MODERN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
INTRODUCTION
It has been
remarked that “there is no institution in the modern world more prestigious
than science.”[1] The whole idea of modern philosophy of science
consists of a compendium of modern philosophers’ account, beginning from the
Seventeeth century philosophers about science and scientific inquiry in
contrast with the views of philosophers of antiquity, especially Aristotle. Obviously
then, the notion of science, its method, procedures and even its findings, differ widely
between modern day thinkers and that of the ancients.[2] Thus, the need for a modern philosophy of science arises
wherein the basic claims of science, both in its
modern day view and its ancient view, can be critically scrutinized, clarified
and possibly redefined, so
as to ensure appropriate scientific explanation in conformity with recent
scientific findings and inquiries.
Basically, in
order to attain a lucid presentation of the thoughts of modern philosophers of science,
in the ensuing sections, we shall see as a preliminary, a brief exposition of Aristotle’s scientific method.
Afterward, we shall consider the implication of scientific theories as proposed
by different scientific philosophers. Then, we shall make a comparison of
inductive and deductive methods of science. Finally, we shall conclude by summarizing its
salient points.
1.0
ARISTOTELIAN
SCIENTIFIC METHOD
According to
Aristotle, scientific inquiry begins with
knowledge that certain events occur, or that certain properties coexist, and
scientific explanation is achieved only when statements about these events or
properties are deduced from explanatory principles, which are induced from particular events or coexisting properties of
a particular phenomena.[3]
However,
Aristotle, conceived induction as a necessary but not sufficient method of
attaining scientific knowledge.[4]
He claims that, it is the deductive process that accounts for scientific
knowledge. This deductive process is in form of a syllogism. An example is:
All
men are mortal
Socrates
is a man
Therefore,
Socrates is a mortal.
This example
clearly shows Aristotle’s idea of a scientific method. The truth of the
premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion and the conclusion follows from
the premises. However, it is important to note that Aristotle placed an
important restriction on the kinds of statements that can occur as premises and
conclusions of deductive arguments in science. He allowed only those statements
which assert that one class is included within, or is excluded from, a second
class. He maintained
that a proper scientific explanation should be given in terms of statements of
this type.[5]
2.0 MODERN PHILOSOPHY OF
SCIENCE
In the modern
epoch, there was a shift in the method of science. This was imperative because
scientists had no satisfaction with the Aristotelian method of deduction. The
modern Scientists brought about the most fundamental alteration in the world of
thought and they accomplished this feat by devising new methods for discovering
knowledge. Some of these scientists and their contributions are discussed
below.
2.1 Galileo’s
Scientific Procedure
Galileo is seen as
the originator of modern science. He played a major role in scientific
revolution. To enhance the exactness of observations, Galileo invented and used
various scientific instruments like Telescope which enabled fresh knowledge.
Through this method, he made important telescopic observations of sunspots, the
surface of the moon and four of the satellites of Jupiter which were
inconsistent with the Aristotelian acceptable view.[6]
This is because he moved from particular to general in his discoveries and
hypothesis. He also made astronomical observations for Copernican theory of
motion by providing the required proof of the motion of the earth around the
sun which was also contradictory to Aristotle’s position.
Moreover, Galileo
understood that the book of nature is written in mathematical language and
recognizes that nature is composed of particles and bodies. To understand the
realities of nature, he “stressed the distinction between appearance and
reality”.[7]
He achieved this by presenting two qualities in nature namely, primary and
secondary qualities where appearance is made up of secondary qualities and reality
consists of primary qualities. These “secondary qualities such as colours,
tastes, odours, sounds exist only in the mind (consciousness) of the perceiving
subject”.[8]
For him, we cannot trust these appearances i.e. the secondary qualities as a
reliable way to truth since it has misled humanity in the past like the
erroneous conclusion through appearance that the sun moves around the earth. On
the other hand, primary qualities such as shape, size, number, position and quantity
of motion are objective properties of bodies and are essential to the very
concept of body. With this understanding, he restricted the subject matter in
nature (Physics) to primary qualities. He accepted the main outline of
Aristotle’s inductive-deductive theory of scientific procedure which viewed
science as a progression from observations to general principles and back to
observations.
For a proper
scientific analysis and restriction of scientific subject matter, he adopted
the demarcation method which comprises two stages. In the first stage, he
demarcated scientific interpretations from non-scientific interpretations.
