Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo

[utunumsint]

I have been going through some lectures on Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo. I also happened to read this article. edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2012/05/natural-theology-natural-science-and.html#more I found this quote very interesting:

[Francis Bacon’s] goal of “mastering and possessing” nature necessarily focused scientists on just those aspects of nature that could be predicted and controlled; and this required Descartes’ quantitative, mathematical approach. Baconian science thus ensured that Nature would be “quantifiable, predictable, and controllable” by defining nature as quantifiable, predictable, and controllable.

Looking at Bacon’s Novum Organum, I can see the beginnings of the science, explicitly in its rejection of Aristotelian natural philosophy. But his grounds for this rejection were purely practical. Don’t get me wrong, that rejection needed to happen for the sake of science itself. Science needed to throw off the old garbage science from Aristotle. The focus on experimentation has yielded amazing results and clearly the move to focusing science on the quantifiable, predictable, and controllable has been a benefit to the world. But again, as I have already stated, and the article states, this was done in a very uncritical way.

Throw in Galileo’s semi Pythagorean mathematical mysticism as another source of this move to the quantifiable, and you move further along this trajectory - with amazing results, but clearly built on metaphysical assumptions.

Descarte is the third on my list who consciously rejected the Aristotelian tradition.

It is amazing to me that these early modern philosophers form the unconscious basis for the assumptions made in modern science. Without in any way endorsing a rejection of modern science, wouldn’t it be good to make these assumptions more widely known so that people can realize that their uncritical held beliefs have alternatives that may even be complimentary or provide added depths to their world views?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have been going through some lectures on Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo. I also happened to read this article. edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2012/05/natural-theology-natural-science-and.html#more I found this quote very interesting:

Looking at Bacon’s Novum Organum, I can see the beginnings of the science, explicitly in its rejection of Aristotelian natural philosophy. But his grounds for this rejection were purely practical. Don’t get me wrong, that rejection needed to happen for the sake of science itself. Science needed to throw off the old garbage science from Aristotle. The focus on experimentation has yielded amazing results and clearly the move to focusing science on the quantifiable, predictable, and controllable has been a benefit to the world. But again, as I have already stated, and the article states, this was done in a very uncritical way.

Throw in Galileo’s semi Pythagorean mathematical mysticism as another source of this move to the quantifiable, and you move further along this trajectory - with amazing results, but clearly built on metaphysical assumptions.

Descarte is the third on my list who consciously rejected the Aristotelian tradition.

It is amazing to me that these early modern philosophers form the unconscious basis for the assumptions made in modern science. Without in any way endorsing a rejection of modern science, wouldn’t it be good to make these assumptions more widely known so that people can realize that their uncritical held beliefs have alternatives that may even be complimentary or provide added depths to their world views?

God bless,
Ut

Two good sourses covering your ground specifically are Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John W. Weisheiple and From a Realist Point of View by William A. Wallace. The latter has two editions, each containing some intereting chapters the other does not have. Both sources are hard to get but real good libraries will have one or both or all three.

Linus2nd

 

[PietroPaolo]

I have been going through some lectures on Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo. I also happened to read this article. edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2012/05/natural-theology-natural-science-and.html#more I found this quote very interesting:

Looking at Bacon’s Novum Organum, I can see the beginnings of the science, explicitly in its rejection of Aristotelian natural philosophy. But his grounds for this rejection were purely practical. Don’t get me wrong, that rejection needed to happen for the sake of science itself. Science needed to throw off the old garbage science from Aristotle. The focus on experimentation has yielded amazing results and clearly the move to focusing science on the quantifiable, predictable, and controllable has been a benefit to the world. But again, as I have already stated, and the article states, this was done in a very uncritical way.

Throw in Galileo’s semi Pythagorean mathematical mysticism as another source of this move to the quantifiable, and you move further along this trajectory - with amazing results, but clearly built on metaphysical assumptions.

Descarte is the third on my list who consciously rejected the Aristotelian tradition.

It is amazing to me that these early modern philosophers form the unconscious basis for the assumptions made in modern science. Without in any way endorsing a rejection of modern science, wouldn’t it be good to make these assumptions more widely known so that people can realize that their uncritical held beliefs have alternatives that may even be complimentary or provide added depths to their world views?

God bless,
Ut

Interestingly enough, Bacon’s approach grew not out of Aristotle’s physics, which it of course rejected, but out of Medieval magic, which is why so many early scientists were also alchemists. Both magic and science seek to dominate and manipulate nature. In the end, we no longer practice magic, because we’ve found something that achieves the same ends much more effectively, technology.

The unfortunate side effect of Bacon & Descartes philosophical revolution was the rejection (for no good metaphysical reason) of final and formal causality. This allows science to focus on material and efficient causes (which has been a good thing for the advancement of science) but has had the unfortunate and unnecessary effect of bleeding over into philosophy, with modern philosophers also rejecting (again for no good metaphysical reason) final and formal causality (which has been a terrible thing for philosophy making it a weak appendage of science).

