Goals of Natural Science (1984)

The Goals of Natural Science Author(s): Ernan McMullin Reviewed work(s): Source: Proceedings and Addresses of the American
Philosophical Association, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Sep., 1984), pp. 37-64 Published by: American Philosophical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3131557 . Accessed: 29/01/2013 18:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Philosophical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:05:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GOALS OF NATURALSCIENCE* Ernan McMullin ofNotre Dame University As I pondered the choice of topic forthisintimidating on occasion,I reflected the choicesthatothers beforeme have made. One, in particular stood out in my mind. It was Lewis WhiteBeck's unexpected and quite delightful 1971 address, "Extraterrestrial it so wellis thatthetopic life".1 One reasonI remember intelligent is one thathas alwaysinterested me, and one to whichcontemporary philosophers in earlier have had littleto contribute.Another (unliketheirforebears centuries) reasonwas Beck'sforthright "if thispaper that,in his own words, acknowledgement were not the presidential I doubtthatit wouldbe acceptedby theProgram address, Committee".2He had clearly whatothers haveperhaps failedto see, that grasped, an occasionlike thisis not to be wasted;it is a once-in-a-lifetime chanceto do just as one pleases,withouthavingto worryabout the cold scrutiny of commentator or referee. Thereis one further reasonwhyI thought Beck'schoicea peculiarly appropriate one. He directed our mindsand imaginations to distant he evokedsomehorizons; of thatsenseof wonder thatled all of us intothisextraordinary in thing profession the first of wonder is as easilylostin philosophy, I fear, as it is place. The faculty in otherpursuits where bodiesof knowledge mustbe learnt and techniques mustbe exercised.We all needreminding now and thenof whywe ever with excitethought ment of this anciententerprise, an enterprise thattoo easilytodaycan becomea surrounded modernofficebuildings, or worse still,just Stonehenge by high-rise another ofthosehigh-rise buildings. Lewis Beck challenged us to imagine whatthe farreaches of space maycontain. I want to do something moretraditional, and, I fearmorepedestrian.Insteadof in space, I plan to voyagein time,though a littlefurther, than voyaging perhaps, are wontto voyage. The voyage willbe in theform of a story, a saga philosophers of sorts. The old Norsestorytellers wouldrecalltheir listeners to the exploits ofthe heroesof old, theirancestors, from whosevirtues and failings each new generation was expectedto learn. My saga will not be quiteso dramatic or direct. But there will be heroes,some of thempeople whosenamesare now forgotten. And there whichwe, the inheritors, mustlabor not will be achievements, greatachievements, to takeforgranted.The ancient allowedtheir stories to speakforthemstory-tellers selves. Philosophers do. So you willforgive rarely me,I know,if I end by drawing *Presidential Address delivered before the Eighty-second AnnualWestern Division of the American Meeting Philosophical Association, Cincinnati, Ohio,April 27, 1984.
37
38
APAPROCEEDINGS
somemorals. You wouldbe disappointed, if I did not. Mystory, I reassure myself, as you havealready about is to be the and portentous of that guessed, complex origins we somewhat human call "doingscience". activity inelegantly 1. Thebeginnings: Babylonia If one searches in the ancient worldforthefirst tracesof whatone couldin some focusseson two regions, Babyplausiblesense call science,attention immediately have put forward claimsforeach of lonia and ancientGreece. Historians priority that cradleof science. Asgar theseareas as the original Aaboe,forexample, argues in astronomy from theWestern tradition is entirely derivative Babylon: notonlytheprincipal carrier Mathematical was,however, astronomy of certain butit becamethe andgenerator mathematical techniques, it their learned from which modelforthenewexactsciences princival ofa particular a mathematical classofnatural description goal: to give thatcanbe tested numerical capableofyielding predictions phenomena that matheIt this sense I observations. is in that claim Babylonian against ofall subsequent endeavor in the serious wastheorigin matical astronomy exactsciences.3 On theother hand,Geoffrey Lloydwrites: Greece is a in ancient of philosophy andscience The development as theWestern ofthought. So far in thehistory uniqueturning-point and maybe saidto origiis continuous world with, goes,ourscience Greece.4 natein ancient is not hard to discover. Aaboe and The source of the apparentdisagreement and it is indeedtrue of sciencein mind, conceptions Lloyd have two verydifferent Greece. and the otherto ancient that one of themcan be tracedback to Babylonia and thenwhytheyremained to see how each originated, It will be instructive sepaat least)untilthe 17thcencommunities (in astronomy, rate,embodiedin different tury. about thetime can be said to beginsomewhere side of thestory The Babylonian the to the cuneiform B.C. According in the 18thcentury of Hammurabi tablets, of both means men to communicated that the believed omens, by gods Babylonians lunar omensdealswith in the skyand on earth.5 The oldestlistof celestial eclipses, ofthemoon, orlastappearance of first to thetimes forexample, but laterones refer, as wereregarded stars. These phenomena of the planetsand of certain prominent them to the from the as ability interpret communications, gods; messages, special and the on earth, events allowed one to anticipate crop failures, changes, political becamea but theyrapidly is unknown, like.6 How the listswerefirst put together whichrescribaltradition sortof "canon", the EnumaAnu Enlil, an authoritative overthecenturies.7 mained unchanged virtually and thengo on to associate a celestial omenwillspecify The typical configuration of Anu the True Shepherd "If of the stars eventon earth; withit some significant evil commit and will become an powerful, scintillate, person important (i.e. Orion) in thisearlyperiodof actual observations. deeds". There is no record, however,
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN
39
The omen textsmade no attempt to predict whenthe celestial would phenomena occur. Theyjust specified: whenthe following celestial occurs, expect configuration to happenon earth. Nevertheless, the diviners such-and-such whoseresponsibility it was to interpret, to changes and handon thetextsmusthavebeen alert in extend, the sky. Therewouldhavebeena strong to catalogue to try theseinorder motivation to predict thereis a crude such omen signsas lunareclipses. Although eventually astronomical table(entitled from around MUL.APINorPlough 1100 B.C. Star)dating themoon'spaththrough charts the 17 constellations of which, amongotherthings, thenrecognized, the ecliptic the real beginnings of observational are not astronomy found theseventh until B.C.8 century The phenomena of interest were,of course,the same ones alreadylistedin the omentextsfornearly a thousand before: lunar andhorizon years phenomena eclipses, of various sortslike first of planetsand constellations. Thereis reasonto sightings the observations werethe sameas thosewho had supposethatthe people recording been forso longin charge of theinterpretation of omens.9 Yet there doesnotseem to have been any attempt to improve theaccuracy of theastronomical descriptions givenin the omenlistsof the day. New copies of the listsstillincludereferences to lunareclipses on the 21st day ofthemonth or to eclipses where theshadow moves fromright to leftacrossthe moon's disc. By thistime,the omenscholars almost knew that neither of theseconfigurations can occur. It was evidently a certainly conservative tradition. highly The greatperiodin Babylonian comes quite late,during the Seleucid astronomy era from250 B.C. - 50 B.C. At thispoint, theastronomy becamefully predictive, mathematical a millennium and a halfbefore,10 and utilizing techniques developed on a tradition of planetary and lunarobservation thatby now drawing (presumably) were constructed, the timesof spannedseveralcenturies. Ephemerides enabling occurrence to be calculated forthevarious horizon as wellas forlunar phenomena, a set of numerical differences was eclipses. For each typeof celestial phenomenon, motionsof sun, moon, and planetsare irregular, specified;because the apparent were required orderfrom the in orderto extract a recurrent complexprocedures observational records.11 No attempt in was madeto followthepath of the planets the sky. Onlythe "significant" moments weretreated, the first namely appearances of the planets overthehorizon, thelastsightings, and thestationary it seems points; to regard thisrestriction as an echo of the omentradition in whichthese plausible andonlythese weresingled moments out. The goal of Babylonian was prediction, more. One can see astronomy nothing how thisgoal might havebeenlinkedto an earlier set of questions the easilyenough diviners would have wrestled with. Theywould have wantedto know in advance whentheomen-events werelikely to occur. The desirability of suchknowledge must have been evident forits realization long beforethe techniques gradually beganto be forged. whatstrikes us nowis thelength oftime it tookforthisto happen. Indeed, is obviously notenough. Desire, need,interest, Whatthe diviners would not have asked was whythe heavenly bodiesmovedas theactualmovements of themoon theydid. If theskyis a celestial message-board, and planetsare not significant. at the "message"times Only the configurations count. Perhaps thismayhelpto explainwhytheastronomers of Babylon apparently never thecausesof the planetary evenin contexts--think sought ofthelunar motions,
40
APAPROCEEDINGS
astrona causalunderstanding If their wouldhaveaidedin prediction. eclipse--where raisedto as not have is count science--and that too is a would they omy question it mustbe on the score of its predictive its observational basis,its computapower, as natural dimension tional techniques. It has no theoretical science;it makesno to explain bodiesmoveas theydo.12 whythecelestial attempt as a P-science. Its goal is to organize Let us call thissortof system phenomena and Predictive to exact view with a as accuracy prediction. economically possible the criteria convenience are, therefore, upon whichit is to be judged. operational is likelyto have in turnmay servepractical Its predictions ends,so thatP-science a as wellas cognitive a practical goal. Greece 2. Thebeginnings: were We can turnnow to morefamiliar ground. At a timewhenthe Babylonians about on earth, the skiesforomensof whatthe gods wouldbring stillscrutinizing the opposite. They to do almostexactly to theWestwerebeginning their neighbors notionsof natureand of cause whichwouldmakethe connected were formulating the gods would be needed; from in its own terms. No message world intelligible but wouldeffectively of menwouldnot be excluded in the affairs their intervention and a properly-conmodeof acting, a regular have a nature, be minimized.Things of thisnature. The goal of suchan inquiry ductedinquiry can revealthe principles occuras theydo. in question to grasp the nature, is to understand whythechanges remind historians the Greek of The politicallife us, was such as to city-state, weresought werechallenged; discussion. Opinions favoropen and critical grounds evenof themost debateled to the questioning views. Radicalpolitical for disputed but more beliefs. The outcomewas occasionally fundamental scepticism religious to the the of a often sophisticated appropriate argument-structures appreciation at came to be discussed dialectic, claimbeingmade. The topic of argument itself, of a set when "can science and that remarks begin only philosophy Lloyd length. and so "theymay assumed fora set of vaguely is substituted certainties", questions and rejection criticism from the as be represented originating exposure, exceptional one: the becomes dominant The of deep-seated epistemological beliefs".13 question canyouclaim? whatkindofknowledge cameto define as the Greeks of science, mark it, wasthus The first distinguishing in the best the is embodies. it the of wayofknowlthe quality Episteme knowledge be "eternal not it could reason no Aristotle saw attained. be that can why edge science seemedto be, and so the ideal of a definitive as geometry and necessary", on rest It would wouldbe demonstrative. wasborn. Sucha science premises ofnature rule. The first goal explicit intuitively graspedas true,and proceedby deductive of use dialectical make must the scientist reasoning is therefore though certainty; ofthescience. structure it in thefinished is no placefor alongtheway,there have forcauses. Historians of scienceis to be its search The secondcharacteristic the to have meaning came which the Greek that noted quasi-technical term,'aitia,' a term of cause, was originally responsibility. denoting personal amongphilosophers forit? In certain To ask forthe aitia of an actionwas to ask: who is responsible thathad it could mean:who is to blame?who is guilty?14Theconviction contexts, or as a has event put it: that cause, Leucippus was science animatedIonian every
