Most Noble Science: Math or Theology?

[Geremia]

In St. Thomas Aquinas’s , lib. 3 l. 4 n. 7Sententia Metaphysicae, his commentary on lib. 3Metaphysics cap. 2, he says:

the mathematical sciences …] are the noblest and most certain of the sciences

Yet, in his Summa TheologicaIª q. 1 a. 5 co. he says theology is the noblest:

Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled: in point of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason’s grasp. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical, is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences.

 

[JohnDamian]

It depends on what is meant by noble.

Nobleness can be either excellence in character or certitude; Theology is the prior, and Mathematics the latter.

 

[roveau]

It depends on what you mean by science.

Theology isn’t considered a science by anybody these days, not even by theologans.

 

[Areopagite]

It depends on what you mean by science.

Theology isn’t considered a science by anybody these days, not even by theologans.

No this is not the issue. And every professor I ever had that commented on this point considered theology a science. The definition of science that has been used more than any other definition in history is “an organized body of knowledge” … nothing more. Theology has been organized into many systems by theologians throughout history. Hence, theology can be considered a science.

It is a modern corruption of the word to limit the meaning of “science” to merely the “physical sciences” … or something. I think that shift in meaning has caused countless amounts of confusion in recent years (particularly, for example, in the debate regarding intelligent design).

 

[Moonstruck888]

No this is not the issue. And every professor I ever had that commented on this point considered theology a science. The definition of science that has been used more than any other definition in history is “an organized body of knowledge” … nothing more. Theology has been organized into many systems by theologians throughout history. Hence, theology can be considered a science.

It is a modern corruption of the word to limit the meaning of “science” to merely the “physical sciences” … or something. I think that shift in meaning has caused countless amounts of confusion in recent years (particularly, for example, in the debate regarding intelligent design).

Science is a method of Observe → Hypothesize → Experiment → Repeat.

I don’t see how that corrolates in any way with Theology. I don’t have a problem with intelligent design being taught in a Theology class, but there is no debate in academic circles over whether it should be taught in Biology class.

 

[Areopagite]

Science is a method of Observe → Hypothesize → Experiment → Repeat.

I don’t see how that corrolates in any way with Theology. I don’t have a problem with intelligent design being taught in a Theology class, but there is no debate in academic circles over whether it should be taught in Biology class.

Once again, the definition of “science” that has been used for most of history is “an organized body of knowledge.” Theology falls under that category (unless, of course, you don’t think it’s knowledge, in which case it would be an organized body of garbage … I understand).

Now, the method you mention here is appropriate for inductive physical sciences … but it is not a method appropriate for all science (i.e. all organized bodies of knowledge). You are using “science” in a narrower sense than how it has been used for the majority of the word’s history … though, admittedly, you are using it in the popular sense (a sense, in this case, that I criticize).

I think I would agree that intelligent design does not fall under the realm of biology, since biology is a physical science, whereas intelligent design is philosophical and theological, both of which deal with things that transcend the purely physical.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Once again, the definition of “science” that has been used for most of history is “an organized body of knowledge.” Theology falls under that category (unless, of course, you don’t think it’s knowledge, in which case it would be an organized body of garbage … I understand).

Now, the method you mention here is appropriate for inductive physical sciences … but it is not a method appropriate for all science (i.e. all organized bodies of knowledge). You are using “science” in a narrower sense than how it has been used for the majority of the word’s history … though, admittedly, you are using it in the popular sense (a sense, in this case, that I criticize).

I reject the vague dark age definitions of science. Science to me is that which can be established using the scientific method, that is to say that any scientific theory should be able to make predictions that can be backed by experimental data. It is my earnest opinion that this definition of science is the only definition that is of any practical use.

I think I would agree that intelligent design does not fall under the realm of biology, since biology is a physical science, whereas intelligent design is philosophical and theological, both of which deal with things that transcend the purely physical.

Agreed.

 

[Areopagite]

I reject the vague dark age definitions of science. Science to me is that which can be established using the scientific method, that is to say that any scientific theory should be able to make predictions that can be backed by experimental data. It is my earnest opinion that this definition of science is the only definition that is of any practical use.

Fine.

Mathematics is not a science then.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Fine.

Mathematics is not a science then.

Agreed. Mathematics is a tool often used in science, but it is not a science per se.

 

[Areopagite]

Agreed.

Well, that’s good. This does confirm that you think “science” merely means “an organized body of knowledge solely pertaining to inductive judgments about physical reality” and that you’re consistent about that.

