Sciences and Philosophy Professor Camp

SCIENCE DOESNT JUST DEVELOP BY ITSELF. THERE IS A MOTIVATION BEHIND IT. ATTEMPT
OF SCIENCE TO DOMINATE PHILOSOPHY. TRYING TO SUPPLANT METAPHYSICS WITH
MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY WHICH CANNOT EXPLAIN THE CAUSE OF THE ACT OF BEING:
GOD. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS JUST ONE TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SHOULD BE
COHERENT WITH AND IN A HARMONIOUS HIERARCHICAL ORDERING WITH PHILOSOPHY.

4 periods: Pre-Scientific (myth, pre-Socratic, searching for arche). Rational and natural
vision (Greek Philosopher, emphasis on formal and final cause). Mechanical/Scientific
Vision (Modern science, Galileo, 20th Century severe criticism of induction). Return to a
more integrated vision (value and limit of science). Christian vision: Divine Wisdom in
creation, things are ordered. Reality can measure our mind because IT has been measured
by the Divine Intellect. St Aquinas: Truth is in the mind as conforming to the thing
understood.

ARISTOTLE: No distinction between Philosophy of Nature and Empirical Sciences: All truth
hierarchically ordered (empirical scientific work ordered to philosophy). Science is certain
knowledge through causes. Reality measures the human intellect. 1st degree of
abstraction, unification of form and common matter, looking at flesh and bones (but not
these specific flesh and bones). Man seeks to know. Aristotle looked at nature and
hypothesised about why nature works the way it does. Looked at the authorities, observed,
stated facts, SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. Even when wrong e.g. Natural Place,
Violent/Natural Motion, Eternal World, 4 Element was using good methodology with data
available at the time, asking questions and looking at causes and principals e.g. intrinsic
principals of motion and rest, first to talk about laws of motion e.g. in projectiles. Studied
many topics in their most general aspect to lead to higher questions. Particular truths
ordered to universal truths. Substantial Form as principle of life. Grant: re-discovery of
Aristotle = one of main reasons for subsequent scientific revolution. The Universal
Philosopher. Used INDUCTION: You dont have to see every invertebrate to form idea of
what invertebrate is: grasp the essence: quia demonstration: not yet the highest form of
truth but still useful, moves toward fullest truth.

Aristotelian Logic: Demonstrative, gives certitude, Per se knowledge (in itself; intrinsically,
as opposed to per accidence knowledge e.g. all vines produce grapes = per se, universal to
its proper cause. All vines have broad leaves = per accidence, that does not specify vines).
For Aristotle there are strict conditions under which we can generate strict/perfect scientific
Propter Quid knowledge (gives the reason why): Necessary, Per se, Universal. Other types
of knowledge, like simply observing cause and effect dont tell us reasons why, remain at
level of sense knowledge. Interested in turning Quia demonstrations (because, wherefore)
to Propter Quid knowledge.

Loss of Aristotles Work: After this very little development in natural sciences, loss of
interest (some mechanical progress). A turning to Platos world of ideas (where nature
doesnt provide certainty, the one, transcendental, emanation and return to the one,
imperfection). After Aristotle: Alexandrian Period (300-200BC, great developments in
Maths, Geometry, Archimedes mechanics, Ptelomy adding more spheres to cosmological
systems but nothing in natural science, biology). Then Hellenistic Culture adopted by
Romans (until decadent fall in 4thC AD). Philosophy no longer about wisdom for its own sake
but about living well (sense level, avoiding pain, pre-Socratic ideas, Epicurus: man consists
Sciences and Philosophy Professor Camp

of atoms, loss of idea of pre-eminence of rationality over senses and passions). Roman
Period: Plotinus, strong Neo-Platonism, very different from the un-moved mover moving all
things who has no potency but is pure act. In Neo-Platonism created reality is ultimately
inconsequential (so no point studying physics and biology), all is just emanation and return
to the one. In Christianity God creates freely, is primary cause and man as secondary cause.

Muslims translated Aristotle from Greek to Arabic to Latin. Greater progress of science on
Arabic world until it abruptly stopped. Science was ordered to religion and majority viewed
philosophy as dangerous: had big problem with idea of secondary causality: un-Islamic.