41
fora reason andbynecessity".15 comesto be at random, buteverything "Nothing A secondsourceof thisconviction was themedical tradition.Lloyd draws attentionto theopening wordsof thetreatise, from On theSacredDisease,dating around 400 B.C.: I do notbelieve is anymoredivine thatthesacred disease[epilepsy] thananyother or sacred disease but,on thecontrary, justas other diseases havea nature from which so thisonehasa nature arise, they anda definite cause(prophasis).16 (physis) And at theend of thework, thewriter's is madeevenclearer: formedicine program "Each [disease] has its own natureand power,and thereis nothing in any disease whichis unintelligible or whichis not susceptible to treatment."17 Other medical writers in the Hippocratic the notionof cause further: corpuswenton to specify Wemust, thecauses(aitia)of eachcondition consider to therefore, be thosethings aresuchthat, when which arepresent, theconthey dition butwhenthey to another occurs, necessarily condition, change it ceases.18 of four"causes",or fourcomplementary Aristotle's doctrine waysof explaining is too well-known to need "The comment. causes he remarks, change, beingfour", "it is the business of thephysicist to knowaboutthemall".19 The goal of natural scienceis thusto graspthe causes of change, to explainit in terms of one or other of the fourcanonicpatterns ofexplanation. I willcall Aristotle's idealnatural science a D-science. Its goal is a knowledge of causes,where is construed demas knowledge onstration andcausesarethought to be directly grasped. Prediction role in a D-science. Testing is not needed,since plays no particular thepremisses are intuitively seento be true oncetheir constituent aregraspconcepts ed. Of course,if thenature of a beingis understood, one willbe able to "predict" whatthenormal activities of thatbeingwillbe. But thisis prediction onlyin a very weak sense. Thereis no suggestion thata goal of thescienceis to enableus to discoversomeoutcome we wouldnototherwise haveknown.Thegoalis contemplatite, a theoria, not in thesenseof beingconstructed in isolation from (Aristoexperience tle's D-science is construed as resting but in thesenseof directly upon experience), itsbeing an intellectual an understanding, ofsomepartofnature. grasp, Did Plato and Aristotle ignorethe claimsof P-science entirely?The astronomy of Plato's contemporaries had not yet reallyattained any predictive power,so the did not perhaps arisefor himdirectly. Histreatment of observational astronquestion to Simplicius, he is willing to allow omy is, nevertheless, quite puzzling. According that astronomers of circular may "save the phenomena"by usingcombinations motions.20 Butin theRepublic, he appearsto contrast thissortof astronomy with what he somewhat calls "real" or "true"astronomy.21 Observational mysteriously cannotqualify as knowledge, he insists:"If anyonetriesto learnabout astronomy the things of sense, whether gaping down,I wouldnever up or squinting say thathe of the kindadmitsof trueknowledge".22 Even though reallylearns;fornothing the starsand planetsare "the fairest and mostexactof material "we must things",
42
APAPROCEEDINGS
of realspeed thattheyfallfarshortof thetruth, themovements recognize namely and realslowness in truenumber ... Thesecan be apprehended and in all truefigures can at best not by sight".23 Predictive astronomy only by reasonand thought, serve onlyas propaedeutic. thatserves as propaedeutic thenotionof the diagram But, as Vlastoshas argued, in astronomy: Platoso wellin geometry fails thefactthat in a geometrical Whatever truth maybe pictured diagram, on the it is pictured there hasno evidentiary value.... In astronomy, is indeeda reason-other heavens hand... whatcan be seenin thevisible is true.24 in thelastanalysis, an astronomical thereason--why theory Does Plato reallyseek an astronomy whichwould not reston sense-observation? of in terms thegeometric thatreasonhas to contribute Or is he only saying figures intoa proper science? His pupilsappearto whichthe observations can be converted havetakenhimin thislatter sense,but thetextswe haveare at bestequivocal.And to deter"to strive astronomer fortheobservational his assertion thatit is pointless that minethe truth[about the stars] by every possiblemeans,"25suggests he had of observational of the highest standards failedto graspthe importance accuracy attainable. All in all, then,it seemsfairto concludethatPlato's viewson sensewould the notionof a "science"which blockedhimfrom seriously taking knowledge a warrant. as haveempirical accuracy primary science the troublesome effort to incorporate made a more successful Aristotle but in the end he failedalso. He in his accountof natural of astronomy knowledge, and the betweenthe physicist devotesa chapterin the Physicsto the differences Those the mathematician. to over and disciplines mathematician, gives astronomy listsoptics,harof nature--he in theirdiscussions whichmake use of mathematics of matheof thebranches he says,the "morephysical and astronomy--are, monics, of physics. mathematical haveexpected)themore not (as one might parts matics",26 in his moreproperly from Sincetheydrawtheir mathematics, theypertain principles dison a fundamental thanto physics.And sincehe is insisting viewto mathematics their other of the score on mathematics and between tinction things) (among physics whichuse mathematical thosedisciplines from levelsof abstraction matter, differing in hisschema in discussing methods anywhere topicsseemnotto fitproperly physical or "mid"mixed" to be of the sciences.27 Theyseem intermediate, uncomfortably willcometo be calledlater. as they dle" sciences mathematical from But wheredoes thisleavehis physics?Is he interdicted using in thepagesofthePhysics occurfrequently in it? It does not seemso; they concepts remarks thatit wouldbe absurdforthephysicist and theDe Caelo. And he himself intoaccounttheir of the sun or moonwithout thenatures to tryto discover taking astronof mathematical theresults shape.28 Yet if he cannotincorporate spherical whatsortof sciencecan he have? motions, omy into his accountof the planetary into come fully and D-science P-science between It is at thispointthatthetensions view. from Eudoxus(c. 408-355 B.C.) who was his astronomy derived Aristotle mainly of in terms sun,moon,and planets, of the for the to tryto account the first paths set a separate motions. Each of thesebodieswas assigned of circular combinations (since two of whichin each case wouldhavethe samemotions the first of spheres,
43
for the earth'sdoublemotionof rotation on its they were essentially accounting axis and revolution aroundthesun). Themoonandsunhad one more each to sphere account for deviations fromthe ecliptic;29the fiveplanetsweregiventwo more each to account fortheir their motions. spheres (and especially irregular retrograde)30 Each planetthushad a cluster of fourspheres, each rotating at a different speed arounda different on the was "carried" axis, to explainits motion. Each sphere nextoutsideit,to which itspoleswereconsidered to be attached; theplanet itsphere selfwas treated as though it wereattached to theequator oftheinnermost sphere.It seemsunlikely thatEudoxuseversucceeded in using thisingenious modelto predict, in a a veryroughway.31 But whathe did succeedin doingwas to suggest except mechanism the complex motions of sun,moonand planets, whereby irregular might in a general waybe understood.32 Aristotle took overthe system of Eudoxusas amended and tried by Callippus,33 to unify it into a singledynamic foundthe Eudoxanmodel system.He apparently defective becauseit allowedeachplanet to function independently: It is necessary, ifall thespheres areto explain theobserved combined thatforeachoftheplanets there should be other phenomena, spheres thanthosehitherto which counteract thosealready (one fewer assigned) andbring backto thesameposition theoutermost of specified, sphere theplanet situated below. Foronlythusis itpossible forthewholesystemto produce therevolution oftheplanets.34 The "counteracting" add up to 22 extra, him55 in all. Their funcspheres giving tion is to allow the cluster of spheres to one planetto be connected to pertaining the next one below it without to the latterits own motions; communicating only the single motionof thesphere of the fixedstars is to be carried downthroughout. Aristotle detailsof thesystem, and it is not at all clearhowit would givesno further work.35 He obviously thatthe enormous in complexity he was increase thought was offset of thesystem intoa single and proposing by the unification mechanism, thisgaveofa complete mechanical bythepromise explanation. A mechanical all motionupward to a First Movercould not, explanation tracing in fact, work.36 Perhaps thisis whyAristotle in theMetaphysics tries a quitedifferent modelin whichmotionin the celestial realmis brought about not by contact but by desire,and a separate Unmoved Moveris associated witheach sphere, the once more, sphereitself beingassumedto be capable of desire.37 Thisrepresents, an enormous increase in complexity overthesimple of thePhysics which cosmology terminates in a single Mover forthecosmosas a whole. One can see howhigh tidily a priceAristotle was willing to payfora modelthat, at leastin principle, couldactualworked as it did,eventhough thestyleof explanation ly explain38whythesystem used had to be an unhappy blendof themechanical and theteleological: "onlythus is it possible forthewholesystem to produce therevolution oftheplanets".39 Aristotle seemsto have been awareof the limitations of the awkward unionhe was attempting between(in our terms) D-science and P-science.A D-science ought to "conclude withnecessity".Buthow coulda modelthatdepended on thecumulative results of observation as well on the ingenuity of the geometer everdo this? In his own countof the spheres, afterproposing 55 as thetotaland thenadding a that47 might proviso do, he concedesthatthisis only "probable":"theassertion
44
APAPROCEEDINGS
to thinker".40Andthenwitha return of necessity mustbe leftto a morepowerful this of the the number he adds: his characteristic whatever confidence, spheres, musttraceback of Unmoved Movers.And sinceall movements mustbe thenumber bodieswhich willbe one ofthecelestial movement "the end of every to suchMovers, theheaven".41 movethrough it is easyto see howvulneclaim. In retrospect, ambitious Thisis an enormously it suggests had an The explanations rableit was, and just whyit was so vulnerable. are the to desire actionand response to them:after intuitive all, contact plausibility wasno life. Butthere in everyday we can mosteasilyidentify of motion two sources be could therewas no way thata provisional of theseinsights; real testing insight human mid-level save of no source there was ordinary evaluated; insight systematically thefindings between whentherewas a conflict In consequences, sense-experience. had founda therewas no way to arbitrate.Aristotle of D-scienceand P-science, P-science Butit couldlastonlyuntil developwayto patchthedifferences. temporary D-scientist foreventhe mostingenious forit to becomeimpossible ed sufficiently to hookthetwotogether.42
