Somerville constantly alludes to
“universal laws of the universe,” which seems like a problematic term to
me. Is she implying that it is
possible to understand and have access to these laws? Or rather, is she saying that we attempt to understand these immutable laws of the universe, even
though we don’t have access? Or is
she claiming that these laws are ever-changing in light of new science? (But then that seems to undercut the
idea of an “immutable” law.)
This
tricky term leads to a similar problematic issue: Somerville’s definition of science. She defines science as the “pursuit of truth,” but does this
imply that truth is accessible? To
me, having taken a Philosophy of Science class, the idea of a “pursuit of
truth” seems silly: science raises more questions than answers, and “truth” is
an indiscernible measurement. Even
if there were a “truth” in science, we’d never know if we’ve reached it. We may seek truth, but we’ll never get
there; this is why science produces theories, not facts. Somerville herself places weight on
induction when discussing outer space, but induction is simply “truth” by means
of assumption; with induction, there is no logical syllogism that would imply
truth in all possible worlds.
Despite
my quibble with her definitions, I admire Somerville’s multidisciplinary approach, and it seems to me, that Somerville doesn't even need to evoke the "pursuit of truth" to arrive at a connection between sciences. In my Philosophy
of Science class, we read an article from Quine, who claims that paradigms work
like spider webs; one has to adjust a strand of the web when changing a theory,
but as a whole the web remains stable (which reminds me, also, of Diderot’s web
analogy in D’Alembert’s Dream.). I
particularly like the idea that the “web of belief” does not stop at our
scientific paradigms, but rather, the web spreads even further:
to the expanses of all subjects.
And you? Do you have a problem with her definitions too? What do you think of the web of belief as the aim of science, versus truth as the aim of science? And do you agree that Somerville implies a web of belief when she says: “the innumerable
instances might be given in illustration of the immediate connexion of physical
sciences… will ultimately embrace almost every subject in nature for its
formulae?”
I agree with Somerville that we will eventually be able to unite various scientific disciplines in one relationship; in fact, I think we've already reached that point. However, I'm not convinced that the relationship can be described as a non-hierarchical web. I think it's more like a loosely connected pyramid with math and physics on the bottom and social sciences on top. The disciplines higher on the pyramid can only be thoroughly understood by using the disciplines under them. There is absolutely a connection between all scientific specialties, but there is also some degree of order to it in a Great Chain of Being kind of way.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHaving also read that Quine article, I would have to agree that the relationship between different areas of knowledge is like a web. This is what makes the separation of academic disciplines seem so artificial to me; no matter how hard one tries to separate them, there will still be threads of connection. However, I'll have to directly, but respectfully, disagree with me. As a student of the social sciences and humanities, I have not needed any knowledge of the natural or "hard" sciences in order to understand my fields of study. Such knowledge acts as a supplement, not a prerequisite.
ReplyDeleteSomerville's scientific paradigm appears to be predicated by a belief in Christianity and specifically Creationism, while more modern views may operate independently, divorced from one's opinions on religion. Her description of science and scientific laws ultimately "rests upon a few fundamental axioms which have eternally existed in Him" (17), suggesting that God described a few fundamental rules for His universe in the moment of creation. Somerville's paragigm therefore takes on the mantle of searching for these fundamental laws. In her worldview, they exist immutable and fundamental since they arise from God.
ReplyDeleteAn irreligious, meaning strictly without (not against) religion, scientific paradigm does not necessarily imply that there must be fundamental rules for how the universe works. Humanity has created scientific "Laws", thought to describe immutable constructs, but no sooner than such laws are created a counterexample arises to render them fallible (modern science has taken to renaming the central concepts as theories, to avoid this problem). Nevertheless, without a God at the bottom, who is to say how far down the rabbit hole goes? There need not be an end to the quantum weirdness that exists inside of atoms, just as there need not be an end to the universe we seem to inhabit. Science exists to push the boundaries as far as they will go; beyond them lies the realm of philosophy and religion.
I would tend to agree with Ben, who says that the connection of disciplines is — ultimately (key word) — more like a pyramid. I think Quine's web analogy is a very astute one; however, I think if a strand is subtly nudged out of place and the entire web has to re-situate itself as a result, then that is only because an inherent hierarchical structure exists in order to organize these relationships. On the other hand, maybe the opposite is true — maybe connections are forged in all different directions, and the "pyramid" is generated out of those connections. Regardless, I think it's interesting that Somerville wrote about "laws" versus "principles": "Not only the sun and planets, but the minutest particles, in all the varieties of their attractions and repulsions — nay, even the imponderable matter of the electric, galvanic, or magnetic fluid — are all obedient to permanent laws, though we may not be able in every case to resolve their phenomena into general principles." So what's the difference? How does that affect what Lauren discussed in her post?