Rediscovery of Aristotles work, pre-conditions for Scientific Revolution: Huge INFLUX of

TRUTH, REJUVENATION of University curriculum, REVOLUTIONARY when Aristotles work
rediscovered. Unlike Islamic world there prevailed autonomy of reason. Universities very
important (derived from monasteries). Neo-Platonism had been quite prominent so easy to
work with this other pagan philosophy. Discovery of Aristoteles Physics and scientific
terminology = HUGE (questions, hypothesis). Optics also advanced. Focus on qualities in
Scholastic system, what type of body will we have in heaven? Challenge to Aristotle when
Galileo developed the telescope and superseded his cosmological system and idea of
natural place: led to dismissal of Aristotle from some educational models.

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION: 16th Century From a hylomorphic view (matter linked to first
cause) to a mechanistic one (watchmaker). Mainly in protestant countries. Rise of
humanism. Throwing out of the authorities (e.g. in Florence). COPERNICUS AND GALILEO:
QUANTITATIVE APPROACH, laws of nature which are understandable by human reason,
moving away from talking of perfection towards mere measurement (especially Galileo).
Kepler: Challenged natural place theory, looking for maths to give a degree of perfection in
universe. Neo-Platonist along with Copernicus. Mathematical laws, quantities,
measurement. Copernicus: Earth not the centre of the universe! HELIOCENTRIC. Universe
much larger than first thought. During Reformation and Copernicus not antagonistic in
stating his new ideas.

GALILEO: Polemical, provocative, 1609 invented rudimentary telescope (saw craters on

moon for example), huge advantage over other scientists. Threw caution to the wind (said
he could interpret scripture better than St Augustine!), antagonistic, St Robert Bellarmine
asked for proof, couldnt prove it yet, asserting without proof. Contribution: The father of
the experimental method (following Archimedes). Projectiles, forces. Science is
measurement. Testing (repeat conditions, many times). Quantitative approach totally takes
over. Mechanics, testing, efficient causality, acceleration, MATHS.

DESCARTES (1596-1650) FATHER OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY: Radical, violent re-construction

of human knowledge to give perfect knowledge of EVERYTHING. DEDUCTIVE, logic,
hypothesis. Wanted to show Galileo correct in pursuit of this mathematical approach. One
mathematical, clear, precise, approach for studying all of nature, unity of knowledge,
reducing all to shallow measurement and rejecting all the previous slow growth of known
to unknown, starting from mere intuitions (which he claimed were inherent), says qualities
are just in the mind: so a dualistic approach which prevails today where Substantial Form
thrown out. RULE OF EVIDENCE: we dont need senses or imagination, inherent intuition.
ANALYSIS: everything broken up into parts. SYNTHESIS: put back together REVISION:
make sure nothing left out. Complete analysis. Infatuated with Galileo and Geometry,
Sciences and Philosophy Professor Camp

wanted certainty in everything (Aristotle said some knowledge does give us propter quid
certainty, but not most). Wanted to START with certainty (not hypothesis, but facts, after
reformation loss of final authority). An extreme response to the re-emergent scepticism.
Said we can be deceived by senses but have innate ideas around quantity, only these
cannot deceive. Bypassing of the senses to try to grasp perfect certainty/avoid imprecision
of the senses. So obsessed that he wiped away that which we cannot know absolutely and
easily. even if we think god is an evil genius we can overcome this doubt because doubt
shows that we are thinking and if we are thinking we are thinking with certitude, which
overcomes doubt. Big problems: You cant quantify transcendentalism: truth, beauty, love,
compassion, suffering etc. For Descartes everything was just extended reality that didnt
have a soul (e.g. rabbits) because of importance of innate ideas of the mind. ONLY
MATHEMATICAL PROPTER QUID SELF EVIDENT NON DEPENDANT CONCEPTS EXIST.
Eradication of true hierarchy of universe in search for certainty, you can doubt everything
other than knowing that you are thinking.

BACON: Ideological radical, importance of method, empirical data, unlike Aristotle not
bothered about universal certitude by process of abstraction, idols of the tribe MUST be
rejected (rational or handed on views), we must PURIFY our minds, KNOWLEDGE is
POWER (not about wisdom, understanding), utilitarianism, collecting data by observation,
slowly draw conclusions but avoid comprehensive systems (rejection of Aristotles ordering
of parts to a whole), put nature on the rack and force her to provide her secrets),
DOMINATION.