3. A science ofastronomy?
was slowbecauseof the diffiin astronomy Overthenextfewcenturies, progress and even of the accuracyrequired, observations and compiling cultiesin making neededto bring of the spherical morebecauseof the daunting geometry complexity wastheintroorder. The mostsignificant intoa single theobservations development to the concentric of two alternatives and duction geometry by Apollonius Hipparchus of Eudoxus. These werethe eccentric and the epicycle,43 each of whichemploys motionsinsteadof one, so thatthereis a secondcenterof two uniform circular of no apparent in the system, a mathematical rotation physical signifipoint-center andhencethebrightcance. Theirmainadvantage wasthatthey allowedthedistance to vary theconcentric modeldidnot. Sincethe nessoftheplanets which periodically, of the convariations were known, evenin Aristotle's time,thisfailure brightness as a majorfaultof the centric model came to be recognized amongastronomers Aristotelian system.44 to be werecoming and P-science betweenD-science By this time,the tensions that: asserts in thefirst noted. Writing B.C.,Geminus century Thephysicist or subwillprove of essence eachfactbyconsiderations or of of force, ofitsbeing shouldbe thus, better thatthings stance, willprove them intobeing and change; theastronomer bythe coming the do of or For sun, why properties figures magnitudes.... example, Wemayanswer themoon,andtheplanets appearto moveirregularly? or thatthe circles thattheir orbits areeccentric thatifwe assume willbe saved;but their describe an epicycle, stars regularity apparent in howmany differto go further it willbe necessary and examine then to be brought forthesephenomena entwaysit is possible about,so intoagreement theplanets ourtheory thatwe maybring concerning follows an admissible thatexplanation ofthecauseswhich with method.45 [physical]
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS -MC MULLEN
45
of the Aristotelian thatreaches thetruth This is a hardening position. It is physics to save the can only construct of things. The astronomer phenomena; hypotheses and eccentrics, about causes. Epicycles he cannotask questions geometrithough can be used equallywell to predict.The inference is clear:thegeocally different, are meansof prediction modelsof themselves metrical only. To findout thetruth, we mustlook fora causalaccountand thiscan be given onlyby physics.Nevertheof on the astronomer is dependent less, the physicist (it wouldseem)forthe range acceptablemodelsamongwhicha choice is to be made on properly predictively it is of an unof sortsis necessary, criteria.Thus,a collaboration though physical kind. equal Alexandrian thegreat in thework of Ptolemy, The tension cameto a head,finally, of Babylon and of the secondcentury astronomer A.D., in whomthefulltraditions to blend to meet,and who madethemostsustained of Greecewerefinally attempt between to theAlmagest, them. In the preface he drawsa quite new distinction and of the to with the realm and mathematics. has do corruptible Physics physics Mathethe qualitative not a fullunderstanding. and can thusyieldonlyconjecture, and capableof maticalsciencetreatsof the quantitative aspectsfoundin all things from thesensible order: abstraction shouldrather be called Thefirst twodivisions oftheoretical philosophy invisible thanknowledge, becauseof itscompletely guesswork theology andungraspable andunclear becauseoftheunstable nature, physics ofmatter... nature sureandunshakeable can provide Onlymathematics to itsdevotees, one approaches it rigorously. For knowledge provided itskindof proof arithmetic methods, byindisputable namely proceeds andgeometry.46 He thusreverses theorder now it is to "mathematics" thatwe given by Geminus; of things.But,ofcourse, look forthetruth it is to a "mathematics" greatly enlarged, thatit would incorporate so enlarged of Aristotle.In Book I muchof the physics of the Almagest, forexample, set of of a Ptolemy gives proofsof the immobility theearth at thecenter; to thosegiven in thePhysics, but theyare similar byAristotle areevidently taken hereto pertain to "mathematics". An analysis oftheequinox they and solsticeperiods, forexample, to show that"if the earthdid not lie in suffices the middle, thewholeorderof things we observe in theincrease which and decrease of daylight ofthelength wouldbe fundamentally upset".47 But can thissortof proofgivethekindof certainty thatD-science can? Ptolemy thatit cannot, but he is obviously thatthisis the bestthat convinced acknowledges can be done in theunderstanding of theheavens. A summary outline of the "hypothesis"of the earth'simmobility willsuffice, he says,becauseit and his otherbasic hypotheses: willbe completely confirmed andfurther with proven by theagreement thephenomena ofthetheories we shalldemonstrate.48 which This is a long way fromD-science. Here it is thepredictions thatcarry weight. He stillcallson "physical" of theoldersortoccasionally considerations (forexample, "aether is ofall bodies, theone withconstituent which arefinest and mostlike parts
46
APAPROCEEDINGS
The each other"49),but he clearlyregards themas no morethancorroborative. mainweight is to be on thefitbetween theobservations and thehypotheses proposed. The observations instance neednot be astronomical in one significant ones. In fact, he allows the terrestrial observations to overrule (in a way) the celestialones. He to have the earthrotateon its allows that it would be a "simpler conjecture"50 models. But thishypobecauseit wouldsimplify the astronomical axis, presumably of mohe says,on thegrounds of our everyday thesishas to be rejected, experience a return to themoreconventional tionson the earth's surface, arguments "physical" of Aristotle. a muchmoreserious The causal character of D-science hasalso had to be sacrificed, to theplanets he attributes motions loss. Though he frequently saysthatthecircular he had causalinterpretation. had no plausible his epicycles are "by nature", Further, an eccentric at of the deferent circles to place the center pointawayfrom planetary the earth,and worstof all, supposethatthe motionof the centerof the epicycle of theunion the deferent thusgiving circleis non-uniform,51 up thelast remnant had been built. By of astronomy motionon whichthe old D-science formcircular aboutthe is pessimistic is reached, the timethe last book of the Almagest Ptolemy of criterion thatthe predictive of simplicity and of causalplausibility cost in terms to the "devices" to No one entailed.52 the has ought object saving appearances becausethe samesortsof criteria he has had to use, he says defensively, oughtnot movewithout as to terrestrial be applied to celestial any bodies,sincethe former from theaether: resistance to fitthesimpler as faras possible one shouldtry, Rather, hypotheses butifthisdoesnotsucceed,[one should to theheavenly apply motions, thateachofthephenomena which do fit. For provided hypotheses] think it strange is dulysavedbythehypotheses, whyshouldanyone oftheheavens themotions can characterize thatsuchcomplications butofa kindto no hindrance, nature is suchas to afford whentheir evenif [the of eachpart, motions wayto thenatural yieldandgive to other?53 each are motions] opposed does give So we are back to pureP-science insists, again,one that,as Ptolemy the claimto explanatory even though about things, us a truth powerhas beenvirsome of motions, only circular spheres, tuallyabandoned. There are no carrying have been them of imaginary points. The phenomena pointsor aroundimaginary used cannotbe interpreted causally. And theonlyavailable saved,54but the devices to savethephenosinceit has failed thatof Aristotle, hasbeenrefuted, causal system, one to use both at not one is of mena. FromPtolemy's systems, liberty view, point on modelis simply the concentric and one for explanation; for prediction wrong hiscriteria. Duhemhailstheinstruin 1908, Pierre first In Sozein ta Phainomena, published a hisas providing in Hellenistic he claimsto findeverywhere mentalism astronomy the legacyof this forhis own accountof physics. He describes toricalantecedent as follows: astronomy
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN Astronomical arenotjudgements on thenature of hypotheses bearing it is notnecessary thatthey be deducible theprinciples from things; of physics, noreventhatthey with these be in harmony it principles; is notnecessary of thatthey allowofrepresentation means suitably by bodiesrevolving on one another, becauseas geometric arranged rigid fictions haveno function theappearances.55 they exceptthatofsaving
47
Recent scholarshave questionedDuhem's penchantfor reading a much later versionof instrumentalism into textsthatdo not reallysustain it. Specifically, I wouldwantto arguethathis attempt to construe as an instrumentalist does Ptolemy not do justice to the latter'sconcernto makeof mathematical a true astronomy accountof things, so faras thiscan be obtained. But themerit of Duhem'sbook is to document, even if in a somewhat between way,the deep separation partisan and prediction in the only part of pre-Galilean natural sciencewhere explanation wasat all developed. prediction to those medieval the Duhem,as one would expect,is unsympathetic writers, Arab and Jewish in particular, who fretted about thefictionalist readphilosophers and foundsomething in thisfacileseparation of thefuncingof theepicycles wrong tions of causal explanation and mathematical forexample, prediction. Averroes, of astronomy thatis "impossible arguedthata proper system oughtcontain nothing from thestandpoint of physics".Ptolemy, he goeson, "wasunableto setastronomy on itstrue foundations": Theepicycle and theeccentric are [physically] Wemust, impossible. to a newinvestigation that therefore, applyourselves concerning whosefoundations areprinciples ofphysics... astronomy genuine of todayis convenient Theastronomy forcalculation, buthasnothing to do with whatis.56 We wouldbe inclined to saythatAverroes was perfectly to require an astronoright with basicphysics. that theemphasis on spheres myto be inharmony Duhemsuggests and the like on the partof theAristotelians was no morethana concession to that inveterate human weakness formechanical modelsthathe finds equallyobjectionable in medieval Arabastronomy and 19th century British physics.But Averroes' point runsdeeperthanthat: he is insisting thatan astronomical modelideallyshouldnot have to resort to fictions, thatit shouldbe in harmony withwhatis knownof the causesinvolved. For Averroes, and other medieval thinkers whodiscussed thisdiscrepancy, Aquinas, whatmade it especially difficult to allow thatphysics could learnfrom astronomy was theirclearperception thatin astronomy one had to arguefrom effect back to cause. In such an argument, as Averroes are hiddenfrom us putit, "the principles [and] are in no waynecessitated by theknowneffects".57But thisis incompatible with that otherfeature of D-science, the demandthatinference be demonstrative, thatit proceedfrom causeto effect."In astronomy", in theSumma remarks Aquinas Theologica: we account forepicycles andeccentrics bythefactthatwe can save thesensible oftheheavenly motions appearances bythis hypothesis.