Now, to be sure, “science” is a word … and like all words people can attribute different objective meanings to it. I think, however, it would be more useful to have it widely understood to correspond to the concept “an organized body of knowledge” since that’s what it meant for most of history and still is in many circles (even by non-Christians). I hear many non-Christian intellectuals, for example, say that “Logic is a science” … and yet it is not a physical science, but it certainly is an organized body of knowledge. It was the shift to the more narrow meaning of “physical science” that started causing confusion and made people, at the very least, not understand previous writers who used the word. So, with that, I think it is very practical to stick with the original definition of science (i.e. “an organized body of knowledge”) … a definition that seems to be still used today here and there in non-theological banter. That is my case.

Now, you said there is no practical reason to define “science” as “an organized body of knowledge.” Does this mean that you think it is impractical to distinguish between organized bodies of knowledge and knowledge that has not been systematized (but exists as merely a scattered collection of intuitions)?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well, that’s good. This does confirm that you think “science” merely means “an organized body of knowledge solely pertaining to inductive judgments about physical reality” and that you’re consistent about that.

Now, to be sure, “science” is a word … and like all words people can attribute different objective meanings to it. I think, however, it would be more useful to have it widely understood to correspond to the concept “an organized body of knowledge” since that’s what it meant for most of history and still is in many circles (even by non-Christians). I hear many non-Christian intellectuals, for example, say that “Logic is a science” … and yet it is not a physical science, but it certainly is an organized body of knowledge. It was the shift to the more narrow meaning of “physical science” that started causing confusion and made people, at the very least, not understand previous writers who used the word. So, with that, I think it is very practical to stick with the original definition of science (i.e. “an organized body of knowledge”) … a definition that seems to be still used today here and there in non-theological banter. That is my case.

Now, you said there is no practical reason to define “science” as “an organized body of knowledge.” Does this mean that you think it is impractical to distinguish between organized bodies of knowledge and knowledge that has not been systematized (but exists as merely a scattered collection of intuitions)?

I think it is more consistent with reason to define a concept or a definite article as accurately and precisely as possible.

To define science in such a broad way as to call it an organized body of knowledge means that you could define alchemy, philosophy, theology, history, astrology and even arts and crafts as science. An organized body of knowledge could encompass practically any pursuit that involves any kind of knowledge and systematic approach.

I would reject that.

 

[Areopagite]

I think it is more consistent with reason to define a concept or a definite article as accurately and precisely as possible.

As accurately and precisely as possible … to what?

To define science in such a broad way as to call it an organized body of knowledge means that you could define alchemy, philosophy, theology, history, astrology and even arts and crafts as science.

I do not consider alchemy and astrology (as far as what I know of them) to contain principles that I consider all true. Granted they aren’t entirely false about everything, but they have enough falsehood in them that I would not consider them legitimate knowledge. Hence, since they are not knowledge, they are not sciences. They are pseudo-science (due to their admixture of falsehood).

Arts and crafts do not necessarily require systematized knowledge. Arts and crafts can be done purely by intuition and not necessarily by pre-conceived structured knowledge. You do often here though that a certain professional craft is “both an art and a science” because in addition to being an art (i.e. knowledge that involves making something), it is also a craft that requires complex system of knowing what to do.

An organized body of knowledge could encompass practically any pursuit that involves any kind of knowledge and systematic approach.

Yeah … that’s exactly how it was defined since the ancient Greeks and is still defined a lot of times even today (provided you define “any kind of knowledge” to mean that they don’t contain false principles at all).

I would reject that.

Why? I’m still not quite sure what your reason is for saying this.

 

[Moonstruck888]

As accurately and precisely as possible … to what?

Call a spade a spade and a hoe a hoe and you’re being precise. Call them gardening implements and you’re being vague.

I do not consider alchemy and astrology (as far as what I know of them) to contain principles that I consider all true. Granted they aren’t entirely false about everything, but they have enough falsehood in them that I would not consider them legitimate knowledge. Hence, since they are not knowledge, they are not sciences. They are pseudo-science (due to their admixture of falsehood).

Science is the process that decides whether or not the claims made in astrology are true or false. Astrology is knowledge based, as is alchemy. You cannot be an astrologer or an alechemist without an extensive knowledge of your subject, whether that knowledge can be verified scientifically or not.

