Robert Crease, a philosopher at SUNY-Stony Brook, has a brief commentary on metaphors and science over at Physics Web. Although Pharyngula and the atheists won't want to hear it, early modern science was born of those who thought that "God reveals himself to humanity in two books - nature and scripture." That was, at least, the metaphor Galileo deployed in his "Letter to Grand Duchess Christina" in the 1610s, trying to distinguish between his study of the heavens and the Church's.
Crease writes:
But the image of the book of nature can haunt us today. One reason is that it implies the existence of an ultimate coherent truth - a complete text or "final theory". While many scientists may believe this, it is ultimately only a belief, and it is far likelier that we will endlessly find more in nature as our concepts and technology continue to evolve. Furthermore, the image suggests that the "text" of the book of nature has a divine origin. The idea that the world was the oeuvre of a superhuman author was the precursor of the idea that it was the engineering project of an intelligent designer. This implication has led some contemporary sociologists of science to succumb to the temptation of characterizing scientists as behaving, and seeking to behave, in a priest-like manner.
So, nature is a book that can be read (by whom?, was the next challenge -- well, by scientists, was the next answer). Or nature, having long been cast as a feminine by the time of the late renaissance, is lying in wait for the natural philosophers to dissect her. Or nature is a battlefield (or is that love?). Or nature is a resource, not just waiting to be dissected by Bacon's science-priests, but waiting to be pillaged. Or nature is what? Us too?
In any case, Crease's last line is appealing. It goes like this:
The most important lesson to be found in Galileo's image is the need to keep developing and revising the metaphors with which we speak about science.
So which is next?
- Log in to post comments
"Although Pharyngula and the atheists won't want to hear it, early modern science was born of those who thought that "God reveals himself to humanity in two books - nature and scripture.""
Umm....why? Most people in the Western world in those days was at least a nominal Christian. So what? It has nothing to do with the fact that since then, science has been eliminating the gaps that gods hide in, and has forced many believers to change their ideas of their gods, or else reject what science has discovered.
I'm sorry, but I really am not sure what this post is about (other than a link to read when I can after work tonight), so can you explain?
Badg -- Why hostility? While I appreciate the god-of-the-gaps recap, you oddly dwell on the provocation (tease PZ) and miss the question: "If the most important lesson to be found in Galileo's image is the need to keep developing and revising the metaphors with which we speak about science," then which metaphor is next?
Perhaps humanity's view of the world has advanced past the point where we need overarching metaphors such as "nature is a book" when we speak about science.
I'm skeptical that humanity has advanced very far, but maybe science can be a wiki now.
Nature is nature. How about we drop the metaphors alltogether? Have you ever tried playing chess using metaphors?
I have no problem with the fact that a lot of early scientists were religious. For the wrong reason or not, they did the right thing. I also wouldn't care if all religious people helped the poor and donated blood while atheists ate babies. It's got nothing to do with the argument itself.
I didn't miss the question - I don't understand it.
What metaphor is next? Why need a metaphor at all? What's wrong with reality? Too many people hear scientists talk metaphorically and take it for literal truth. While it may make science more readable and accessible, until the illiterate learn the difference between metaphor and reality, we should keep the metaphors to a minimum.
Why the provocation unless you wanted a response on it?
"Have you ever tried playing chess using metaphors?"
Endlessly (and I usually win, too...)! I suspect Brother Cohen's (monk, not priest--damn!) larger point has to do with the production and consumption of knowledge!? And appropriate that he should draw on an historical example to do so! We communicate almost exclusively through stories (I still wonder whether binary fits this model) largely because we cannot communicate any other way. Keep it real? C'mon: really?? Ergo: metaphor...
Both commentary and post seems oddly confused.
I don't see any provocation in the post. That the first scientists were as religious as society is a fact of history. It should be an encouragement for all that scientists and society now has developed to have freedom of religion.
The commentary misunderstands the idea of a final (or fundamental) theory. Many physicists believe for good reasons that there can only be one layer of physics underlaying the standard model and gravity, quantum gravity.
But finding that theory doesn't mean the end of science - there is no reason to think that there is an end to effective theories needed to describe the possibilities of nature that theory gives, except for the constraint that we will make a finite number of observations. (So no 'dogma'.)
Further, the observations and theories we make are contingent. (So no 'book'.)
This means that both the commentary and the post has a problem when they ask for metaphors for science. There is no short description of either science and its results. It is much easier to describe nature - it is what we can observe. Metaphors are confusing in both cases.
but for my lone ally above, everyone seems to envision a non-human future for science. i, contrarily, think science will continue to be practiced by humans as long as we're around. i thus accept that we will ever be using human faculties to do so. what is more, i have no problem with this, and consider it as a virtue of science itself, hardly a slight.
With Torbjorn, for one, I find no common ground. A final theory? Such fanciful thinking, to believe in finality. I await the outcome. And Badg, for another, I'm sorry you've twice missed the tone and spirit of the post and of this blog -- perhaps it isn't for you.
Yet I prod further here only to suggest, once more, that science is indeed a human activity, and humans but a subset of nature. others would wish it otherwise?
Another odd confusion. How is this conclusion reached? Also, most of the commenters argued against such simplified descriptions.
Sigh! I tried to explain very carefully what scientists discuss when they discuss a "theory of everything" (TOE). The expected quantum gravity theory is a fundamental theory that is expected to underlie and combine todays effective field theories, but it is not a theory explaining everything in nature. "finding that theory doesn't mean the end of science - there is no reason to think that there is an end to effective theories needed" How could that be unclear?
As I tried to make clear before, this fanciness is primarily a figment of your own imagination.
Again, you are misunderstanding. (At least me.) When I noted that "the observations and theories we make are contingent" it agrees completely. Our science reflects that we are human.
If you like scifi you can try to imagine how transhuman or extraterrestrial intellects model nature. It is likely they would have completely different ideas. For example, in a water world they could perhaps not have a good description for gravity, but have a much larger science of sound and pressure.
BTW, this seems one of few (the only?) scienceblogs.com blog that have trouble decode Unicode characters. Perhaps their support can unravel why. I have gotten used to see my name spelled correctly. :-)