48
APAPROCEEDINGS Butthisis nota really movements sincetheapparent reason, probative of some other means be saved can,perhaps, by hypothesis.58
between ofastronomy is striking to us nowas we lookbackat thelongrecord What about the fact worried Ptolemyand Galileo is how littlethe natural philosophers the forceand how littleconcern that theirsphereslacked any sort of predictive wereincompain theirturnshowedabout the factthattheir astronomers epicycles of the day. It was not as though of the bestphysics tiblewiththecausalprinciples thata trueaccountof thecausesought the philosophers could have been unaware to whether or thatthe astronomers could have been indifferent also be predictive, real motions or not. But each side bracketed modelsrepresented theirgeometrical aresupposed as professionals and wentaboutitsownbusiness, the awkward questions, to do. 4. Theoretical science now to the denouement I am goingto proceedimmediately you have been exin the new scienceof of explanation and prediction the comingtogether pecting, I can (at last) afford is wellknown, the 17th century. Since thispartof the story four can be distinguished. to move quickly. Focussingon astronomy first, stages it predicted, dilemma: in thePtolemaic was stillcaught First, astronomy Copernicus' was not willnotionsbut did not explainthemcausally. And Copernicus planetary thatso manyof his predecesstatusforhis astronomy ing to accept the fictionalist overthat had clearexplanatory sorshad settledfor. Thoughhis system advantages he was still of the epicycles he could not givea causal interpretation of Ptolemy, undercut Aristotle's whothough he had successfully to use. NorcouldGalileo, forced causalaccountof his own. an alternative had not yet been able to fashion physics, reasonto expectthatthe withterrestrial His union of celestial gave every physics was over. Butit must and mathematical between astronomy physics longseparation if eventhesimplest motion to tryto explainepicyclic haveseemedhopeless causally forin causalterms.It was not accounted of fallwereas yetonlydescribed, notions so in the shouldproceedin mechanics, unclearto Galileo how causal explanation without it. he builthiskinematics interim and and the eccentrics, did away withthe epicycles It was Keplerwho finally to had been forced of a "mean sun" whichCopernicus construct the mathematical orbits the that of his the center as By showing planetary system. planetary postulate in thata singlesortof causal actioncentering he made it plausible were elliptical, thisspecuwhocarried of course, Andit was Newton, be responsible. the sun might of the to thelevelof science. But whatkindof science? Something lationthrough was assuredly mechanics celestial old ambiguity stillremained.Newton's predictive. Butwasit explanatory? ofattracthathisconcept did not believeit was. Theyargued Manyof his critics was convinced ton did not reallyexplainwhythe planetcircledthesun. Berkeley no more;it gave no causal understanding was a P-science, that the new mechanics askedthereader in thePrincipia himself of motionat all in hisview. EvenNewton were,and to to lay aside the questionas to what sortof causestheseattractions We know motions. for the he had mathematics the focus on provided descriptive
49
of Newton's own thinking, to be surethathe did takehisdynamics enough however, to provide a causal accounteventhough he realizedfullwell thathis forces could their effects.59 onlybe specified through If the only naturalscienceswere mechanics it would be hard and astronomy, to decidewhatsortof scienceresulted from of the theunionin Newton's Principia two disparate linesgoingback overthe centuries to Babylonia and to Greece. But therewere othernaturalscienceseven in the 17th century, and it is fortunately mucheasierto decidein the case of the others whatthe goals of the new science would be and how theyrelateto thoseof the D-science and P-science thatpreceded it. Let me retrace my stepsjust a littlefirst. The reasonthatnatural philosophers in the Aristotelian tradition had tendedto regard theepicycles of Ptolemy as fictive devices was not merely becausetheywerearrived at in hypothetical fashion practical or because theywere thought to be predictively to otherpossiblegeoequivalent metrical models. It was becausetheywereincompatible withwhatwas thought to be the trueexplanatory of concentric account,the D-science spheres.60Neverthethattheissueofthevalidity ofarguing less,it is trueto say thatit was in astronomy fromeffect back to cause in a hypothetical way was mostsquarely joined,as the famoustextsin the Posterior about the non-twinkling character of the Analytics of waning of themoonalready indicated at thebeginplanetsand the manner right of thestory. ning The more generalissue of ex suppositione or consequential) (or hypothetical was extensively debatedthroughout the Renaissance. But whatblocked reasoning was the fixedpresupposition thatsomehow the equivalent any sort of resolution of a demonstration had to be reached, thattheregressus from to cause must effect be madeto yieldthesortof certitude one couldimmediately havein a propter quid from causesto effect. argument The turning-point with maybe said to havecomewithDescartes.His experience such sciencesas optics,meteorology and physiology, convinced him,to quote the famous linesfrom theDiscourse on Method, that: The power ofnature is so ampleand so vast, and these principles andso general, thatI almost never [ofmyscience]so simple notice effect suchthatI do notsee right anyparticular awaythatit can be derived from thoseprinciples in many different ways.61 Since each of thesedifferent is imwaysyieldsa different cause,demonstration was reinforced possible. This conclusion voluntarism whichled by the theological him (as it had done manyearlier to assertthatGod could have brought thinkers) about the effects we perceive in an infinity of causally different then, ways. What, wasto be done? I knowno other thanagainto search forcertain expedient experiments which aresuchthattheir result is notthesamewhen we theeffect as when we explain explain it by by onehypothesis another.62
50
APAPROCEEDINGS
how this Bacon had alreadyshownin muchmoredetailin theNovumOrganon sortof systematic of out. And as be carried experimental testing hypotheses might of working the century woreon, thismethod to causalhypothesis, back from effect thatcan be observationally whichis thentestedby drawing checked, consequences in optics, in chemistry, in the physics becamemoreand morethe norm ofgases, and elsewhere. was But therewere two reasons,in particular, why the methodof hypothesis on the of the centuries to be required, why the hesitations gradually recognized werenow so firmly setaside. science partof thosewho held out fora demonstrative accidental at leastin its The first an almostaccidental was the telescope, discovery, in thought at thetime. It raisedissuesabout relative to otherdevelopments timing or lunarshadows, whichcould or of distant like comets the nature objects, sunspots for not possibly be handledin any otherthana hypothetical way. The conditions since an intuitive D-scienceclearlycould not be realized, an Aristotelian graspof natures could in no way be attained. Onlya hypothetical thesedistant argument, drawnfromit, and not by any qualityof self-evidence tested by the predictions wouldsuffice. or perceived necessity, that the was the almostuniversally sharedconviction Even more fundamental in of minute terms of had to be corpuscles, explicable qualities things perceived to us. It is not easy to explain themselves just whythiscorpuscular imperceptible sinceit had as yet (and took hold in the seventeenth so quickly century, philosophy indeed fora long timeto come) no reallytestable consequences. But the success of bodieswere made it plausiblethatif themacro-properties of the new mechanics an "invisible at all, it would have to be by postulating to be explained realm",as and motions accountedforthe perceived Newtoncalled it, whose properties qualisensesecondary.It was evident and thusmadethemin an ontological ties of things of hypomethods to all thatthisrealmcould only be approached by the tentative it seemlike more to the And Locke, philosophers empiricist-inclined thesis-testing. werenot muchin the way of knowledge, of thisyielding the prospects ed as though bright. a newideal of science. The goal hereis, of course, Whatwe have in the making of causes",but there as "a in Aristotle's can still be expressed knowledge phrase 'cause'. andone in theterm one in theterm are twocrucial modifications, 'knowledge' as definiviewedas demonstrative, thatscienceyieldsis no longer The knowledge testing.True, fallible, upon continued dependent tive,as necessary.It is probable, not leastbecause untilwellintothe 19thcentury, to be disputed thiswill continue of an oldseemedto manyto provideat least one instance Newton'smechanics and thusthatprediction is needed, D-science. Butthe notionthattesting fashioned to say once and for I am tempted was grasped, is now a necessary partof science, be and explanation could No 17th the in prediction century. longer all, already of an acceptable as theyhad been forso long. Now the maintestimony sundered thatis, to entailtestableconseto predict, its ability will be precisely explanation thata science it had to be shown an this was that Note discovery; empirical quences. It could was and of the plausibly possible. prediction fully joining goals explanation in thatcentury discoveries be arguedthat this was one of the mostrevolutionary revolution". of "scientific but more in the notionof cause was equallyfundamental, The transformation observed effects back to causesnotthemselves observed required ambiguous.Tracing
51
theproduct a theory, and in timethenotionof a "theory" cameto meanprimarily of this sortof retroduction from effect to postulated cause. The cause in such a and its warrant is no morethan, and no less than,the case is defined by the theory, itself. The cause is thuswhatcamelaterto be calleda "theoretical entity". theory The minute wouldbe "causes"in thatsense. of thecorpuscular particles philosophy effects.Theyare agencies about,explain, cause,theobserved postulated Theybring or agent forthevery of explaining. theefficient therefore, Theyresemble, purposes is in being"hidden",thatis, causes of the Aristotelian scheme;wheretheydiffer whosepropernot given in observation. Theymaybe constituent partsof theentity like sunentities ties are beingexplained, or theymay be distant or imperceptible whosenature or evenwhoseexistence canbe inferred onlyin a theorespotsor ethers, ticalorindirect way. The notions of theory and theoretical to thisnewly are thuscentral entity emergwe can call T-science.In T-science, which thepredictive ingmodelof science, power of P-scienceblendswiththe explanatory characteristic of Dforcecharacteristic science. Therecan no longer be a science or one which which merely merely predicts, but without it a causal substructure, beingable to specify explains. If it predicts to explain, but may be usefulbut it is not sciencein the fullsense. If it purports does not permit testableconsequences to be drawn, thereis reasonto doubtthe ofitscausalclaim. genuineness Whatconfused, and to some extent, the issuewas a muchweaker stillconfuses notionof cause promulgated What Hume. makes a "cause" in his by something foundto precede theeffect and to be spatially eyesis its beinginvariably proximate to it. But forhim,both effect and causemustbe observable, and to explainis no more thanto pointto an antecedent in thepasthas alwaysbeen found which with thisexplanandum.No place herefortheoretical entities or hidden of any agencies sort. The warrant forthisdrastic oftheexplanatory restriction ofscience was, ability of course,Hume'sradicalempiricism.63 Buthis accountof causewouldhavemade nonsenseof muchof 17thcentury of the entire effort of the corpuscular science, to the of things philosophy explain perceived by meansof causesthemproperties selvesnot directly in perception.Insofar warranted as Hume could have had any sciencein mind,it could onlyhavebeen mechanics, and evenmechanics onlywithout the conceptof forcewhichhad originally been the key of its success. In the new sciences, lawlikeness is not an explainer, it is whathas to be explained. The observed of an A-type witha B-type a B whenwe conjunction mayhelpus to explain findone by suggesting thatit was causedby an A. But thisis onlya preliminary to science. Whatwe will ultimately wantto knowis whatunderlying itself structure, not observed, is responsible forthe co-occurrence of A's and B's in the first place. it is difficult to know indeed In a P-science of theancient of the Humean)sort, (or as ad shouldeverbe regarded which"'savesthe phenomena" why any hypothesis it is theunderlying hoc.64 In thenewer notionof T-science, causalstructure ampler and thead hoc. between theproperly which helpsto discriminate explanatory is a knowledge ofcauses,I do notmean Thus,whenI say thatthegoalof T-science 'cause' to be takenas Humetook it. OrifI wereto saythatT-science aimsat theoreI wouldnot want'theoretical' to be construed ticalexplanation, as 'deductive-nomowith of the Humeandoctrine. version What is wrong logical',to jump to themodern thatdoctrine is thatit does not do justiceto therichness even oftheoretical science, the scienceof Hume'sown day,let alone theimmensely structural sciences complex