NEWTON: Master Watchmaker: Invented calculus (non-static development of algebraic

method that meant points on a curve etc. could be worked out, to explain motion). Very
powerful tool for measuring change. Mathematical description of change in time. NEWTONS
LAWS: Influenced by Descartes (knowledge as certitude, universal), UNIVERSAL LAWS OF
NATURE (even though Copernicus a 100 years prior most people still studying Aristotelian
physics). Systematic quantification of matter, mechanistic and deterministic, applied to a
vast array of observable phenomenon. We construct science, maths tells us the qualities of
particles, natural effects assigned to natural causes, again a use of instruments (like
calculus) that are an extension/construction of the power of the mind, but does this give
true knowledge of nature? Are universal laws on nature creatively projected by the mind?
Stripping away of substance (what something is in itself, doesnt explain form). Newtons
laws are descriptive but not a full observation of reality. ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS (e.g. on
light/prisms) IN PURSUIT OF TRUE CAUSES, UNIVERSAL TRUE KNOWLEDGE.

LOCKE: Inspired by Newton. Sense perception, said it was through primary qualities of
mass/measurement that we know. Bypasses abstraction altogether. WE CANNOT HAVE
REAL CERTITUDE we can be certain enough of what our experiences tell us about reality.

BERKLEY: in response to where he perceived Newtonian Mechanism would lead people

(atheistic materialism) claimed that matter is a metaphysical principle. Irish Church Bishop.

HUME: Explicitly sceptical empiricist. Newtonian but with a rejection of universal/certain

knowledge. Impressions on the mind from senses. Reduces causality to mere customs,
doesnt think laws of nature are contingent and necessary, even said we cannot suppose
future events will happen. Odd. Stops us from grasping formal cause because this is grasped
Sciences and Philosophy Professor Camp

by universal abstracted knowledge of the mind. His impressions from the senses just stop
there, applying Newtonian mechanics to how the mind works!

KANT: AFFIRMATION OF CERTITUDE in opposition to Hume. Physicist obsessed with

certitude of Newtonian physics, loved Geometry like Descartes (so wanted to start with the
rules and DEDUCE everything). A PRIORI judgements based on reason alone independent of
sensory experience. Viewed A POSTERIORI judgements (grounded on experience) as limited
and uncertain. Loves SYNTHETIC A PRIORI judgements (where predicate is not a necessary
part of subject and are independent of experience) because these provide NEW,
NECESSARY, TRUE INFORMATION, CERTITUDE. So, he thought he had overcome Humes
scepticism. KEY CONCEPT: He said SPACE AND TIME are infused, intrinsic to us, we just
know them, so we have certitude of knowledge because of the appearance of things, but
we cannot have true certitude of the reality of things. The mind has mere scientific
certitude of measurement, how they can act on each other (said true S.F. reality was not for
science to look at). DEMONSTRATION AND RECONSTRUCTION of reality, mind projecting,
so reducing everything to CATEGORIES OF JUDGEMENT, not truly what things are like
Aristotle shows us. For Aristotle accidents manifest substance, for Kant the mind simply
synthesises sensory inputs according to the rules of the faculty. Complete separation of
scientific knowledge and metaphysics (unlike Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas: sense
knowledge allows us to abstract knowledge). Mechanistic view again. Cannot know
substance. Inherently deterministic system, desire to base things on supposed pure reason
(French and American Revolutions). But what is the object of scientific theory? To know
truly? Aristotle: inductive approach, knowing the properties of a thing so we can know
something of its substance, leading to propter quid knowledge (reason why).

MODERN approaches: often about PROBABILITY (and randomness i.e. Darwin). Use of
theory: useful, does not have to rest on complete certitude, can provide working models
(sometimes later shown to be flawed), gradual accumulation of knowledge over time, can
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. Induction and good use of hypotheses (Alexander Fleming and
discovery of Penicillin by induction, Harry Brearley Stainless Steel 1913).

COMTE: POSITIVISM Science as simply a convention (not about studying reality). Just a
series of rules one can develop over time. So science is CONTINGENT! A particular
conception of knowledge. Discovering necessary relation between facts/things, not ordered
to higher end (Ernst Mach 1834-1916 spoke of instrumental and economic value of science).

BERTRAND RUSSELL: LOGICAL POSITIVISM: DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE AT ITS EXTREME Logic key
to reality, reality reduced to symbolic language of propositions and facts. Dismisses
metaphysics as poetry. All we are left with is what we can predicate of a subject all
bachelors are unmarried men. NOT INTERESTED ON WHAT SCIENCE CAN DISCOVER BUT
ON MAKING IT CONFORM TO THE LAWS IT HAS IMPOSED. Circle of Vienna (1922). An
empiricism coming from Hume with language of Wittgenstein who said philosophical
problems are language deficiencies. Failed to provide realistic picture of reality. Otte
Neurrath: Scientific truth is an internal logical property of theories as systems of
propositions about the world (Platonic). Kantian imposition of forced rules imposed.