Then, the second stage is to determine the acceptability of those
interpretations that qualify as scientific since some of them may be scientific
but not acceptable. Applying this, he noted that although scientific inquiry is
induced by the data of sense experience as Aristotle holds, but that alone does
not make for acceptable science but the expansion of the inductive techniques
to abstraction and idealization is paramount.[9]
This is a process of extrapolating from experiments that are serially ordered.
He experimented this with the Ideal pendulum and the Free fall in a vacuum
(bodies falling down inclined planes). From this experiment, we can deduce that
it enables creative imagination and intuition which is also seen in philosophy
showing an application of philosophy in science.
Scientific method
for him was an innovative combination of experiment and mathematics. He is the
first modern thinker that sees the law of nature as mathematical. He applied
mathematics to motion which is the beginning of modern science improving on
Aristotle’s Physics and method. Aristotle had stated based on human reason that
everything does not fall at the same rate; if one object is heavier than
another, it will fall faster. Galileo mathematically and experimentally
disproved this with an inclined plane heaving two bodies at the same height but
falling at the same time.[10]
Thus, he demonstrated the inadequacy of Aristotle’s Physics. The fall does not
depend on velocity but acceleration which is common to all objects at Free fall
and was later expressed as 9.8m/s. He denounced second hand information based
upon tradition and conjectures in books but adopted mathematical demonstration
through varieties of experiments. He believes that “Philosophy is written in
this grand book, the universe… it is written in the language of mathematics and
its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures”.[11]
He reiterates the process of deductive systematization as a distinction between
real and phenomenal, theorems and actual observations. Consequently, his work
marked a step towards separation of science and philosophy. The method of
observation/experiment and mathematical calculations became the hallmark of
modern science which differs from Philosophical method.
On the other hand,
though Galileo has been held as the champion of experimental methodology, he is
equally criticized for opposing experimental confirmation. He wrote in a way
that presented experimental confirmation unimportant. It got to the extent that
“there are instances in which he dismissed experimental evidence that seemed to
count against his theories.”[12]
He even dismissed the unfavourable evidence against his theory of the tides.
2.2
Francis Bacon
The
name Organon was applied to the works of Aristotle which treated of
Logic, that is, of the method of establishing and proving knowledge and of
refuting errors, by means of syllogisms. Francis Bacon, holding that this
method was insufficient and futile for the augmentation of real and useful
knowledge, published his Novum Organon, in which he proposed for that
purpose method from which he promised a better success.[13]
Bacon sets out to debunk the ancient
method of Science. He pointed out that these men who have engaged in studying
nature have misled us and that they “who have taken upon themselves to lay down
the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they
have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done
philosophy and the sciences great injury.”[14]
They have, in his view, monopolized knowledge and those engaged in it “trusting
entirely to the force of their understanding, applied no rule, but made
everything turn upon hard thinking and perpetual working and exercise of the
mind.”[15]
In order to go on
with his purpose, Bacon rejects the Aristotelian science and posits that his
purpose is thus to “establish progressive stages of certainty. The evidence of
the sense, helped and guarded by a certain process of correction, I retain. But
the mental operation which follows the act of sense I for the most part reject;
and instead of it I open and lay out a new and certain path for the mind to
proceed in, starting directly from the simple sensuous perception.”[16]
2.2.1 Bacon against
Deduction: With the above assertions by Bacon,
he establishes a new method, a new approach of studying nature or science and
this new method he referred to as induction.[17]
He maintains that his method is very imperative because he wanted the “entire
work of the understanding be commenced afresh and the mind itself be from the
very outset not left to take its course, but guided at every step; and the
business be done as if by machinery.”[18]
However, that
Bacon follows not the path of the ancient and their method does not in any way
deprive them (the ancients) their honour and fame for he expresses: “the
ancient authors, and all others, are left in undisputed possession of their
honours. For we enter into no comparison of capacity or talent but of method:
and assume the part of a guide rather than of a critic.”[19]
He therefore posits that he would follow different route from them. As Bacon
tilt away from the Aristotelian Syllogism, he maintains that a way forward over
deduction is induction.