52 thatbeganto takeshapein the19thcentury.65 5. Some morals story of this
APAPROCEEDINGS
thatbearon from thislongtale,morals And now it is timeto drawsomemorals clarifiI a few of But before "The natural science". do, necessary goals my topic: of science I am thinking cationsfirst.WhenI speakof thegoalsof science, primarily commonin itsother, notofscience on thepartofa skilled as an activity community, article. And or research set downin a textbook er, senseas a bodyof propositions term.There I am taking theterm, 'goal',in bothof the mainsensesof thatslippery exthegoalsthatscientists or acknowledged), are theideal goals(also calledexplicit are theactualgoalswhich work. Andthenthere as theaimsof their specify pressly to be as a teloswasthought somewhat in the activity are embodied by Aristotle itself, whatscientists from motion.Theidealgoalscanbe discovered in all natural embodied of scienthecommunity within therecan be considerable disagreement say, though whatscientists scrutinize to them. To learntheactualgoals,one must tistsin regard whatwouldcount itself of theactivity from thestructure do, and tryto determine Thereis roomfor with to I do tried in as astronomy. as "success" it, Babylonian of scientific instance of a the actual activity particular goals regarding disagreement success willestimate differently. becausedifferent interpreters also,mainly the ideal goals between of Greeksciencewas the divergence feature A striking forexample)and the actualgoals of the in the Posterior Analytics, (as enunciated But thatsortof divergence it historically. so faras we can reconstruct enterprise it againin thework, to Greekscience. One finds say,of Descartes is not peculiar of majorscienthe pronouncements or Newton. Even today,we tendto distrust reflecin the sensethattheir and goals of science,"distrust" tistson the methods to what is one can far as goingon in actually tionsdo not alwaysdo justice(so tell) do scientists what about or study. Einstein's theirlaboratory watching aphorism and is particularly to whattheysay, comesto mind, apposite, thanlistening rather haveto takeintoaccountboth himself.Historians to Einstein in regard it happens, senseof in making in one sortsof goals,and weave themtogether way or another science. in deepchanges past of mystory. Andnow,at last,forthemorals overthe centuries. Moral 1: The goals of sciencehave changedfundamentally or than rather of discontinuity simplepluralism, Whatleads me to speak change, and researchers, of scholars is the underlying by communities continuity provided communication in active same the the same methods, formed books, by taught by I meanthat havechanged, I saythatthegoalsofscience acrossspace and time. When one from and method in generation evolution a been therehas expectation gradual me to speak the same generation.Whatpermits within to the next,or sometimes beof the years,despitethewide differences of scienceacrossall of thesechanges the of Florentine and those astronomer physicist, tweenthe aims of the Babylonian as thecommunal activity linkacrossthecenturies, continuous is a living is thatthere 'science', thesameterm, To direct transformed. is gradually into nature of inquiry theterm is notto render to all ofthisdiversity equivocal. in the that when Marshall Clagett'sThe Scienceof Mechanics I can remember disciple One to some. offence title the in gave great MiddleAges appeared 1959, strenuously objectedto any use of theterm'science'foranything of Reichenbach's
53
that went on beforeGalileo's day. Even Popper,so perceptive a criticof logical in otherregards, too oftenseemsto have assumedthatthe methodof positivism and refutation, an invariant centered on modustollens, was conjecture rationality first in the17thcentury, formulated andthatwith it science began. This sortof ahistorical was effectively approach challenged by Kuhnand Feyerabend. (Recall Feyerabend's vividchapter-heading: "Aristotle not a dead dog".)66 Others sincethenhave extended their Once one the positivist argument. challenges thatthere is a uniquescientific method the effective form ofa presupposition having lessplausible to assume, much as thepositivists almost did, logic,it becomes invariably thatsciencebegan, moreor less abruptly, thelifetimes of Bacon and Galileo. during Moral2: Whatbrought aboutthechanges of goal wereforthemostpartreasons to the activity internal itself. One adoptsa goal onlyif it appearsdesirable.One modifies it if it provesnot to be achievable as it stands. One maynotknowthata certainactivity is desirable. It did not occur,apparently, to peoplesof the early first millennium B.C. otherthahthe Babylonians, thatit wouldbe desirable, within the broad pattern of humaninterests, to construct exact lunarand solarcalendars basedon a continuously-kept record. But once the activity and giventhe social and economicconditions that begins, its continuance--a crucialproviso--what will mainly tendto modify it (so it permit would seem)willbe discoveries madeby thepractitioners themselves. For example, it may gradually be realizedthatthe ideal goals thathave been propounded are in factnot achievable as theystand. Thisis whathappened withD-science in the 17th was veryslow; it was nothing likea gestalt century. The transition switch whenit came. One findsscientists of the day living in both worlds, as it were:effectively elements of a T-science other thanmechanics) constructing (as Galileo did in fields as though demonstration of theold sortcouldstill yetspeaking be attained.67Some the old ideal of science in one area,usually attempted whileabandoning mechanics, it in others. Kant'sworkprovides the most perhaps striking exampleof thissort of divided mind. In theMetaphysical Foundations of NaturalScience,he cameas close to a D-scienceof mechanics as anyonehas everdone,whilerelegating such fields as chemistry to thelowlyempirical status ofa P-science. Or the goals may be modified themin waysthatseemprofitable. by extending Ptolemyrealizedthat the predictive sciencecould be achieved goal of Babylonian in a different could establish continuous fortheheavenly orbits way if astronomers bodies and not just privileged and settings. Thisallowedtheuse pointslike risings ofmorepowerful thelimited andunexplained geometrical arithmemethods, replacing tical computation devicesof his predecessors. But thisbeganto shift the science in an explanatory, and ultimately a theoretical, direction sincetheorbits are theoretical entities, and questionsimmediately about the reality of the pose themselves as wellas abouttheagencies pathsattributed, involved in making theplanets follow the paths,questions thatsimply never arosewithin thesimpler of Babyperspective lonia. Again,instruments like the telescopeand themicroscope maybe discovered whichopen up a wholenew realmof inquiry, an inquiry whichcannotperhaps be carriedon in the traditional way. New or modified goals thenimposethemselves iftheinquiry is to havean acceptable outcome. Whatmakesthissecondmoraltimely is thetendency on the partof recent theolikethetheories ristsof science68to arguethatthegoalsof science, of science, are in terms shaped by (and ultimately and economicfactors explainable of) cultural
54
APAPROCEEDINGS
to scienceunderstood in thetraditional sense. Thatsuchfactors external cognitivist of in thiscontextcannotbe gainsaid. We haveseenthattheorigins are important were beliefs. The Babylonians lie deep in Babylonian astronomy predictive religious not originally of certain celestial but onlyin thecorrelating interested in prediction towards on earth. Likewise, the initialattitude eventswith significant happenings of natural in the genesis so important traditional beliefsin medicine and religion of sciencein Ionia may well have been conditioned by politicaland socialfeatures truth thatinfluenced and necessary the Greekcity-state. And thesearchforeternal in origin. of theideal of D-science the formation religious maywellhavebeen partly thatchangesin these to recognize been said,it is important But all thishaving in a successful communal came to be articulated goals, once the goals themselves to thatpractice.There internal seemto havebeenmuchmoredue to factors practice, in owedanything in the17thcentury of theT-ideal thatthe formation is no evidence truethat becauseit is trivially its contentto cultural factors.I say "in its content" base of the the practice of science,thenas now, dependedon the socio-economic in thatsociety. It was no accident, of learning as well as on the traditions society, forscientia fertile furnished Italiancity-states one supposes, thatthe North ground thatthe content thelate Renaissance.Butthisin no wayimplies fic activity during in somedifferential in general of its goalsderived way of scienceor the articulation another.Wemaywantto say-thanfrom rather one sortofcultural from background is causallyrelatedin all sortsof the activity of scientists indeedwe mustsay--that But thisis not to hold that and social regularities. ways to broaderpsychological the of that in methods, activity--Descartes' adoptionof hypothetical goals changes in the early culture about French to facts be explained forexample--can by recourse 17thcentury. of no partin the origins control Moral3: The goal of technical playedvirtually artisan and fullcitizen between science. It is usualto pointto thesocialseparation whichexcludedoutsiders in the ancientGreekworld,and to the craftmysteries skillsalreadyfoundnot onlyin Greece fromthe secrets of the hightechnological world. But a statein manyotherpartsof theancient but in at least as developed foritswarrant didnotdepend D-science runsdeeperthanthis. The Greek the matter natural science,as Aristotle upon the testof consequences. And the gap between was so greatthatthe idea thatone control conceivedit, and actual technological to anyone. Of the othersimplywould not have occurred mightactuallyinform whose of Alexandria Hero and like Archimedes were there inspiration course, people was such thatthe of D-science the structure But in general, was not Aristotelian. if it wereto of Nature, includecontrol that its goals oughtsomehow supposition seems that of a to an claim makea genuine entirely understandingNature, supposition from thebeginning. to us,wasblocked right plausible to diswriters sometimes Thereis a tendency contemporary amongpraxis-oriented in its goal. miss Greek sciencebecause of its being,as theysay, "contemplative" wasknowlhowever.It is truethattheidealof theoria can easilymislead, Thisterm Aristotle of for the of the sake for understanding. pure pleasure knowledge, edge the highest of thiskindconstituted argued(at times,at least) that understanding to theDivine. human goal,thegoalthatsetmanclosest was sometimes further But the given the termthatscienceitself implication inward be by to as primarily pursued of as an armchair study, something thought if not an empirically-inclined was nothing is of coursefalse. Aristotle reflection,
55