Arts and crafts do not necessarily require systematized knowledge. Arts and crafts can be done purely by intuition and not necessarily by pre-conceived structured knowledge. You do often here though that a certain professional craft is “both an art and a science” because in addition to being an art (i.e. knowledge that involves making something), it is also a craft that requires complex system of knowing what to do.

As a musician, I can assure you that you need an extensive systemized knowledge of what in technical terms music is about to perform your art. Even people who are self taught require knowledge.

Yeah … that’s exactly how it was defined since the ancient Greeks and is still defined a lot of times even today (provided you define “any kind of knowledge” to mean that they don’t contain false principles at all).

Like I said, I can’t envisage a situation where I would ever operate under such a vague definition.

Why? I’m still not quite sure what your reason is for saying this.

Because it is, in my opinion, inconsistent, inaccurate and misleading as a definition. A simple answer to a simple question.

 

[JohnDamian]

Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning “knowledge”)

 

[Areopagite]

Call a spade a spade and a hoe a hoe and you’re being precise. Call them gardening implements and you’re being vague.

I’m totally in favor of calling a spade a spade. That’s why I’m in favor of calling science “an organized body of knowledge” because it’s been called that forever. You’re proposing you call a spade a “hedging spade” … and refusing to call “a garden spade” and “a border spade” and “rabbiting spade” a spade too. Kind of a weird thing to do.

Science is the process that decides whether or not the claims made in astrology are true or false. Astrology is knowledge based, as is alchemy. You cannot be an astrologer or an alechemist without an extensive knowledge of your subject, whether that knowledge can be verified scientifically or not.

As I said before, I acknowledge astrology and alchemy require real knowledge. However, there are some things in it that are false. Knowledge can only be about true things, insofar as, for example, you cannot know that 2 + 2 = 5. Since astrology and alchemy are an admixture of truth and falsehood (or, at the very least, verified claims and unverified claims), then they do not purely fulfill the requirements for knowledge and hence do not purely fulfill the requirements of science. Hence, they are a pseudo-science.

As a musician, I can assure you that you need an extensive systemized knowledge of what in technical terms music is about to perform your art. Even people who are self taught require knowledge.

I do not contend that self-taught people require knowledge. I do claim that some self-taught people do not require complex, pre-conceived, systematized knowledge. Knowing technical terms in music is of course being familiar with the science of music, a science which has been systematized by many people over the ages. Not all musicians in history have been familiar with any institutionalized musical terminology. Some people know music as a science (possibly combined with their art), and some know music merely as an art.

Like I said, I can’t envisage a situation where I would ever operate under such a vague definition.

Some people claim to think logically (and do for the most part) but may not know the science of logic which has been developed by previous thinkers that aids one to think logically with greater consistency and about more complex issues that one would otherwise not be able to figure out without such a carefully laid organized system of thinking.

There, I just used “science” in a sentence where it meant “an organized body of knowledge.”

Because it is, in my opinion, inconsistent, inaccurate and misleading as a definition. A simple answer to a simple question.

Why is it “inconsistent”? It’s the people who tried to change it to simply mean “inductive system of knowledge regarding just physical reality” that has created the inconsistencies.

Why is it “inaccurate”? Inaccurate to what? Inaccurate to its etymology? Because as JohnDamian pointed out, “scientia” (from Latin) merely means “knowledge.” So it’s closer to original definition than to yours.

Why is it “misleading”? What on earth do you mean by this?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning “knowledge”)

You of all people should know that dictionary definitions are notoriously imprecise.

 

[JohnDamian]

You of all people should know that dictionary definitions are notoriously imprecise.

It is called Etymology, it is the science of working out where words come from.

As you will know, the English language is a language composed of many different words that have been borrowed and changed from other languages.

Unsurprisingly, one of these languages was latin. This is particularily so because for centuries, Theology, Philosophy, Medicine and all other studies were routinely carried out in, or using latin terminology.

Enter the word “scientia” a latin word that was used by all university students to mean “knowlege” - this word then naturally moved into English Language use, which had no common or suitable word for that, therein the word “Science” became the word for any formal field of knowlege.

This Science then has the definitions of Formal (math) Practical (physics etc.) Speculative (philosophy etc.) and Social (sociology) and so on… They are different forms of aquiring formal set’s of knowlege, they are different sciences.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I’m totally in favor of calling a spade a spade. That’s why I’m in favor of calling science “an organized body of knowledge” because it’s been called that forever. You’re proposing you call a spade a “hedging spade” … and refusing to call “a garden spade” and “a border spade” and “rabbiting spade” a spade too. Kind of a weird thing to do.

