 4 I can 'know' it with certainty.

'sum' is just Latin for "I am".

cogito = I think
ergo = therefore
sum = I am

But Descartes was a mathematician and he agreed that one of the things we can know with certainty are the truths of mathematics.

Descarte was also French, I don't think he intended a 2/3 Latin, 1/3 English meaning for the phrase.

 

[gluadys]

"...But Descartes was a mathematician and he agreed that one of the things we can know with certainty are the truths of mathematics."

Interesting, wasn't he also the one who talked about axioms. (Defined: Propositions assumed to be true without proof in order to study their applied consequences.) So even the truths of mathematics are based on assumptions that can't be proved.

Mathematical truths are generalities. Descartes' point was this. If you define a triangle as Euclid did, then with a bit of logic you can show that its internal angles must add up to two right angles. Once you understand the case it is clear as day that this consequence is necessary and no triangle can exist for which this is not so. (He was not familiar with modern mathematical models of non-Euclidean geometry.)

However, even if all triangles in Euclidean geometry must show this relationship, it does not follow that you will actually find such a thing in reality. It is a mental construct, an idea, and that does not confer physical existence. It only tells you what is true of a physically existing triangle if one exists.

This is where mathematics differs from science. Science, like math, may start with some axioms, but it also has to find evidence that they have physical existence and that the physical existence corroborates whatever axioms one started out with.

 

[mark kennedy]

I found it interesting that your essay began with Bacon's focus on induction and ended with the sentence above from Einstein on the importance of deduction.

You caught that, I was hoping someone would. That's one of the things that really stands out in my mind, the inductive approach is very good at accumulating facts but the general principles are so very hard to establish. Einstein also spoke of intuition and sympathy leading up to the heart of the emphasis, I found that quite unconventional. Einstein was still working on a unified theory of physics on his death bed and to this day String Theory represents an effort along those lines. Perhaps metaphysics is too much to ask of scientists, no matter how close they think they are universal truths are always just beyond their grasp.

To me, that sums up the scientific approach. Start with nature; use induction to focus on some regularity which may indicate a lawful process; hypothesize what the process is; use deduction to figure out the consequences of the hypothesis; return to nature to see if the theoretical deductions are born out by observation. It is the anchoring of this thought process in nature first and last that keeps deduction from flying off in all directions.

That's why I like Newton's experimentum crucis, after proving the crucial hypothesis his theory of light becomes a valid theory. His critics tried to refute his finding using the deductive reasoning, not unlike Aristotle's syllogisms. When Newton complains that his experiments cannot be disproven in this way, and then defends his position effectively, modern science as we know it, has finally taken hold. As strange as it may seem, induction/intuition was a keystone of scientific knowledge for Aristotle as well:

If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge." (Posterior Analytics, Aristotle)​

The way you understand the primary premises is induction according to Aristotle. One of the differences between Newton and his contemporaries (and Aristotle for that matter) was that Newton saw no way of coming up with a metaphysical 'theory of everything'.

"To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, and leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things (Statement from unpublished notes for the Preface to Opticks, 1704)​

This statement, while a little obscure, sounds a lot like his fourth rule for the philosophy of science.

'sum' is just Latin for "I am".

cogito = I think
ergo = therefore
sum = I am


But Descartes was a mathematician and he agreed that one of the things we can know with certainty are the truths of mathematics.

I never meant to say that Descartes was pushing math as the premise for actually understanding reality. There is just something about how it is translated into Latin that seems to suggest that to me. Math is a mental tool, arguably, the most deductive of the sciences. It just seems to me that Descartes has to mean something more then 'my basis for reality is the fact that I think'.

Cognito = cognition so, the 'sum' of 2+2-=4. I don't know exactly what he was getting at and probably something far different from what I'm getting out of it but...well... I know because I measured it and it adds up.

Just a thought, nothing more.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I never meant to say that Descartes was pushing math as the premise for actually understanding reality. There is just something about how it is translated into Latin that seems to suggest that to me. Math is a mental tool, arguably, the most deductive of the sciences. It just seems to me that Descartes has to mean something more then 'my basis for reality is the fact that I think'.

Not really. If you haven't read him for yourself, here is a link to the essays where he explains it. They are not long or difficult to read.

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/descmed.pdf

Oh, and I am pretty sure you mean translated from Latin.

 

[shernren]

The Cliff's Notes summary on cogito ergo sum:

Descartes was wondering what he could really know. He saw (centuries before the Matrix!) that even his sensory perceptions might be deceptive, as occurs with optical illusions and hallucinations, and he imagined what would happen if, as a philosophical thought experiment, a demon was feeding his brain with a completely illusory ensemble of perceptions that made him think he was an autonomous human being in a real world when in reality he might be a brain in a vat.

But - aha! - he could know for sure, as soon as he thought the thought, that he was thinking. That propelled him to set out his famous phrase cogito ergo sum: you may lie to me about anything else in the universe, or even implant thoughts directly into my brain (or whatever it is that is being used to simulate me thinking) but you cannot deny the fact that there exists a thinker for you to manipulate, and that thinker is me, and hence I as a thinker have a non-negotiable existence.

*is lurking in this thread, waiting to pounce*

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

Modern science is distilled from many different ideas and people. I don't think it really matters who "invented" science.

Arab fundamentalist Muslims invented science. The spiritual forebears of the 9/11 hijackers.