KARL POPPER (1902-1994): THE DISTINGUISHING MARK OF SCIENCE IS TO FALSIFY, NOT

CONFIRM, HYPOTHESIS. Not about what we can discover, but about looking for
anomaly/falsification, this is progress e.g. proving there is not a triple helix. Observation is
Sciences and Philosophy Professor Camp

cheap, doesnt prove anything, all white swans until the black is found. BROUGHT
CERTAINTY INTO DOUBT BY SAYING DISCOVERY IS ABOUT FALSIFYING VERY
INFLUENTIAL. A scientific theory can never be fully proven. We can conditionally confirm
a theory until it is falsified. Totally against induction (which he saw behind the odd ideas of
Marx and Adler).

THOMAS KUHN: PARADIGMS GOVERN NORMAL SCIENCE. RELATIVISM, attack on

objectivity of science, damages language because talking of true in this paradigm, true
for me/for this research group, there is no such thing as truth, truth changes like remakes
of films, science as social construct, SCIENCE WARS. Paradigms generate a consensus on
how scientific research should be done (identifies puzzles, governs expectations, evaluates
solutions, assures scientists of direction). CRISES! Anomaly reflects on the scientists skills
rather than the problem itself. Repeated anomaly creates a consensus failure, paradigm
loses its grip on scientific community = crises of confidence. CRITIQUE: Simplistic, science is
more nuanced, sensationalises moments of crises, OVERLY DOGMATIC, doesnt allow
different paradigms to be compared, cant talk about truth across or looking at past
paradigms, NO ROOM FOR NECESSARY TRUTHS ONLY THOSE HERE AND NOW UNDER
THESE CONDITIONS. REAL SCIENCE INVESTIGATES ACTUAL TRUTH AND BREAKS THROUGH
PARADIGMS. Sensationalises moments of crises. Can only talk about truth in the sense of
the present paradigm. Paradigm shift like a major conversion experience. PARADIGMS
INCOMMENSURABLE WITH EACH OTHER.

IMRE LAKATOS: RESEARCH TEAMS, no higher scientific standard than the assent of the
scientific community. Elements of Kuhn and Popper. HARD CORE OF PRINCIPALS (like
Kuhns normal science e.g. laws of motion) and a PROTECTIVE BELT (to protect the core
from contamination, can be adjusted), says a research programme can only be developed
over time, looking back, not concerned with certitude. TRIES TO CONJECTURE A SELF
GOVERNING METHOD, RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE.

PAUL FEYERABEND: AGAINST METHOD (1975) ANYTHING GOES, Marxist, anarchical,

anything goes, ALL SETTING OF METHOD IMPEDES SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. Admired Galileo
for going against the flow, sees scientific community as threat to democracy, obstacles must
be overcome, rules broken.

HOW SCIENCE ACTUALLY WORKS NOW: Observing reality to know with sufficient certainty.
Hypothetical deductive methods i.e. to get to double helix conclusion, particle accelerators,
not absolute certitude but certain probability. Use of ideal models: That are developed
over time, such as atomic structure models. PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS CAN GIVE US
REAL RESULTS ORDERED TOWARDS PROGRESSING IN TRUTH (Good mid-way position),
partial truths ordered to the universal, ANALOGICAL TRUTHS (GREAT CONCEPT), NOT
ENTIRELY CONCRETE BUT REAL PROGRESS. Harmony between modern physics and
Thomistic Metaphysics is possible.

Galileo had a big impact on Descartes. Newton likewise on Kant. Kant wished to achieve
certainty through his a priori synthetic judgements. Know these main players. PHILOSOPHY
OF SCIENCE INFLUENCES SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS BUT YOU CANNOT REDUCE
SCIENCE/IMPOSE UPON IT A METHOD/PARADIGM. BE READY TO DISCUSS HOW SCIENCE
DEVELOPED IN THE 17TH CENTURY. DIFFERENT APPROACHES, PHILOSOPHIES, LEADING
FIGURES, METHODS, MAJOR ADVANCEMENTS, WHAT DO THEY TELL US ABOUT REALITY?