 

[dmar198]

I have been going through some lectures on Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo. I also happened to read this article. edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2012/05/natural-theology-natural-science-and.html#more I found this quote very interesting:

Looking at Bacon’s Novum Organum, I can see the beginnings of the science, explicitly in its rejection of Aristotelian natural philosophy. But his grounds for this rejection were purely practical. Don’t get me wrong, that rejection needed to happen for the sake of science itself. Science needed to throw off the old garbage science from Aristotle. The focus on experimentation has yielded amazing results and clearly the move to focusing science on the quantifiable, predictable, and controllable has been a benefit to the world. But again, as I have already stated, and the article states, this was done in a very uncritical way.

Throw in Galileo’s semi Pythagorean mathematical mysticism as another source of this move to the quantifiable, and you move further along this trajectory - with amazing results, but clearly built on metaphysical assumptions.

Descarte is the third on my list who consciously rejected the Aristotelian tradition.

It is amazing to me that these early modern philosophers form the unconscious basis for the assumptions made in modern science. Without in any way endorsing a rejection of modern science, wouldn’t it be good to make these assumptions more widely known so that people can realize that their uncritical held beliefs have alternatives that may even be complimentary or provide added depths to their world views?

God bless,
Ut

While I’m sure we owe a lot to these gentlemen as popularizers of science, there were significant advocates for experiment and scientific observation before them. John Philoponus comes to mind. He lived in the earliest part of the middle ages but “he was the first to mount a devastating critique of the deductive method and much of the content of Aristotle’s physics and cosmology. There was no rival to its thoroughness until Galileo.” (source) He explained the correct relationship between the rate of descent for heavier and lighter objects when dropped at the same time and stated, “Our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument.”

Science tested through observation is part of the heritage of the early middle ages and some of its earliest supporters were teachers in the early Christian schools of higher education. (John Philoponus taught science at the Catholic school of Alexandria famous for producing Origen.) It’s not exactly a product of the Renaissance, the Renaissance just recovered it and gave it more supporters.

 

[levinas12]

These postings are right on the mark. Modern science began with the aim of mastering nature to provide for “commodious living”. What dropped out was philosophy’s theoretical seeking after the ultimate causes and the meaning of the “whole” - instead, “metaphysical neutrality” and “individualism” became the guiding protocols. For an excellent discussion of this see Richard Kennington’s essay on Leo Strauss’s book, Natural Right and History, in the collection, Leo Strauss’ Thought, edited by Alan Udoff (pp. 227-252).

“Metaphysical neutrality” means giving up any attempt to find out the ultimate meaning of the universe and our place in it. “Individualism” in this context means looking at human beings in their extreme solitude, severed from any larger “whole”.

These protocols were the underlying assumptions behind the shift towards mastery, power and technology (and away from the ancient Greek “theoria”).

By the way, Machiavelli played a very important role here with his new science of politics that was devoted to mastering “fortuna” in human affairs. Instead of worrying about what men should be, Machiavelli based his political philosophy on how men actually are. This completely eclipsed the ancient Greek quest for what constitutes the “best life”.

 

[Counterpoint]

It is amazing to me that these early modern philosophers form the unconscious basis for the assumptions made in modern science. Without in any way endorsing a rejection of modern science, wouldn’t it be good to make these assumptions more widely known so that people can realize that their uncritical held beliefs have alternatives that may even be complimentary or provide added depths to their world views?

Natural science is based on methodological naturalism. This is the appropriate methodology to employ if you are going to study natural phenomena. However, the problem arises whenever skeptics and atheists conflate methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. This is no longer science, but scientism.

 

[utunumsint]

Two good sourses covering your ground specifically are Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John W. Weisheiple and From a Realist Point of View by William A. Wallace. The latter has two editions, each containing some intereting chapters the other does not have. Both sources are hard to get but real good libraries will have one or both or all three.

Linus2nd

Thanks for the references Linus.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Interestingly enough, Bacon’s approach grew not out of Aristotle’s physics, which it of course rejected, but out of Medieval magic, which is why so many early scientists were also alchemists. Both magic and science seek to dominate and manipulate nature. In the end, we no longer practice magic, because we’ve found something that achieves the same ends much more effectively, technology.

The unfortunate side effect of Bacon & Descartes philosophical revolution was the rejection (for no good metaphysical reason) of final and formal causality. This allows science to focus on material and efficient causes (which has been a good thing for the advancement of science) but has had the unfortunate and unnecessary effect of bleeding over into philosophy, with modern philosophers also rejecting (again for no good metaphysical reason) final and formal causality (which has been a terrible thing for philosophy making it a weak appendage of science).

I did not know that about Bacon. It is interesting this concept of mastering and possessing nature and how that will to power is at the heart of many of our human endeavors.

I agree with you about the the fate of formal and final causality. Ed Feser really hammers home that point.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

While I’m sure we owe a lot to these gentlemen as popularizers of science, there were significant advocates for experiment and scientific observation before them. John Philoponus comes to mind. He lived in the earliest part of the middle ages but “he was the first to mount a devastating critique of the deductive method and much of the content of Aristotle’s physics and cosmology. There was no rival to its thoroughness until Galileo.” (source) He explained the correct relationship between the rate of descent for heavier and lighter objects when dropped at the same time and stated, “Our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument.”

