The Sight Of Science Essay, Research Paper

The Sight of Science

It is a truth universally acknowledged that he whose mind is ahead of

his time and above that of his peers may not be understood by his fellow people

and be subject to critisizm and persecution. Galilei Galileo, Francis Bacon, and

Rene Descartes were among the first to break away from the conventional views of

their times to find a place for science in a society and propose the way it

should be practiced. All three authors agree on some points but differe markedly

on others. Bacon insists on the importa nce of experimentation and relative

uselessness of senses and experience, while Decartes thinks them imporatnt for

understanding of nature. Galileo stresses the need for separation of science and

religion, while Descartes deems the correctness of the method of scientific

thought to be most important. Yet all three writers agree that natural science

should be freed of the grip of theology and human ethics, what sets them apart

from previous generations of scientists and thinkers.

In his Discoveries, Bacon goes at great length to discuss the influence

the prescientfic mode of thinking has had on generations of scientists, and

tries to Descartes asserts that the mathematical method of examining the

relationship between objects and expressing them in concise formulas, applied to

the entire realm of knowledge, permits him to exercise his own reason to the

best of his ability. Since nothing in philosophy is certain, it is evident that

he must discover his own philosophical principles.

Galileo’s views on science and religion, as seen from his Letter to the

Grand Dutchess Christina are very radical for his times. He suggests that

physical sciences must be separated from theological studies because the goals

of the two disicplines are totally different: theology is concerned with

salvation of the soul, while the sciences are concerned with understanding of

nature. He believes that the clergy apply faith where ther is none involved –

one cannot undersand nature just by quoting the Scripture because the nature, a

fruit of God’s infinite wisdom., defies the simple explanation men’s feeble

minds attempt to find in the Bible. To truly understand nature, one has apply

the little of the reason that God has given to him and look “between the li nes”

for the true meaning of the Bible. There are a number interpretations one can

find because the Bible is often general and simplistic; Galileo suggests that

the best way to find the true meaning is to disprove the false conclusions by

finding contradicions in nature, as determined by accurate experiments rather

than fervent meditation. It is a job of scientists to examine nature and it is

the business of theologists to make sure the Bible agrees with it, for nature is

no less a manifestation of God than the Holy Bible itself:

“A thing is not forever contrary to the faith until disproved by most

certain truth.. When that happens it was not the Holy scripture that ever

affirmed it but human ignorance that ever imagined it.” (St. Augustine, De

Genesi Ad Literam i, 18,19, p. 206). Ultimately, the true faith and physical

sciences take two different but parallel pathways in an attempt to understand

God, one by following His canons and the other by exploring His creations, “by

Nature in his works and by doctrine in his word” (183).

Bacon differs somewhat in his view of science and religion. Indeed, he

claims that a true scince must be free of religious tenets where they do not

apply: “It is therefore most wise soberly to render unto faith that are faith’s”

(317). However, Bacon goes further to describe the different uses and abuses of

religion that can either further or impede the adavancement of science. Perhaps

most notable of them is the idea of differentiating true faith from

superstition. The true faith is derived from th e scriptures and applied only

to the matters of salvation, while superstition is a dangerous mixture of

philosophy and religion that is applied to the matters where there is no faith

involved, such as politics and natural sciences. Unlike Galileo and Descartes,

Bacon not only states that religion is not a means of establishing physical

truths because it does not rely on practical experimentation. He also suggests

that the since the Bible was written centuries ago, it lacks the information

scientists established from natural experiments over that perfiod of time; using

it to explain the natural phenomena is nothing more than “seeking thus the dead

among the living.”

The role of the philosopher in science is different for Bacon and

Descartes. Although both of the thinkers are sceptical of the benefits a

philosophy may bring, Bacon denies a place for it in science, while Descartes

believes that it may still be of some value. Bacon rejects conventional

philosophy mainly because it rests on what he considers to be a “weak

foundation” or logic. Logic has no place in scientific method because it rests

on few, if any, experimentally proven facts and then attempts to extrapolate or

deduce further conclusions. Logic is based on applying human mind in effort to

explain nature, while, as Bacon claims, ” The subtilty of nature is far beyond

that of sense or of the understanding.” Apparently, he believes that nature so

beyond t he grasp of human mind that it goes against all the conclusion that

human rationality prescribes. Therefore he abandons logic as a tool for

understanding nature. Instead, he proposes to conduct science by the method of

“true induction” — proposing a reasonable conclusion based on a set of

thorough and deliberate experiments.

Bacon’s inductive reasoning is perhaps the main principle that separates

him scientists of his times. Almost all of contemporary scientits, he tells us,

are concerned with finding basic generalizations common to different scientific

phenomena, and then attempt deduce the truth behind them by applying the newly

established axioms to more specific problems. First, the nature is far too

complex to be taken superficially; it defies both understanding of the human

mind and perception of human senses. The only way to make sure that an axiom is

true is by conducting a series of apt scientific trials, and then attempt to

combine the experimentally found facts by the powers of induction to produce a

more general statement.

The importance of careful and systematic experiments is perhaps the

certral principle that separates Bacon’s understanding of science from the

opinions commonly held at his time. He proposes that science should no longer be

practiced by haphazard experimentation, superstition,

Acknowledging the significance of contributions of the ancient

scientists such as Pythagoras and Aristotles, Bacon disapproves the use of the

methodology they prescribe for several reasons. First, he argues that practice

of science should be essentially aimed at the discovery of truths behind natural

phenomena, which is confirmed by centuries of careful analysis and

experimentation rather then on authority, stature, or popularity of the

scientist. Since the world has matured and advanced since the times of the

ancient thinkers, the contemporary scientists are in a better position to

explain nature. In searching for a method of arriving at knowledge,

Descartes considered ancient logic. It is apparent that he believes that logic

can only be used to com municate those concepts that are already known and

accepted. He rejects geometry and algebraic analysis because of the restrictions

which limit these subjects to figures alone. Instead, he prefers mathematics

since it is controlled and limited by rigid rules. Just as the best government

is the government which has few laws rigidly administered, the best method has

few rules resolutely followed. On the assumption that a few rules closely

adhered to are superior to lengthy set of precepts, he limits himself to the

following four laws. First, never accept anything as true unless you understand

clearly that it is true. Second, reduce all problems to small component parts

and thoroughly analyze each part by itself. Third, proceed in a orderly and

regulated manner in analyzing matters step by step, from the simple to the

complex order of knowledge. Fourth, present a thorough enumeration of all

possibilities and review thoroughly to make sure that nothing has been left

out. Under constraints of the above methodology, logic can be applied to

scientific principles with great success. It follows then that reason must be

nothing more than regulated logic. It is the misdirected or randomly applied

logic what he is against.

Descartes’ search for certainty and absolute truth, by using his own

reason rather than the traditions and dogmas of the church, represents a

distinct departure for his time. This position rivals the medieval claim that

truth can be found only in religious doctrine. The methodology he proposes

implies that a man can and perhaps should amass knowledge on his own. This idea

seems to be in contradiction with the doctrine professed by the catholic church

at the time, and Descartes prudently decides not to publish some of his work to

avoid religious persecutions that befall the fate of Galileo.

Although the three thinkers disagree markedly both conception and

methodology of science, the message they convey is clear. The progress of

science is essential for advancement of a nation; inventions, both in method and

instrumentations, are the only means by which the human mind can grasp the

subtleties of nature. Science must be free of religious and ethical constraints

to achieve the master of humans over nature.

32f