whether he was dealing withmarine or withpolitical constituresearcher, organisms tions. D-science from to begin wassupposed anchored byan intuitive grasp, premisses of the concepts an epagoge, involved.But Aristotle madeit quiteclear,bothin his discussions of method did not comeeasy, and in his own practice, thatsucha grasp thatit often withthe matter a longexperience involved.Wemight criticize required him todayforhis failure to testsomeof the claims he madeabout specific natures. But we can only marvel at the breadth and intensity involvement of his lifelong in themostminute ofthenatural details order. Ifthegoaloftechnical ofscience, control rolein theorigins little direct very played what about the emphasis it 17th in the such writers Bacon as century? given by "The trueand lawful lifebe is noneother thanthis:thathuman goal of thesciences endowed withnew discoveries and powers".69 Herewe haveto be careful.It is true that Bacon hailedthe promise of thenew sortof knowlege fortheimprovement of thehuman forundoing condition, (in hisview)the damagedone to manbytheFall. It is also true that one of his strongest criticisms of the oldernatural philosophy was of its inability to produceany tangible fruits in the technical order. But he morethanonce in theNew Organon thatin theorder ofthenewscience, emphasizes must comefirst. understanding ofprematurely Instead of fruit", one must: seeking "experiments imitate thedivine which in itsfirst created procedure day'swork only light andassigned to it one entire no material day,on which dayit produced work butproceeded to thaton thedaysfollowing.70 Bacon believes thatthe processof inquiry if too muchemphasis may be distorted is giventoo soon to matters of practical control is to be a application. Technical and in thatsensea touchstone, of the newsciencerather thana goal consequence, in itsownright. in a century so concerned withthe phenomena revealedby the Furthermore, it would hardly have occurred to anyoneto make control a general telescope, goal of science, in the sensein whichthisis oftendone today. The phrase'prediction and control'is dottedthroughout the pagesof neo-Marxist likeHabermas theorists or sociologists of sciencelike Barnes, as though somehow thetwoalways go together. But scientists of Galileo'sgeneration, both in wordand practice, madeit clearthat at an understanding of thephenoastrophysics (as we havecometo callit) aimssolely menaof comets or sunspots or novae. In no sensewas it pursued becauseof a hope oftechnological advantage. It wouldonlybe in the 19thcentury thatthenewsciences for thefirst time began to fulfill the promise that Bacon had heldout forthemof guiding and accelerating to be a far roadfrom theoretical technological change. It proved longer understanding to the details of the material thataffect lifethanBaconor Descartes human processes or the French had assumed it wouldbe. In a realsense,it had to be encyclopedists discovered thatit was possible. Though thata sciencetested logicmight suggest by its consequencesoughtto revolutionize a technology built solelyon craftskills, therewas nothing a prioriabout thathappening in thisparticular possibleworld. Moral4: Scientific is discovered in the process of attempting to realize rationality the goals of science. It has becomecustomary between todayto distinguish "logibetween the formal cality"and "rationality", of deductive processes logic and the
56
APAPROCEEDINGS
of cognitive muchbroader thatthescientist repertoire procedures requires.Rationaof of involves the the assessment and evidence; lity validity significance experimental to suchrequirements it extends as idealizaas reproducibility and to suchtechniaues tion. Aboveall, it requires theskills moreakinto the disof theory-appraisal, skills of to a the it would value than of rule.71 a cerning By now,I suppose, application such of whicha theory is assessed, be generally that the criteria admitted in terms do criteria as predictive fertility, accuracy,coherence, consistency, simplicity, not Thisis whatallowstwo sets as a set of rulesof inference. function as an algorithm, of scientists at the sameevidence--and I meanthesameevidence--to support looking to thatevidence. twodifferent as thebesttheories theories relative in the 17th century. Once one evident Now all of this was alreadybecoming of Pof D-science or the mathematical movesfromthe demonstrations predictions of T-science, a new approach of hypothesis characteristic scienceto the assessment of thishad been grasped is needed. Indeed,something to evidence long beforein medieval the of ex suppositione the discussions periodand in the reasoning during himself.But it was and synthesis of analysis richtradition goingback to Aristotle thatone scientists becamethe acceptedmethodof working only when hypothesis to or of the of the of criterion discussions to find detailed weight simplicity begins aboveall themin Bacon,in Descartes, forinstance. One finds be givento fertility, themostelaborate who in theApologiaTychonis in Kepler, perhaps provided perhaps scientist account of hypothesis-assessment up to thattime, givenby any working hisownpractice.72 from which derives almost an account entirely of therationality in recentyearsas to whether Therehas been muchdiscussion claimsforthe sciencechangesover time,and if so, what thisdoes to traditional Kuhn argued of science. In The Structure Revolutions, of Scientific objectivity "cannotbe determined that the choicebetween merely by the competing paradigms in these for normal of characteristic evaluative science, depend partupon procedures of thisis, is at issue".73 The implication and that paradigm a particular paradigm, whenparadigms of sciencechange of course,thatthe evaluative change. procedures are he saysthat "the valuesdeployedin theory-choice In a later paper,however, one from in transitions their fixedonce and forall,unaffected theory by participation to another".74 He allowsthatsmallvariations mayoccur,but thengoeson to make comment: a striking no philosophical of scientists theexperience justifiprovides Though wouldsolvethe cationforthevalues (suchjustification they deploy from thatexlearned arein part thosevalues ofinduction), problem it. with evolve andthey perience to thesevalues in regard enablesme to situatemy own position This comment arethekeyelement.Thisrationalofwhich as wellas to thebroader they rationality as Kuhn says,and as I have triedto of scientists, ity is learnedby the experience did change the evaluative markedly in detail. here illustrate procedures Furthermore, as the and later, to T-science, D-science movedfrom of scientists as the community the18thand 19thcenturies. weredebatedand testedoutthroughout new procedures of whichtheyform and the rationality in theory-appraisal The valuesinvolved is sciencein general ends to the means end instrumental the a part are in values, be can in themselves. not ends by only are realize. to justified They They expected
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS -MC MULLIN
57
the extentto whichtheyfurther thegoalsthatscienceis takento aim at. And the here is in the first instanceof a practical sort,as scientists gradually justification to attach learnhow best to understand whatrelative theseepistemic weights values, to them,and perhaps whatother valuesmight also serve as a meansto further these goalsmoreeffectively. in thiswayto thegoalsof science concedeto the Does making relative rationality of thesocialconstructionists not. The or of Feyerabend?I think sceptical challenge of science have we have in a and as seen, goals developed, progressive reason-giving basichuman the changes, as we haveseen,havecome interests; way. Theyembody in orderthat thatthe goals wouldhaveto be modified mainlyfromthe realization like the original stillbe achieved. The crucialpointis that goals might something we can tell whenidealgoalsare beingachieved or whenactualgoalsare beingmore reachedthan before. The goals of theoretical sciencehave been more effectively and moresuccessfully in their from the 17thcentury onwards. own terms, reached, Thisis thesortof warrant on whichtherationality in thefirst of sciencerests place. Butit is notitsonlywarrant. meto: Andthatbrings Moral5: The rationality of sciencecan be philosophically justified. Here I disof sciencehavelaboredso longto showis that agreewithKuhn. Whatphilosophers suchvaluesas fertility are an appropriate criterion of theory.Their arein arguments a broad senselogicalor epistemological. Whewell morethana century ago, made an elaborate theoretical case forthe "consilience of inductions" as a desideratum in at least as What in as theory evaluating important empirical accuracy. happens philoat the secondlevelwhathappensin scienceitself. That sophy of sciencereflects discovered in scientific thatcertain kindsof evaluative is, it is empirically practice or of epistemic demands of experimental procedures (likethereproducibility results) are effective in bringing about the broadly-stated goals of science. Then a theory of a philosophical sortis constructed to accountforthis. If the theory is a good one-and thisraisesfurther issues--it serves as an indirect and tentative justification ofthepractice itself. In the end, then,historicism and logicism may stillconverge.We may stillbe able to construct a philosophy of sciencethat derives both from the learning that has goneon inhistory and from a more andepistemological framework. general logical of themselves would neverhave had the resources to come Logic or epistemology like the complexand pluralistic scientific thathas up with anything methodology the naturalsciencesin recentcenturies. On the otherhand,that characterized is not just a contingent methodology fact;it can be "explained"in the empirical rather an explanation.There constitutes specialsensein whichphilosophical theory has been, of course,muchdisagreement as to whatthe best theory is here,a disthathas been particularly marked in thelasttwo decades. Buteventhe agreement of a good theory herewouldsuggest of sciencecan take thatphilosophy possibility on a normative roleas it surveys the diversity of historical andcontemporary scientific practice.I needhardly a balancethismakesbetween thehistorisayhow fragile cal and thelogical, the descriptive and thenormative.Butone moral no one expects me to draw,I hope, is thatphilosophy of scienceoughtto offer solutions! simple You will have notedthatI did not carry thehistorical muchbeyond1700. story WereI to extendit as faras thepresent I wouldwant day,theprincipal development to grapplewithis the growth of questioning in our own century, from sourcesin in history of science, and from within science in regard to theoretiphilosophy, itself,
58
APAPROCEEDINGS
cal entities. The outcomeof such questioning could be a substantial modification in the goals of T-science, a dilution of its theoretical for some component partsof at least. In itsmostradicalforms, as forexample science,like quantum mechanics, in classicalinstrumentalism or in the constructive recently empiricism proposedby van Fraassen, the distrust of theoretical wouldlead us back to someunderstanding liketheminimal very thing goalsofP-science. There is no way to handletheseissueswithout of lookingat both the practice science and the objectionsbrought againstrealismfromso many contemporary Realismand theAim of Science,Karl different quarters. In his mostrecentwork, whichis to findsatisfactory, "The of task to has this explanascience, say: Popper realism of scientific ifwe are not realists"75Critics be understood tions,can hardly so thatexplanation, this link quite clearly, and have arguedeither have perceived a is not in tact a proper construed, goal of science,or else thatit does not furnish least not forrealism. The debatehas been an unsatisfactory sufficient warrant one, for because the term,'realism', has proven almostinfinitely elastic. It is striking, is dead that realism example,to findso manyof thosewho beginby announcing with an "acceptable" version defunct ofthesupposedly doctrine... ending and the I realizethehazardsof drawing from as I havebeendoing, morals history, themorals to expect. But in theend, of finding there one is predisposed likelihood are best human I see no better way to proceed. The goalsof any complex activity hastaken as faithfully as one can,howthatactivity shape. byrecreating, grasped
FOOTNOTES
1Proceedingsand Addresses of the American PhilosophicalAssociation, 45, 1971-72, 5-21. 20p. cit., p. 5.
F.R. Hodson,Oxford:Oxford Press,1974, 21-42; see pp. 41-2. (Thisalso appeared University
as Phil. Trans.Royal Society London A, 276, 1974).