What you wish to do is disagree with a definition of science that doesn’t suit you. Why you want to do that is your business, but I agree with the way science is currently defined by the modern generation of it’s practitioners.

As I said before, I acknowledge astrology and alchemy require real knowledge. However, there are some things in it that are false. Knowledge can only be about true things, insofar as, for example, you cannot know that 2 + 2 = 5. Since astrology and alchemy are an admixture of truth and falsehood (or, at the very least, verified claims and unverified claims), then they do not purely fulfill the requirements for knowledge and hence do not purely fulfill the requirements of science. Hence, they are a pseudo-science.

If knowledge can only be about true things, then how are we ever supposed to learn from our mistakes?

I do not contend that self-taught people require knowledge. I do claim that some self-taught people do not require complex, pre-conceived, systematized knowledge. Knowing technical terms in music is of course being familiar with the science of music, a science which has been systematized by many people over the ages. Not all musicians in history have been familiar with any institutionalized musical terminology. Some people know music as a science (possibly combined with their art), and some know music merely as an art.

All musicians, no matter how sketchy their knowledge of the science of music is, require to know, in technical terms, how to play an instrument. They may use their own terminology or no terminology at all to do this, but nevertheless, they know in some fashion what chord triads are, they know what equal temperance tuning systems are, they know what major scales and modes are.

Some people claim to think logically (and do for the most part) but may not know the science of logic which has been developed by previous thinkers that aids one to think logically with greater consistency and about more complex issues that one would otherwise not be able to figure out without such a carefully laid organized system of thinking.

Logic is not a science.

Why is it “inconsistent”? It’s the people who tried to change it to simply mean “inductive system of knowledge regarding just physical reality” that has created the inconsistencies.

No, they have simply seperated the wheat from the chaff.

Why is it “inaccurate”? Inaccurate to what? Inaccurate to its etymology? Because as JohnDamian pointed out, “scientia” (from Latin) merely means “knowledge.” So it’s closer to original definition than to yours.

Why don’t you see how far you get in Chemistry class using the ancient Greek idea of what an atom was? When an orginal definition is no longer fit for purpose, it must be updated, no?

Why is it “misleading”? What on earth do you mean by this?

Well, for example, it can make people think, as you did, that logic is a science. Logic is as much use to a scientist as trigonometry is to billiards player.

 

[Areopagite]

What you wish to do is disagree with a definition of science that doesn’t suit you. Why you want to do that is your business, but I agree with the way science is currently defined by the modern generation of it’s practitioners.

There are people who practice linguistics, logic, mathematics, philosophy and theology (etc.) and consider formal field of science. Hence, they would consider themselves practitioners of science and would hence disagree with your narrow definition of science. Hence, in the regard “the modern generation of it’s practitioners” are in disagreement how to define science. Hence your argument here doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

If knowledge can only be about true things, then how are we ever supposed to learn from our mistakes?

Knowledge can only be about true things insofar as you cannot, for example, know that 2 + 2 = 5. Right? I hope you agree with that. I am not speaking that you cannot know about errors. But you certainly cannot “know errors to be true.” That would be nonsense.

All musicians, no matter how sketchy their knowledge of the science of music is, require to know, in technical terms, how to play an instrument. They may use their own terminology or no terminology at all to do this, but nevertheless, they know in some fashion what chord triads are, they know what equal temperance tuning systems are, they know what major scales and modes are.

The ideas of categorizing things into major scales and musical modes were invented when the science of music theory was invented (probably sometimes during the Carolingian Renaissance and/or the Italian Renaissance … mostly). Before that, people didn’t learn music theory. A lot of times people just got good at an instrument by experimenting with it and habituated themselves to certain intuitive techniques, but did not necessarily draw up their techniques into an organized system. A lot of times, people can know how to do complex things without coming up with a complex system of knowledge behind it that explains what’s going on. They just use their intuition, which has been sharpened by getting to know the instrument. I used to compose digital music and discovered techniques that I liked and which had a nice effect. It was only afterwards that it was explained to me how that technique fit into a pre-existing system of musical knowledge however. The art can come first and the scientific understanding of the art can come later.

Logic is not a science.

Yes it is.

No, they have simply seperated the wheat from the chaff.

Why? Empty words. You haven’t explained this at all.

Why don’t you see how far you get in Chemistry class using the ancient Greek idea of what an atom was? When an orginal definition is no longer fit for purpose, it must be updated, no?