Bacon asserts that
the use of deduction or syllogism has only helped in fixing and giving
stability to the errors which have their foundation in commonly received
notions than to help the search after truth.[20]
For as they have been successful in inquiry, so they have been effective in
halting inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and preventing other men's
efforts.[21] However,
Bacon accepted the main outline of Aristotle’s inductive-deductive theory of
scientific procedure which viewed science as a progression from observations to
general principles and back to observations.[22]
2.2.2 Baconian Induction:
It was necessary for Bacon to introduce
another method because it would be madness and inconsistency to suppose that
things, which have never yet been performed, can be performed without employing
some entire means.[23]
Induction method, for him is appropriate and has only two ways of searching
into and discovering truth. One starts from the senses and particulars to
general axioms, while the other, from the same senses and particulars searches
the truth and proceeds to judgment and to the discovery of middle axioms.[24]
Both ways set out
from the senses and particulars and rest in the highest generalities; but the difference
between them is important. The first way, makes a hasty judgment and does not
dwell so much on the enquiry. The second however, moves continually and
gradually, taking note of each stage till it finally arrives at the most
general axioms, which is the true but unattempted way. [25]It
is unattempted because human mind naturally tends to understand through general
to particulars. This is to avoid labour and distress. Otherwise, it will get
fatigued. This labour is therefore avoided by the use of deductive method.
Science gets its
knowledge by the verification of few particulars of most general occurrence.
What renders science active is that axioms or law duly formed from particulars
easily leads to new particulars.[26]
Bacon maintains that the subtlety of nature is greater than the subtlety of
argument, for whatever argument formed in investigation into nature is limited
which is why it gives room for another and science continues to excel.
2.3.
Descartes Deductive Method and Empirical Emphasis
Descartes like his
contemporary Bacon, believed that the highest achievement of science is a
pyramid of proposition, with the most general principles at the apex[27].
But while Bacon sought to discover general principles by progressive inductive
ascent from less general relation[28],
Descartes sought to begin at the apex and work as far as possible by a
deductive procedure. Thus for Descartes, the ideal of science is a deductive
hierarchy of propositions, following the Archimedeans[29].
For him, the deductive method of reasoning did not replace the inductive
method, but added to the tools of the scientists of that era and proved useful
on many occasions.
More so, Descartes
restricted the subject matter of science to those qualities that maybe
expressed in mathematical form and compared as ratios. Thus Descartes vision of
science combined the Archimedean, the Pythagoreans and the atomist point of
view[30].
Summarily,
Descartes deductive method required:
·
Accepting as truth only clear and distinct
ideas that could not be doubted
·
Breaking a problem down into parts
·
Deducing one conclusion from another
·
Conducting a systematic synthesis of all
things.
2.3.1 Empirical
Emphasis in Descartes Philosophy of Science: Descartes
proposes that intuitive self-evident principles are of limited usefulness in
science, as it can only yield general laws. More so, Descartes opined that the
course of physical processes cannot be determined by mere consideration of
general laws; rather he proposed that in order to deduce a statement about a
particular effect, it is necessary to know the circumstances under which the
effect occurred. Thus one important role of experiment and observation in
Descartes theory of scientific method is to provide knowledge of the conditions
under which events of a given type take place[31].
Lastly, Descartes posits
that suggesting hypothesis which specifies mechanisms that are consistent with
the fundamental laws is a second important role of experiment and observation.
For Descartes, a hypothesis is justified by its ability, in conjunction with
the fundamental laws, to explain phenomena[32].
Also, a hypothesis must be consistent with the fundamental laws but its
specific content is to be adjusted to permit deduction of statements about the
phenomena in question[33].
2.4
Newton’s Scientific Methodology
Newton’s methodology
came about as a result of Cartesian theory of abstraction that physical laws
can be derived from Metaphysical principle. Newton however opposed this method
of theorizing about nature. Further still, he upheld Aristotle’s theory of
scientific procedure. He referred to this Aristotelian inductive-deductive
procedure as the “Method of Analysis and Synthesis.”[34] He
insisted that scientific procedure should include both an inductive stage and a
deductive stage. To further support his claim, he asserts that
inductive-deductive procedure is superior to that of his predecessors in two
respects; by the use of experimental confirmation and deduction through
inductive evidence.
2.4.1
Axiomatic Method: There are three stages in Newton’s axiomatic method.
The first stage is the formulation of an axiom system. Axioms are propositions
that cannot be deduced from other propositions within the system; e.g.
everybody continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line,
unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
Through these axioms, theorems are deductively formed.
The
second stage of the axiomatic method is to specify a procedure for correlating
theorems of the axiom system with observations. Newton usually required that
axiom systems be linked to events in the physical world.
The third stage of Newton’s axiomatic method is the
confirmation of the deductive consequences of the empirically interpreted axiom
system. Agreement should be established between the theorems of the axiom
system and the observed motions of bodies. The axiom system is relevant to science only if it can be
linked to what can be observed. So, confirmation of the theorems with practical
and observable experiments is pertinent.