ReplyDeleteBy defining science as "the pursuit of truth", I think Somerville has inherently connected all disciplines. From science to religion, art to philosophy, discovering truth seems to be the underlying question of man's existence, as expressed in every outlet we humans could find to help us discover the truth of our lives and the world around us. Whether there is an ultimate Truth or just many truths that comprise our individual experiences, we constantly search for answers. As Lauren mentioned in the web analogy, it doesn't seem like there is one Truth-- at least that we have found, although I doubt we'll stop trying to find it-- but rather, a web comprised of truths that are more flexible, shifting around according to our needs and discoveries. With Somerville's religious leanings for explaining things, it seems that she may ascribe Truth status to religion and creationism, but even that has become just one "truth" of many in our current "web".
ReplyDeleteI also had some trouble with Somerville's use of the word "truth." By defining science as a "pursuit of truth," she seems to be placing far too much emphasis on the end result of experiment, studies, and research endeavors. Often times, the investigative/observational journey is just as important as the results. The word "truth" also seems far too definitive; as Lauren stated in her post, science often raises more questions than answers, and we can never actually know when we reach that "truth." As for a web of belief being the aim of science, I'm not quite sure that I agree with that either. The image of a web seems too fragile in my mind; what happens if a strand needs to be removed? Sure, a strand can be shifted or altered slightly, but will the removal of a strand (after disproving a scientific theory, for example) cause the web to collapse because everything is interwoven?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think the confusion with Somerville’s terms is actually quite indicative of the pursuit of reason and knowledge. Like Lauren, I felt conflicted by the use of phrases like “general laws,” “truth,” “immutable systems,” and “web of belief.” These terms seem to only create a “web of confusion.” How does she know that all started from the same origin point, that immutable laws exist, and that all came from Him? She seems to be saying that more discoveries and theories are made based on observation and research of existing systems and facts. But how does she know that these theories will be proven incorrect later on? How can we know that anything is “immutable” if she says that science and the interconnection between disciplines is always changing? Unfortunately, it is only at the end of the passage that Somerville gets past scientific example and says, point blank, what she means. Somerville says, “Innumerable instances might be given in illustration of the immediate connection of the physical sciences, most of which are united still more closely by the common bond of analysis which is daily extending its empire, and will ultimately embrace almost every subject in nature in its formulae” (117). This statement is the thesis and key to her argument.
ReplyDeleteEinstein stated that a "law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability," with which I would contend most scientists agree. He goes on to say that there is one law in particular that "is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.” If this theory is accepted to be correct, then this law seems to be a "truth" of the universe, or at least as close to a truth as we can fathom.
ReplyDeleteHowever (in parallel with Lauren's assertion that science raises more questions than it answers), it seems like the more we learn, the more convoluted the principles and theories become in order to account for all of the phenomena we observe. This would indicate that we are actually moving away from these truths that we seek.
At the same time though, if one accepts the idea that there was some point of creation or initiation of the universe, we are at the disadvantage of working backwards to find its cause. Who is to say that eventually, with more discoveries, we will be able to put forth more elegant, overarching, and concise theories, and find the truths that constitute this origin?
All in all, I do believe that there are truths out there, an example possibly being the law that Einstein mentioned (the Second Law of Thermodynamics). But I do think that finding more of these truths will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. I cannot foresee a time when we as humans would be content with the amount of knowledge discovered stop searching. As Lauren touched on, how would it be possible to know when a truth really is discovered or when there is nothing left to learn?
I do not find issue with the pursuit of higher understanding as the goal of scientific endeavor. After taking Janelle's class last semester, I would be unwise to replace "higher understanding" with "truth", since we spent the semester questioning the validity of truth. It is true that scientific discovery and advancement usually yields more questions than answers, modern physics is a great example of this, but the questions that arise influence further discovery and more and more answers. Lacking all the answers does not hinder the benefits of new answers and solutions and as Miles stated, with more discoveries comes more elegant, overarching and concise theories. Einstein's theories may have disproven classical physics and left many unsolved problems but he also gave us an elegant understanding of light and electromagnetism.
ReplyDeleteAs far as representing different areas of knowledge as webs or pyramids, I would argue that the web analogy holds but that a hierarchy exists like the levels of a pyramid. The central strands provide a lattice from which the web might be extended.
First, I intended to reply to Lauren's post but I can't figure out how to reply without replying to a comment. Second, I think that you raise an interesting question that I have also grappled with in a philosophy class. What is truth is probably one of the most heavily debated philosophical topics, and I happen to believe that the "truth" cannot exist. Somerville argues that "All the knowledge we possess of external objects is founded upon experience, which furnishes facts..." However, scientifically speaking, our experiences are objective. How we experience things -- how we perceive things-- vary from person to person. People have intrinsically different sensory circuitry. If how I experience the vision or taste of an apple may be different from how you experience the same thing, how can it be true that what we are experiencing in an apple? That being said, I think that a web of belief is much more realistic than defining science by truths.
Delete