3"Scientific astronomyin antiquity", in The Place of Astronomyin the Ancient World,ed.
andExperience, Press, 1979,p. 264. Reason, University 4Magic, Cambridge Cambridge: ofChicago revised Press, 1977,pp. 207-8. byE. Reiner, University
5See A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization,Chicago;
omentextsmakemanifest in a schematic orderof all phenomena; the belief 6"Babylonian that events an assumption reflects intothefuture courseof events couldbe obtained thatinsight was susnevertheless one which in accordance withsomeinterpretable wereprearranged design, neither causally considered to the forces of magic. The courseof events was thereby ceptible thereof".Francesca connected withthe signs norinevitable thatportended consequences them, in Mesopotamia", Archiv "Fate and divination 19, 1982, furOrientforschung, Rochberg-Halton, to literature on the forreferences to Dr. Rochberg-Halton 363-371;see p. 368. I am indebted lists. ofthese ofthesignificance as wellfor ourdiscussions omen-lists, early Babylonian words: "When 7'Enuma Anu Enlil'aretheopening (thegods)AnuandEnlil(madetheheavens to thatofa legalpreceof theEnumaAnu Enlilwouldbe closer and theearth)". The authority on cuneiform See W.W. textof Scripture. dentthanto thatof a canonic Hallo,"Newviewpoints
Israel ExplorationJournal, 12, 1962, 21-25. literature",
59
of tablets from 8Thousands of the Assyrian the reigns Esarhaddon (680-669)and emperors on thefirst on astral omenas, Assurbanipal (668-627) showthatin theseventh century "reports of the moon,on its opposition to thesun,on eclipses and on seismic, sighting and atmospheric otherseemingly untoward werewritten notonlyin thecapital of theempire events, [Nineveh], butalsoinall theimportant cities oftherealm".Thesereports ofcontent, exhibit suchsimilarities and physical "thatthey must be taken to reflect ofa well-established theworkings wording, shape, institution. A statewide network of observation stations with suchreports charged dispatching to thecapital wasquitelikely inexistence", A. Leo Oppenheim, "Divination andcelestial observation in thelast Assyrian of Centaurus, 14, 1969, 97-135;see p. 114. The function Empire", each report was to inform the ruler of a notablephenomenon, or atmospheric, and of celestial its"ominous" The focusis stillon theomen-character of theastronomical observasignificance. tions. In the samecentury, "diaries"or systematic records of theobservations themhowever, maketheir first c. 650 B.C. - 50 B.C.,thebulkofthem selves, appearance. Theyspantheperiod from after 400 B.C. See A. Sachs,"Babylonian observational in ThePlace coming astronomy", in theAncient ofAstronomy makes World, (III, 7; p. 103),Ptolemy pp. 43-50. In theAlmagest a famous reference to hisuse of Babylonian records thatgo backto thereign ofNabonaseclipse sar (747-734): "we haveancient observations from thatperiod to theprecompletely preserved sent". Records as old as this havenotbeenfound as yet. "Divination and celestial 9See Oppenheim, observation". thelaterSeleucidperiod During a number of writers of ephemerides aredescribed a scribe as having of theomenseries, Enumaas their ancestor.See O. Neugebauer, TheExact Sciencesin Antiquity, Anu-Enlil, NewYork: 1969,p. 136. Dover, 100ne of theoddestfeatures of thisstory is thatBabylonian mathematics attained itsheight in theveryearliest periodof whichwe haverecords (1800-1600B.C.); no further development occurred untilthe Seleucidera (300 B.C. - 50 B.C.), whenthe needsof thenewmathematical the incentive forsuchimprovements as the introduction astronomy of the mayhavefurnished zero. Babylonian mathematics remained arithmetical in approach; entirely problems (regarding as geometrical weresolvednumerically. areas,forexample)thatwe wouldregard Two classes of tablets are found. In one, a problem is formulated and themethod of solution is carefully a listof problems is given, in order ofdiffispecified, stepby step;in theother, usually arranged a number which satisfies culty. The testin eachcase is to find certain whether it be conditions, the conditions of an inheritance, of a division of land,or of an assignment of wages. A quasithesolution of quadratic fortwounknowns. algebraic allowed, technique equivalently, equations A generalized was never theproblem-types werepractisymbolism algebraic developed.Though cal in origin, it seemsclearthatthetechniques had becomean endin themselves forthescribal in mathematical groupspecializing notesthattheproblems often problem-solving. Neugebauer if the unknown "disregarded number of workmen, reality". "It is a luckyaccident foundby a quadratic is an integer.Obviously, the algebraic solving relation is the onlypoint equation, ofinterest", op. cit.,p. 42. 11Twodifferent wereusedforlunar theequivalent systems of a stepappearances, involving function (System function A, as it has cometo be called)in one case,and a zig-zag B) (System in the other. System A is older;System B is somewhat moreaccurate.But bothsystems were retained theentire which throughout wereconstructed. (250-50B.C.) during period ephemerides For planetary an evengreater of numerical calculations, methods diversity approximation appears to havebeensimultaneously in use. Neugebauer notesthatsuchpurely mathematical considerationsas ease of calculation wouldseemto havebeena majorcriterion (op. cit.,p. 115). Since thenumerical were notlinked to anygeneral to explain techniques themotions, theory purporting there wouldhavebeenno suggestion thatone of them was "right" and theothers wrong.Their function was simply to predict.Eventhough theactuallunar andsolar motions would havebeen underSystems A and B, both systems verydifferent could be retained, becausethere perhaps was not a clearenough forSystem predictive becauseSystem A was someadvantage B, perhaps whateasierto use, perhaps becausethere schooltraditions. The main mayhavebeendiffering werenottheoretical pointis thatthese differences in themodern in comsense, onlydifferences where a greater putational be tolerated. technique diversity might
60
APAPROCEEDINGS
astronoin Babylonian of the"theories theprocedures" followed 12Aaboespeaks underlying themselves "theoretical schemes" my,and callstheephemerides (op. cit,pp. 30, 35). He rightly thatthe Babylonians understood wantsto emphasize the mathematical theywere techniques itself'. Jupiter, used by themwas to notewhena planet using. Another "repeated procedure forexample, 71 years; itself whatit did 71 years every ago,it willdo againthisyearon repeats Aaboeargues, Butthis, of theearlier thesamedates. So therecord yearcan be usedto predict. itdoesnot because is likethetechnique usedin modern it is "pre-scientific" weather-forecasting; must records overthe irregularities each period",and so observational within giveus "control is "a mathematical checked. A properly astronomical stillbe constantly "scientific theory" thatcan be tested of celestial numerical capableof yielding predictions description phenomena in for criterion thisis nota sufficient observations" theory against (op cit.,p. 23). In ourusage, Butitis sufficient for science suchas astronomy. P-science. a natural 13Lloyd, op. cit.,pp. 265, 266. 14Lloyd, op. cit.,p. 52. 2. 15Fragment inLloyd, op. cit.,p. 16. 16Quoted 170p. cit.,p. 21. 180nAncient Medicine, op. cit.,p. 54. chap.19,quotedinLloyd, II, 7; 198a 22. 19Physics, 201nAristotelis de Coelo Commentaria, Berlin:I. Heiberg ed., 1894,253a 37-253b2; 248b 40-285a 1. Thereis somedoubtas to whether wouldhaveallowedthatthephenoPlatoreally often thephenomena', The phrase formalism. menacouldbe savedby anymathematical 'saving a philosopher of thesecond is notfound before thePlatonic with identified tradition, Sosigenes, indexin theHeiberg at thesubject uses it very as a glance A.D. Simplicius frequently, century of thephrase in hisview,"has led theambiguity edition willshow. D.R. Dickslaments which, the withdistorting wereconcerned idea thattheGreekastronomers to the misleading mainly schemes" theoretical of observation to make themfit into preconceived results (EarlyGreek London:Thamesand Hudson,1970, p. 258). In his book,Sozein ta to Aristotle, Astronomy translated Phainomena Chicago:Uniby E. DolandandC. Maschler, (To Save theAppearances, viewthatsavDuhemtakestheopposite of ChicagoPress,1969) Pierre (and commoner) versity of anyconto them, a mathematical formalism meantfitting independently ing the phenomena theoretical cern with interpretation.
21528E - 530C.
and H. Cairns, ed. E. Hamilton inPlato: The Collected 22Paul Shorey Dialogues, translation, modified. NewYork:Pantheon, 1961,529b. Translation slightly 23529d. inJ.Anton ofastronomy", in Plato'sconception "The roleof observation Vlastos, 24Gregory inPlato,NewYork:Eidos,1981,pp. 1-30;seep. 15. and thesciences (ed.),Science instance. translation 25530B. I follow Vlastos' (op. cit.,p. 3) inthis II, 2; 194a 6. 26Physics, thePosterior textsin theMetaphysics, the different to reconcile difficult 27It is extremely to deal with but the issueis too large thisquestion, where he treats and thePhysics Analytics here.

28193b25-30.
61
29Thesundoes notdeviate from theecliptic on theeclip(as themoondoes),anditsmotion ticis non-uniform of Eudoxus'predecessors several Eudoxus is wrong had already (which noted); onboththese scores. 30Planets at timesremain the background of the fixedstars, thenmove stationary against backwards for a certain time before their normal motion. (westwards) (eastwards) resuming 31In a famous G.V. Schiaparelli showed howEudoxus'concentric model couldbe made paper, of Marsand Venuswhich, motions inprinfairly accurately predictive (exceptfortheretrograde ciple,thismodelcannotexplain;see Aaboe,op. cit.,p. 39). But as Dicks(op. cit. chapter 6) thisis as mucha tribute as to themerits to Schiaparelli's demonstrates, convincingly intenuity of the Eudoxansystem.Our knowledge of thissystem in other from references comesentirely ancient sinceall Eudoxus' own worksare lost. Schiaparelli forexample, writers, postulates, thatour two mainsources, Aristotle and Simplicius, in regard to the got Eudoxusquitewrong relative rolesof the secondand third lunarspheres.This enableshimto set up a muchmore successful account. He also assumes an observational of the retrograde of motions knowledge the planetsthatEudoxusis mostunlikely to havepossessed. Dicksargues thatwhatmodern like Schiaparelli and Dreyer, are really are thepotentialities of a model commentators, showing of theEudoxantype, thatone has a fairly exactknowledge of planetary motions and provided ofspherical Butthese cameonly much later. geometry. of to connect the movements 32J.L.E.Dreyer arguesthat "as Eudoxusmade no attempt the various witheach other, it seemsprobable thathe onlyregarded them groupsof spheres as geometrical constructions suitable forcomputing theapparent oftheplanets" (A History paths revised edition1906, p. 91). of Astronomy, by W.H. Stahl,New York: Dover,1953, original This seemsa weakargument, bothbecausewe havenothing at all from Eudoxuson thispoint and becausethere was no reasonwhyeach planetmight not havebeenassigned a dynamically takesEudoxus'spheres to havebeen"mathematical abstracsystem.Dickslikewise independent thathe did notspeculate on thematerial of which werecomposed tions",on thegrounds they or the connections between themor thepowers thatmovedthem (op. cit.,p. 257). But first, we onlyhavea fewfragments of hiswork, and second, a lackofspeculation on these latter issues thathe regarded the spheres as calculating devices. Dickshimself by no meansentails points out how the poles of one sphere are "attached" to the nextouterone in sucha waythatit is round" "carried byit. Thisis a highly physical conception. 33Who addedseven to the26 of Eudoxus, twoeachforsunand moon,andoneeach spheres forMercury, Venus and Mars. Schiaparelli showshow the extraplanetary could have sphere enabledthe Eudoxanmodelto handlethe problem of retrograde the two spheres for motion, thesuncouldhavesolved theproblem ofitsvariable in theecliptic. motion SinceCallipapparent is lost,we canonly at hisreasons. pus'work guess XII, 8; 1073b37 - 1074a6. 34Metaphysics 35Dicksassumes thateach sphere is immediately followed in by its counteracting sphere, which eachmotion willimmediately cancelout and theplaneton thelastsphere case,of course, willnothavethedesired forthisreason, Dicksconcludes that thesystem doesnotwork motions; on the otherhand,suggests (op. cit.,p. 203). Dreyer, thatthecounteracting foreach spheres belowtheplanet and thusafter therequired planet come,as a group, havealready motions been to it (op. cit.,pp. 112-3). Thissystem would be predictively imparted to theEudoxan equivalent one; each planet'smotionwouldstillbe computed on thebasisof its own cluster of spheres thecounteracting only(without wouldbe enormously morecumbrous spheres).But thesystem inmechanical terms.