But the original definition of science still does have a purpose. I’ve explained it already.

I don’t think it’s a problem to use the word “atom” to refer to what most physicists call an atom nowadays. There will not be a whole lot of confusion about that. However, I constantly see people confused with the term “science” because a lot of people still use it (and have always used it) to refer to a body of organized knowledge. The confusion is happening because there is this artificial demand made by the physical scientists that they monopolize the word. They have caused the problems, and they are still causing them. They are confusing the meaning of the word in old texts and FOR NO GOOD REASON. They want to monopolize the word to feel special or something. It’s not a very impressive reason.

The reason for keeping its original meaning is much better: it’s been that way forever and it is still used that way all over the place. Case closed.

Well, for example, it can make people think, as you did, that logic is a science. Logic is as much use to a scientist as trigonometry is to billiards player.

What does that mean? Are you seriously saying that logic is not necessary for the physical sciences? Wow. You obviously don’t know what logic is. Trust me, you can’t do ANY science without logic. Do you honestly want to argue with me on that point?

 

[Moonstruck888]

There are people who practice linguistics, logic, mathematics, philosophy and theology (etc.) and consider formal field of science. Hence, they would consider themselves practitioners of science and would hence disagree with your narrow definition of science. Hence, in the regard “the modern generation of it’s practitioners” are in disagreement how to define science. Hence your argument here doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

To paraphrase Earnest Rutherford, all science is either physics, applied phyiscs, or stamp collecting…

Knowledge can only be about true things insofar as you cannot, for example, know that 2 + 2 = 5. Right? I hope you agree with that. I am not speaking that you cannot know about errors. But you certainly cannot “know errors to be true.” That would be nonsense.

Agreed. You cannot know that 2 + 2 = 5. That would break the law of non-contradiction.

The ideas of categorizing things into major scales and musical modes were invented when the science of music theory was invented (probably sometimes during the Carolingian Renaissance and/or the Italian Renaissance … mostly). Before that, people didn’t learn music theory. A lot of times people just got good at an instrument by experimenting with it and habituated themselves to certain intuitive techniques, but did not necessarily draw up their techniques into an organized system. A lot of times, people can know how to do complex things without coming up with a complex system of knowledge behind it that explains what’s going on. They just use their intuition, which has been sharpened by getting to know the instrument. I used to compose digital music and discovered techniques that I liked and which had a nice effect. It was only afterwards that it was explained to me how that technique fit into a pre-existing system of musical knowledge however. The art can come first and the scientific understanding of the art can come later.

Actually, the idea of categorizing things into notes and scales is ancient. The idea of equal temperance was developed by Vincenzo Gallilei during the renaissance. I’m absolutely certain I’m going to regret this, but I’ll link you to an article I wrote on the subject.

recording.songstuff.com/article/the_imperfect_fifth/

Yes it is.

No, it isn’t. Logic is studied by philosophers, not scientists.

Why? Empty words. You haven’t explained this at all.

I think that as a definition, “Science is organized knowledge” is woefully indequate. I don’t think it explains what science is at all. Science is a method. There are many forms of knowledge that are not related in any way to science. Science eschews the subjective for example.

But the original definition of science still does have a purpose. I’ve explained it already.

To you it maybe does. To me it is an absurdity that should be stamped out once and for all.

I don’t think it’s a problem to use the word “atom” to refer to what most physicists call an atom nowadays. There will not be a whole lot of confusion about that. However, I constantly see people confused with the term “science” because a lot of people still use it (and have always used it) to refer to a body of organized knowledge. The confusion is happening because there is this artificial demand made by the physical scientists that they monopolize the word. They have caused the problems, and they are still causing them. They are confusing the meaning of the word in old texts and FOR NO GOOD REASON. They want to monopolize the word to feel special or something. It’s not a very impressive reason.

What would you call a modern scientist then, to differentiate him from a logician and a philosopher?

The reason for keeping its original meaning is much better: it’s been that way forever and it is still used that way all over the place. Case closed.

Case closed indeed. Scientists are becoming more and more influential all the time, and the dwindling body of philosophers shouting in the wilderness in protest will do nothing to halt that.

What does that mean? Are you seriously saying that logic is not necessary for the physical sciences? Wow. You obviously don’t know what logic is. Trust me, you can’t do ANY science without logic. Do you honestly want to argue with me on that point?

That is correct. No physicist studies logic. They study physics.

“The philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist and ornithology is to a bird.” --Richard Feynman.