Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, Simplified
1. 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; beyond this he neither knows anything nor can do anything.
No one can understand or do anything about anything s/he has never seen before.
19. There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable, proceeds to judgment and to the discovery of middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.
There are two ways to answer a question. One is to look at the proof, and make a leap of logic. This is what is common [in Bacon's time]. The other is to use the proof and examine that proof for answers, like the scientific method. This method would work, if people used it.
22. Both ways set out from the senses and particulars, and rest in the highest generalities; but the difference between them is infinite. For the one just glances at experiment and particulars in passing, the other dwells duly and orderly among them. The one, again, begins at once by establishing certain abstract and useless generalities, the other rises by gradual steps to that which is prior and better known in the order of nature.
Both ways [of answering a question] are similar in the fact that one starts off with 'proof', but nothing else relates the two. One barely glances at the proof, while the other uses the proof to puzzle out the answer. The first method remarks on a series of useless facts, while the other is a step-by-step process.
31. It is idle to expect any great advancement in science from the superinducing and engraving of new things upon old. We must begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve for ever in a circle with mean and contemptible progress.
It is lazy to expect different results when repeating the same things in a new dress. If we ever want to get anywhere, we need to start from the basics.
36. One method of delivery alone remains to us; which is simply this: We must lead men to the particulars themselves, and their series and order; while men on their side must force themselves for awhile to lay their notions by and begin to familiarise themselves with facts.
We [the scientific community] can only present our findings in one way: we have to show people the proof, what was discovered from that proof, and how; the people themselves must make themselves listen. We can not force anyone to learn.
To read more of Bacon's Novum Organum, click here.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Geocentric
I enjoy debates, and debating, and I always enjoy trying to be a convincing devil's advocate. It is an interesting exercise, usually. This is the argument that I was just imagining:
What arguments for a geocentric universe might one be able to make today in a debate over heliocentric vs. a geocentric, particularly against a high-school student with a background similar to mine? If you can not prove your side right, it is acceptable to keep from being proven wrong.
original theory -> argument towards it being true.
crystal spheres -> who says that crystal is the substance, as supposed to a description thereof? Beyond that, there is something keeping the planets and stars from changing position too much. No reason you can't call it a series of crystal spheres, and no reason it would not seem like a set of complicated spheres/ 3D ovals.
revolve around the sun -> Have you ever seen the earth revolve around the sun? No? Then you are just basing your knowledge on things you have no proof of, and have never seen. You just trust what others are telling you, and that does not mean it's necessarily right. Point in case: witch burnings, sacrifices, every time the government has exploited the unwashed masses, etc. You say there are movies that exist, showing the earth rotating around the sun? Ignoring the fact that the sun would be too bright to look at, videos are easy enough to fake. First rule of Descartes' method: "don't take anything for true which you do not clearly know as such".
heaven -> ignoring all the arguments that it doesn't exist, there is no reason it might not simply be beyond the horizon. Since heaven is religious, and religion by definition can not be proven T/F, this topic will be left be.
What arguments for a geocentric universe might one be able to make today in a debate over heliocentric vs. a geocentric, particularly against a high-school student with a background similar to mine? If you can not prove your side right, it is acceptable to keep from being proven wrong.
original theory -> argument towards it being true.
crystal spheres -> who says that crystal is the substance, as supposed to a description thereof? Beyond that, there is something keeping the planets and stars from changing position too much. No reason you can't call it a series of crystal spheres, and no reason it would not seem like a set of complicated spheres/ 3D ovals.
revolve around the sun -> Have you ever seen the earth revolve around the sun? No? Then you are just basing your knowledge on things you have no proof of, and have never seen. You just trust what others are telling you, and that does not mean it's necessarily right. Point in case: witch burnings, sacrifices, every time the government has exploited the unwashed masses, etc. You say there are movies that exist, showing the earth rotating around the sun? Ignoring the fact that the sun would be too bright to look at, videos are easy enough to fake. First rule of Descartes' method: "don't take anything for true which you do not clearly know as such".
heaven -> ignoring all the arguments that it doesn't exist, there is no reason it might not simply be beyond the horizon. Since heaven is religious, and religion by definition can not be proven T/F, this topic will be left be.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Galileo's Recant
Galileo’s decision to recant was the best choice possible in the long run. Had Galileo not recanted, he likely would have been tortured, maybe even killed; while the Pope was reluctant to do so when Galileo might recant, there is no reason he might not change his mind if Galileo became a bigger threat. At the very least, he would have been arrested. He would have become a martyr for the cause of questioning everything, but a martyr rarely does much alone.
At absolute best, it would have spurred on a rebellion, which, after a long and likely body-strewn ‘war’, might have lead to a new age of enlightenment in the best-case scenario. In that case, it would be quite a while until everything settled down, and longer still until Galileo’s experiments were repeated, results found out, information published, and it still probably would not have been as respected as it was coming from Galileo. The worst-case scenario in a rebellion situation would have been a gory massacre.
Had Galileo been tortured or killed, he might have become an example of why to obey the Church, like Bruno was. That runs the risk of scaring everyone into obedience until they forget about it, or some other hero comes along.
Of all these situations, arrest is the most boring. Had Galileo simply been arrested, he would have been watched too closely to write anything useful, assuming he would have even been allowed to experiment at all.
Because Galileo did not recant, he was left in peace, in relatively good health, by the church, and was able to finish and write up his research.
At absolute best, it would have spurred on a rebellion, which, after a long and likely body-strewn ‘war’, might have lead to a new age of enlightenment in the best-case scenario. In that case, it would be quite a while until everything settled down, and longer still until Galileo’s experiments were repeated, results found out, information published, and it still probably would not have been as respected as it was coming from Galileo. The worst-case scenario in a rebellion situation would have been a gory massacre.
Had Galileo been tortured or killed, he might have become an example of why to obey the Church, like Bruno was. That runs the risk of scaring everyone into obedience until they forget about it, or some other hero comes along.
Of all these situations, arrest is the most boring. Had Galileo simply been arrested, he would have been watched too closely to write anything useful, assuming he would have even been allowed to experiment at all.
Because Galileo did not recant, he was left in peace, in relatively good health, by the church, and was able to finish and write up his research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)