Science tested through observation is part of the heritage of the early middle ages and some of its earliest supporters were teachers in the early Christian schools of higher education. (John Philoponus taught science at the Catholic school of Alexandria famous for producing Origen.) It’s not exactly a product of the Renaissance, the Renaissance just recovered it and gave it more supporters.

I agree with many of the ideas of the Renaissance actually predated the Renaissance. I suppose the big difference though, was how dominant Aristotelian Thomism had become during the time of the Renaissance. People were reacting to it, and looking to the past for new ways of thinking.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

These postings are right on the mark. Modern science began with the aim of mastering nature to provide for “commodious living”. What dropped out was philosophy’s theoretical seeking after the ultimate causes and the meaning of the “whole” - instead, “metaphysical neutrality” and “individualism” became the guiding protocols. For an excellent discussion of this see Richard Kennington’s essay on Leo Strauss’s book, Natural Right and History, in the collection, Leo Strauss’ Thought, edited by Alan Udoff (pp. 227-252).

“Metaphysical neutrality” means giving up any attempt to find out the ultimate meaning of the universe and our place in it. “Individualism” in this context means looking at human beings in their extreme solitude, severed from any larger “whole”.

These protocols were the underlying assumptions behind the shift towards mastery, power and technology (and away from the ancient Greek “theoria”).

By the way, Machiavelli played a very important role here with his new science of politics that was devoted to mastering “fortuna” in human affairs. Instead of worrying about what men should be, Machiavelli based his political philosophy on how men actually are. This completely eclipsed the ancient Greek quest for what constitutes the “best life”.

Thank you for the reference. I did not know about those technical terms.

I have looked at Machiavelli as well. He reminds me very much of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic. I suppose it boils down to whether we believe human nature is fundamentally that way or whether we have in us the capability for really goodness and even holiness.

I think Machiavelli is also dovetails well with Hobbs’ political theory in the Leviathan. How we are essentially fearful creature who make war out of fear. That is why we are always accumulating more power, like the nuclear bomb.

It is amazing what happens when we cut ourselves off from speculation about ultimate causes and the meaning of the whole and stop thinking about how things ought to be. Or perhaps it boils down to historical conditions and temperament.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Natural science is based on methodological naturalism. This is the appropriate methodology to employ if you are going to study natural phenomena. However, the problem arises whenever skeptics and atheists conflate methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. This is no longer science, but scientism.

Agreed. I think the problem is that this usually happens when scientists who are unaware of their philosophical baggage, attempt to attack other metaphysical positions based on their “common sense”, without realizing the true nature of their position.

God bless,
Ut

 

[levinas12]

… perhaps it boils down to historical conditions and temperament.

Yes, modern philosophy initiated a profound change in human thought that has only intensified. What we see today is the emptying out of meanings, a gentle (and sometimes not so gentle) nihilism .

TV is a good example of this gentle nihilism with its constantly shifting montage of telegenic tragedies and catastrophes, followed immediately by witty commercials and then capped off with basketball’s March Madness.

 

[utunumsint]

Interesting. Here is Spinoza’ attack on final causality with a rebuttal from Ed Feser: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/04/spinoza-on-final-causes.html

I find Spinoza’s discussion on the implications of rejecting final causality very interesting:

III. Implications of abandoning final causes
Where Spinoza does have something plausible to say about final causes is in his discussion of what would follow from abandoning them. Lurking in the background of his discussion here is the objection his critics would raise against his pantheism to the effect that Deus sive Natura would seem less than perfect if the evil and ugliness we see in the world around us were thought to follow necessarily from his nature. Spinoza answers that our ordinary conceptions of good and evil, order and disorder, beauty and ugliness derive from belief in final causes, so that if the latter is abandoned so too must the former be abandoned. And when that is done, we will see that we have no basis for describing anything that follows necessarily from Deus sive Natura as evil, ugly, etc. Such judgments reflect only our parochial concern with ourselves, rather than an informed understanding of our (relatively trivial) place in the larger scheme of things.
Here at last, I would say, Spinoza is right: Our ordinary conceptions of good and evil, order and disorder, beauty and ugliness – and indeed, any conception of these things – cannot survive the abandonment of final causes. And absolutely nothing that human beings might either suffer or perpetrate can consistently be judged evil, ugly, or disordered in their absence. That is precisely why the world has grown progressively uglier, more disordered, and more evil and irrational the more thoroughly it has assimilated the anti-teleological worldview of Spinoza and the other moderns.

God bless,
Ut

 

[levinas12]

Interesting. Here is Spinoza’ attack on final causality with a rebuttal from Ed Feser: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/04/spinoza-on-final-causes.html

I find Spinoza’s discussion on the implications of rejecting final causality very interesting:

God bless,
Ut

Thank you for that insightful quote. Yes, the abandonment of final causality was a fateful move. Think of Robinson Crusoe tossed up on the hostile shore of an island in the middle of nowhere. Crusoe is emblematic of the modern age.