3.0 IMPLICATION AND CRITIQUES OF SCIENTIFIC
THEORIES
Scientific
theories have implications and the findings and opinions of philosophers about
scientific knowledge enlightens us on how inquiries progress. It is without doubt that induction as a
scientific method gained weight among modern scientists. Various philosophers
have raised concerns with accepting induction as a valid organum (tool) for
attaining scientific knowledge.
3.1 John Locke: Locke
is of the opinion that science is concerned with the study and knowledge of
nature. Correspondently, he posits that science view nature in a more
sophisticated way because science consists of collection of generalizations
about the succession of phenomena. For him, science renders judgment on the
opinion of a phenomena rather than having knowledge on that phenomena. This is
because these generalizations are probable at best and do satisfy the rational
idea of necessary truth. Thus scientific findings are mere judgments and
opinion not knowledge and certainty.[35]
3.2 Hume: As
a sceptic, Hume is of the opinion that the possibility of gaining knowledge of
necessary connectedness among phenomena is very narrow. Accordingly, he reports
his position with the aid of three premises:
a. All knowledge of matter of fact is
given and arises from the sense impression,
b. All knowledge is subdivided into
the mutably exclusive categories, relation of ideas and matter of fact and
c. A necessary knowledge of nature
will presuppose a necessary connectedness of event.[36]
Until these
conditions are met, Hume insists that knowledge of nature cannot be attained.
From this, he concludes that no scientific knowledge can be certain even
mathematics. Albert Einstein later rephrased Hume’s insight as follows: “as far
as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”[37] Hume clearly critiques the very foundation
of induction itself, which for him lies on the basic assumption that “from
causes which appear similar we [should] expect similar effects.”[38]
3.3 Kant: In
answer to Hume’s position, Kant is of the opinion that scientific knowledge is not
solely dependent on empirical experience. This is because empirical knowledge
is gained via impression but not in all cases. To prove this, Kant makes a
distinction between matter and form of cognitive experience. Accordingly, he
posited that the impression of the senses is the matter of empirical knowledge
and the knowing subject in the mind is responsible for organizing the matter,
which is the form. Having debunked the view of Hume, Kant further presents an
exposition of the principles of scientific laws. For him there are three
principles for formulating scientific laws;
1.
Principle of Permanence of substance: this
specifies that a substance is conserved throughout all change.
2.
Principle of Causality: this holds that
for every event, there is an antecedent circumstance from which the event
follow according to the rule
3.
Principle of Community: this hold that
substance are coexistent in space and as such are in interaction with one
another
CONCLUSION
Thus
far, we have tried to look at modern
philosophers of science starting with a brief exposition
of Aristotle’s scientific method that emphasizes deductive method, we then
considered the implication of scientific theories as stated by different philosophers
of science like Galileo with inductive-deductive method with no emphasis on
confirmation, Bacon’s inductive method, Descartes’ deductive method and
empirical emphasis, and Newton’s support of inductive-deductive method which he
called analysis-synthesis method. We also considered
the implications of the methods through the critiques of a few philosophers on
those methods. Thus, from the foregoing, it can be deduced that modern
philosophers of science favoured inductive-deductive method with experimental
confirmations. Their major emphasis was the method
of observation through empirical demonstration to avoid errors of superficial
appearances of things and they formed temporary hypothesis through these
observations.
[2]
Cf. Gary Hatfield, “Scientific Method” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Version 1.0, (London and New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 399.
[3] Cf. John Losee, Historical Introduction to Philosophy of Science (New
York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2001),
p 5.
[4] Cf. Aristotle’s
Prior and Posterior Analytics, ed. W. D. Ross. (London:
Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 51.
[7] S. E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, 5th
ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1994), p. 218.
[11] Drake Stillman, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (New
York: Doubleday publications, 1957), p. 237.
[13] William Whewell, Novum
organon renovatum (London: John W. Parker and Son, West Strand, 1858), pp.
1 – 2.
[14]
Francis Bacon, Novum Organon (London: William Pickering, 1844), preface,
p. 1, Hereafter Preface.
[17] Francis Bacon, Novum
Organon (London: William Pickering, 1844), Book 1, no 14. Hereafter, Bacon.
[21]
Francis Bacon, Novum Organon (London: William Pickering, 1844), preface,
p. 1, Hereafter Preface. P.1.
22Bacon,
Book 1, nos. 13 – 14.
[37] Ibid., p. 93.
Comments
Post a Comment