62
APAPROCEEDINGS
of the 36The motionof one sphere themotion cannotexplain, sinceit does notdetermine, and thespeedof thesecond nextbelowit. (Recall thatthe two axes do not coincide, sphere to show of thatof thefirst).The Eudoxansystem that rotation is quiteindependent was meant comtheresultant and rotating in thewayspecified, if one had a setof fourspheres, interlocking of thefour of theplanet bination circular motions couldexplain theapparently motion irregular attached to the lowestsphere. Whenwriting thePhysics and theDe Caelo,Aristotle mayhave been tempted to infer from thisthatthe motion of the first causedthatof theothers. sphere between the downward of D-science and thepostulational Confusion explanaupward causality to theend. science tionofastronomy wasto accompany Aristotelian right 7 and8. 37XII,chapters forthe wouldbe responsible Mover to each sphere 38The Unmoved (teleologically) proper carried of thatsphere.Theneach sphere wouldbe (mechanically) motion circular by the simple it of theformer and passing the motion one above it and carry the one belowit, thussharing ofaction if thetwotypes (dealso) to theone belowit. Thiscouldwork, (withits ownmotion have suggested be conceded. Manycommentators sire,and contactactionbetweenspheres) theagency of of the 55 Unmoved under Movers can be brought thatthe inelegant multiplicity ButDicks oftheformer. Mover is madetheobjectofdesire on thepart ifthelatter a single First it would to argue thatthishas no basisin thetext(op. cit.,p. 214), eventhough is, I think, right for. ofexplanatory Aristotle unification that aboutthesort usually sought bring of 1074a 5 (op. cit.,p. 200). Ross says: "onlythuscan all the 39Thisis Dicks' rendering heregivesan the observed motionof the planets". The term'forces' forcesat workproduce to operate hasasserted which theprevious ofa modeofaction mechanical chapter overly rendering inpart) (at least, bydesire. XII, 8; 1074a 16. 40Metaphysics the in itsbasisfrom 411074a 31. One can see heretherootsof an astrology quitedifferent oftheBabylonians. omen-lists a conbe noted. Heracleides, thatperiodought to unitethemduring 420ne otherattempt the single modelin whichthe earthwas given of Aristotle's, a geocentric proposed temporary and of thefixedstars theneedfora fast-moving of rotation, thuseliminating movement sphere neededfor the planetary motions. In the following of the consequent century, adjustments the fullheliocentric as an "hypothesis" to Simplicius) Aristarchus model, (according proposed of rotation and revoluhas a doublemovement and theearth are at rest, in whichsun and stars thatthe reasons infers tion. (See T.L. Heath,Aristarchus 1913). Dreyer of Samos,Oxford, rather than"mathematical", to be "physical" wouldhavebeenlikely the hypothesis motivating account. Aristarchus, out a predictive thathe everworked since thereis no evidence Dreyer true to find thephysically "who seriously was the last Greekphilosopher attempted concludes, thehelioto develop madeno attempt astronomers of theworld"(op. cit.,p. 149). Later system one thatthe to be twoinsuperable becauseof whatseemed centric objections, model,probably and two,that at restat thecenter, showedthatearthmustremain of Aristotle clearly physics unless movements to be seenforstellar effect wouldentail thata parallax thishypothesis ought that theobjections wereat an incomprehensibly the stars greatdistance. Thesewereprecisely later. twomillennia Galileo hadto overcome of rotation is not the earthbut a pointclose center model,the planets' 43In the eccentric theearth.In theepicycle circle around ormakes a small which is either at rest model, to theearth circle. The two systems arounda larger circlewhichrotates on a smaller the planetis carried in thecase of theouter wereearlyseento be geometrically onlytheepicycle planets; equivalent which toldinitsfavor. for theinner willwork model planets, size on thebasisof in apparent notesthatit was knownthatthe moonvaried 44Simplicius of variations of eclipseobservations; directand especially brightness this,withthe well-known model(In Aristotelis Venusand Mars,counted anykindof concentric heavily (he says)against
63
de Caelo, 225b 39-226b). Autolycos we know of Pitane(c. 310 B.C.) was thefirst astronomer ofwhousedthis to reject models concentric ingeneral. discrepancy from Alexander of Aphrodisias, who in turn is quoting a summary 45Quotedby Simplicius of theMeteorology of Posidonius Libros Quattuor written Physicorum (In anstotelis by Geminus, in Heath, H. Diels ed., 1882,64v 34 - 65r 2; translated Berlin: op. cit.,pp. 275-6). This Priores, of the second-hand nature of our knowledge of Greek astronomy. Sincemostof the is typical we relyon quotations of quotations, withall thedangers havenotsurvived, ofgarbmajorworks on this attendant practice. ling Almagest.Translated 1984,Preface, 46Ptolemy's by G.J.Toomer. London:Duckworth, p. 36. I am indebted to Professor forourdiscussions of thedetails OlafPedersen of Ptolemaic and astronomy. Copernican 47Almagest, I, 5; p. 42. 48Almagest, I, 8; p. 45. I, 3; p. 40. 49Almagest, I, 7; mytranslation. 50Almagest, 51It stillhas a uniform but around a point,the equant, which is notthecenter of motion, itsrotation. a complicated doublerocking motionof the epicycle to circles 52He also had to introduce in latitude accountformovements of theplanets from theecliptic), or as we might (departures forhistaking thelinesof nodesof theplanetary to intersect motions the put it, to compensate of the sun. Dreyer earthinstead remarks: "In no other did thefundatheory partof planetary mental error of the Ptolemaic causeso muchdifficult as in accounting forthelatitudes, system thechief andthese remained ofKepler" stumbling-block up to thetime (op. cit.,p. 200). 53Almagest, XIII, 2, pp. 600-1. of the celestial distances.Ptolemy's lunar 540nly the apparent positions bodies,not their modelwouldmaketheapparent diameter ofthemoontwice as great at sometimes than at others, a variation wouldbe easily which visible.Dreyer concludes thatsincePtolemy must haveknown thisyetnever mentions at thispointhavebeenconceding that histheory "wasmerely it,he must a meansof calculating the apparent without to represent the placesof the planets pretending truesystem of the world"(op. cit.,p. 196). Yet Ptolemy I think, havewanted to add would, to this, that there wasno other ofattaining method a truer one. 55To Savethe Appearances, pp. 32-3. XII, IIae c.4,comm. 45; quotedbyDuhem, 56Metaphysica, p. 31. inAristotelis 57Commentaria de Coelo,II, IIae q.5, comm. 35; Duhem, p. 30. Les CorpsCelestes 58I, 32, 1 ad 2. Quotedby Duhem, op. cit.,p. 42. ThomasLitt'swork, dans l'Univers de St. Thomas d' Aquin (Louvain:Publications a Universitaires, 1963) contains of themanytextswhere to Ptolemaic verydetailedtreatment He Aquinasrefers astronomy. makesit clearthatDuhem's of Aquinas as holding thattheepicycles are no more interpretation than "hypotheses" whichthe physicist need not take seriously, needsqualification in several regards. 59Fora detailed account of these seemy Newton onMatter andActivity, Notre Dame: issues, ofNotre DamePress, 1978. University
64
APAPROCEEDINGS
derived to assume models 60Laudanseems thelatemedieval aboutastronomical that scepticism thattheywerehypothetically arrived at (Scienceand Hypothesis, solelyfromthe perception aresaying. Dordrecht: that this is notwhatthetexts Reidel,1981,pp. 72-85). I think Part.Translated 61Sixth Bobbs-Merrill, 1965,p. 52. byPaulOlscamp, Indianapolis: 62Loc. cit. there is notspace setof issues has beenwidely debated 63Thisconnected by Humescholars; recent to it,see Lester here. For an interesting to enter into thisdiscussion Embree, approach of Hume'sthinking", Studiesin Philosophy, International 11, 1979, 103'"The earlyprogress 121;see p. 115. makesthisvery of a broadly Humean Laudan,indeed, non-realism, Larry 64In his defense it follows are empirically move:since"ad hoc modifications by their very definition progressive" and itsProblems, virtue rather thana vice" (Progress that adhocness "is a cognitive Berkeley: ofCalifornia Press, 1977,p. 115). University Midwest Studiesin Philosophy, in natural 65See my "Two ideals of explanation science", volume ofMinnesota ed. Howard Press, 9, 195-210. University Wettstein, Minneapolis, ina FreeSociety, London:NewLeft 66Science Bookstore, 1978,p. 53. on Galileo, of sciencein Galileo'swork",in New Perspectives 67See my "The conception Dordrecht: ed. R. Butts, andJ.Pitt, Reidel, 1978,209-257. withtheEdinburgh of knowledge associated the sociologists "strong program". 68Especially London: Routledge, and the Growth Interests see Barry For examples, Barnes, of Knowledge, London:Sage,1983. andMichael ed. Karin Knorr-Cetina Mulkay, Observed, 1977;Science BookI, aphorism 81. 69NewOrganon, to TheGreat Instauration. 70Preface in TheEssential and theory-choice", 71See T. Kuhn,"Objectivity, Tension, value-judgement, and objectivity "Valuation of ChicagoPress,1977, 320-339;C.G. Hempel, Chicago:University ed. R. Cohenand L. Laudan,Dordrecht: and Psychoanalysis, inPhysics, in science", Philosophy PSA 1982,ed. P. Asquith andT. Nickles, "Valuesin science", Reidel,1983, 73-100;E. McMullin, E. Lansing: PSA, 1983,3-25. Camof Science,Cambridge: and Philosophy The Birth of History 72See Nicholas Jardine, ofastronomy". 7: "The status 1984,chapter Press, University bridge edition ofChicago second 1970,p. 94. Press, University 73Chicago, andtheory-choice", p. 335. value-judgement 74"Objectivity, 75Totowa 1983,p. 145. (N.J.):Rowman,

Goals of Natural Science (1984)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Goals of Natural Science (1984)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Goals of Natural Science Author(s): Ernan McMullin Reviewed work(s): Source: Proceedings and Addresses of the American

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS -MC MULLEN

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN

52 thatbeganto takeshapein the19thcentury.65 5. Some morals story of this

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS -MC MULLIN

3"Scientific astronomyin antiquity", in The Place of Astronomyin the Ancient World,ed.

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS -MC MULLIN

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - MC MULLIN

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS -MC MULLIN

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen