Doubt

http://www.mesacc.edu/~yount/text/empm-v-ratm.html

This is a good explanation of the differences between empiricism and rationalism/deduction.

I already made a blog post for this grading period, but I was really intrigued in class about the concept of "doubt". Francis Bacon says, "Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much and so much only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature" (Novum Organum). He means that humans can only glean knowledge from experiences, senses and/or observation, which is his basic axiom and also is called empiricism. Therefore man can never assume anything or make generalizations, which Bacon calls "useless and abstract". He further goes to say that man must "Begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve for ever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress" (Novum Organum). Essentially, in order to progress, we must question even the most accepted of ideas and reevaluate. For example, if someone were to use Bacon's philosophy, he/she could question the validity of gravity or even whether or not matter exists. In order to support the theory of gravity, said person would have to begin with observations about nature and then somehow support gravity through experimentation, so long as they never make any assumptions. Is this mindset backwards? Or does it result in progress?

Personally, I think that a world without doubt will not progress, and subsequently neither will a world without faith. (When I say faith, I don't mean religious faith, but I mean faith as in believing in something tangible or inherent). I agree with Bacon that we would "revolve for ever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress" if we were to never question the world. This is because our potential progress would be limited to things we know, and if we never questioned former indisputable truths such as a geocentric system, or Lamarckian evolution, then we would have never arrived at modern theories (that could very well be disproven in the future) such as a heliocentric system or Darwinism. However, if we methodically and carefully followed Bacon's exact philosophy, which is, again, to doubt everything, then would we doubt even the conclusions that we reach through observation? Would we be trapped in an endless circle of doubt, starting over, observation, experimentation, and conclusion? In Bacon's ideal world, once we reached our conclusion we would not be able to proceed from there because in order to expand on our new findings, we would have to assume our conclusion to be true. Yes, this is probably a little too picky and technical but I think that empiricism is contradictory of progress, as is a society based on faith; therefore doubt must coexist with educated assumption in order to result in progress.

My solution to this problem is that every scientist should individually doubt all truths (such as color, sound, gravity etc.) ONCE and if any conclusions are drawn from subsequent experimentation then they should accept these conclusions to be true. This way, new discoveries can occur when an individual cleans their slate of all assumptions, but also forward progress can be made by expanding on any conclusions. Do you guys have any ideas of a potential "perfect" method to progress a society scientifically? Finally, some food for thought; do you guys think that Bacon could potentially be assuming too much? Because technically, his philosophy hinges on the assumption that our senses are correct. What if our eyes perceive the wrong colors? What if we see things backwards and in reverse? In conclusion, what is an official starting point for 'doubting everything'? Should we start with our senses or should we potentially start somewhere else. Perhaps I'm not articulating, but it's all very skeptical...

The end of Aristotelian Astronomy

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/jupmoon.html

Hey guys, after reading tonight's assignment about Newton and looking back on the previous' night assignment about Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo, I wanted to know if anyone had an opinion as to who definitively put an end to, or "demolished" the Ptolemaic or geocentric system. I think that the book portrays Newton's ideas as those that put an end to the old astronomic physics, specifically it reads, "The new findings had not, however, been fused together in a new synthesis, a single explanatory system that would comprehend motion both on earth and in the skies. That synthesis, which prevailed until the twentieth century, was the work of Isaac Newton" (594). The book is saying that Newton unified Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moons, his law of inertia, Copernicus' heliocentric theory, and Kepler's three laws of planetary motion into one big concept that finally "disproved" Aristotelian physics. Newton apparently achieved this success by proving the notion of 'gravity' which strongly supported the heliocentric theory by making it all possible, and much more realistic than a crystal sphere-supported geocentric system.

However, I believe that the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian system was damaged beyond repair much earlier, when Galileo made his discoveries about Jupiter's moons and momentum public. Together, his ideas strongly denied the existence of a crystal sphere system around earth. I think that the discovery of Jupiter's moons could have almost been sufficient in destroying the old theory, because it would have been impossible for the 'crystal sphere' idea to remain credible or impenetrable. The text says, "He quickly discovered the first four moons of Jupiter, which clearly suggested that Jupiter could not possibly be embedded in any impenetrable crystal sphere." (593). Subsequently, Galileo then throws in yet another piece of evidence, his law of intertia. Galileo proves mathematically, and this is important because by proving this mathematically he no longer requires the law of gravity to support his idea, that an object will keep in motion forever unless stopped by something. The text reads, "Rest was not a natural state of objects. Rather, an object continues in motion forever unless stopped by an external force" (593). In a larger picture, Galileo shows the world that planets do not need the assistance of 'angels' or 'crystal spheres' to keep in motion. So in one move, Galileo abolishes the impenetrability and notion of crystal spheres by sighting Jupiter's moons, and then in another body of evidence he further damages the crystal spheres, and the cornerstone of Aristotelian philosophy, by removing their function.

I think that Galileo definitely demolished the crystal sphere aspect of Aristotelian philosophy, and because this idea was so important to old Astronomy, I think that Galileo put an end to the old theory and catalyzed modern astronomy. Without crystal spheres, then the Aristotelian system is not possible, and this opened doors for new theories to take precedence. What idea or figure do you guys think demolished the old theories? Or perhaps, it was not just one person, but a chain of events that, together, put an end to them. Do you think that Galileo's ideas were not strong enough to debunk any theories until reinforced by the revelations of Newton? Or maybe it was even before Galileo, that the geocentric theory was ended.