Ch8 The Tyranny of Science: Theory and Monotheism. By Jeu-Jenq YUANN 台灣大學哲學系 【本著作除另有註明外，採取創用CC「姓名標示－非商業性－相同方式分享」台灣3.0版授權釋出】

The Question: Should the Church be blamed for what it has done during the period time when it persecuted the Copernicans such as Galileo and many the others?

The Answer It should not be blamed if the Church then carried out persecution under the hitherto scientific rationality. The Church might not be very scientific from today’s point of view, but it was naturally correct by claiming science at that point.

The scientific basis of the Church We all know nowadays that the scientific basis on which the Church relies was not established on a firm evidence but on the then most favorable ideas of abstract rules, i.e. the geocentric view of the universe. The geocentric view is naturally established on the basis of common sense which appeared to be a lot more persuasive than another theory.

Theory! Why should the abstract rules be preferable to the scientists than anything else? Why should all the philosophers of science prefer to take theories rather than experiments as the core bases of their enterprise? The extreme examples are Logical Positivists.

Logical Positivists Logical positivists thought that science is fundamentally composed of statements and theories which, other then containing their own order, are correspondent with the outside reality science intends to explain.

Logical Positivists The other effects of science such as laboratories, politics, financial concerns, telescopes, observatories, staff buildings, etc. are irrelevant to these positivists who prefer to see everything from the statements and theory. This is a fact, but should they be blamed?

There is the new tendency of emphasizing experiments. What is the function of experiments for science? They are means of producing statements. Yet, these are not essential parts of science, at least according to the majority of philosophers of science. There are books stressing the importance of experiments though.

Experiments in science Ian Hacking’s Representing and Intervening (Cambridge University Press, 1983). Nancy Cartwright, How the Laws of Physics Lie (Oxford University Press, 1983).

Theories and Experiments 1. The function of experiment to a theory refers to the fact that it protect the theory from being challenged. 2. For this purpose, experimenters need to be so capable that their experimental results are good enough to present the nature of the theory. 3. The theoreticians’ rhetoric is verbal and mathematical, yet the experimenters’ is visual and practical.

If so, then why do the theoreticians still get the upper hand? To answer this question, we need to retrieve a long tradition which began with a very ancient belief. This belief lasted so long that it went through many faces and it remained centered on being theoretical. The primitive societies were of this kind.

The myths and the meaning they offer The primitive societies are filled with myths which did not reflect the day to day experiences, but a framework of meaning and explanation. Myths are used to be in the hands of special people with special authority. These people were presumed knowing more!

The myths of ancient times played the role of theories Myths contained frameworks of meaning and explanation which went beyond common understanding of practical life. Plato thought arithmetic, geometry, music are subjects which hare useful to society, but they do not contain knowledge. Only astronomy contains knowledge through engaging in theory or models!

The double origins of theory There are two origins in the theoretical tradition: 1. the primitive origin. 2. the intellectual origin. The theoretical tradition is not entirely intellectual as it contains a primitive part which used to be in contempt by theoreticians’ prejudices.

The Theory of Everything Scientists of the nineteenth century were dreaming to include all special science into a super theory which happened to be that of mechanics. But it had difficulty to explain phenomena such as “forgetfulness” and “meiosis” which are pretty well explained in special sciences. The coming of quantum mechanics did not improve situation.

Where lies the problem? The problem of theoretician’s preference for theory had a long tradition which began with again, the Greek philosophy notably represented by that of Xenophanes and Parmenides. We begin with Xenophanes who said:

God is one, or god is many. If he is many, then they are either of equal strength, like the citizens of a democracy, or some are stronger than others. But gods are not like the citizens of a democracy. Nor, if they are stronger and weaker are the weaker ones gods, hence God is one.

Where comes this monotheism? 1. It is a matter of power. 2. The travelers were relying on gods of other cities which shared power with their local gods. 3. They needed to extract or abstract this power in order to feel protected. The results were the same: The gods increased in power, and lost in individuality.

The philosophers’ participation The philosophers did not see this as a loss, but as a GAIN. They thought it is a better way to bring the ordinary people to truth or reality. They fortifies it with arguments which according to the philosophers unveil the true face of nature, not only the changing opinions.

Xenophanes’ arguments If cattle had hands, and if they can paint, then in drawing their gods, they would draw cattle. Should Xenophanes be praised? M. Eliade, K. Popper all say yes! But Feyerabend says no! Why? Because whoever is convinced accepts the abstract idea of monotheism beforehand!

What wrong to accept gods which look like the local people? The idea of monotheism is not established on a more powerful argument. It is accepted as a matter of course for whoever is willing to think abstractly. To these people, you do not need to offer an argument as they will believe in it anyway.

The situation: The early philosophers such as Xenophanes and Parmenides took individual faces away from the gods and replaced them by faceless principles. Milosz, the humanitarian, goes one step further. He takes face away from people and replaced them by a faceless abstract and uniform notion of humanity.