Does the Sun Rise?
Oct 7, 2011
Peter J. Leithart
Editor’s Note: The First Things website does many things. We provide one and often two (and sometimes even three) new articles each day. Our First Thoughts blog engages current issues. You have access to many articles in the current issue of First Things. Our archive is filled with more than twenty years of great essays.
All of this costs money to produce, edit, and maintain, and unlike First Things magazine we receive no subscription income from you to underwrite the expense. So if you are a regular reader, please donate to our Fall campaign. It’s easy to do. Just click here to donate now
_______
About this time each year, I survey my theology students on the question, “Does the sun rise?” Most say, No. This year, one said it’s “super-obvious” that the sun does not rise. They fall into nervous silence when I insist that it does. 
The occasion for my survey is an annual discussion of Galileo’s famous 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. During a dinner party with the Grand Duchess, Benedictine friar Benedetto Castelli defended the new heliocentric theory and refuted the Scriptural arguments that another member of the party advanced in favor of geocentricity. The Duchess was not convinced by Castelli’s arguments, so Castelli asked Galileo to explain his position to the Duchess directly. Galileo’s resulting letter is one of the best entrees into the problem of science-and-theology that I know of.
Galileo’s main argument about science and Scripture depended on the theory that Calvin used to explain the apparent “childishness” of biblical language. Call it the Few Good Men theory of divine inspiration: We can’t handle the truth, so God graciously speaks to us in ways we can grasp, lisping to us like a parent to a tiny child. He has always known that the solar system is heliocentric, but he pretends it’s geocentric because that is how it looks to us. For Galileo, this notion of “accommodation” was science’s declaration of independence, freeing scientists to explore the natural world without worrying that they might be mugged by the Bible scholars.
I admire Galileo, and Calvin even more, but I am wholly unpersuaded by this theory of revelation. Its weakness is evident in Calvin’s explanation of anthropomorphism, the biblical habit of attributing human features to God. According to Calvin, God has no actual hands or feet, yet he speaks as if he does. This is correct, but Calvin explains anthropomorphism by appeal to divine accommodation, and he adds only confusion. We are, after all, perfectly capable of conceiving a God without hands and feet and a burning nose. Calvin himself must have imagined such a God, or he could not have formulated his theory of accommodation in the first place. Formulating the theory of accommodation thus depends on denying the foundational premise of accommodation. And if Calvin could think of God without a literal body, why couldn’t ancient Israelites? Plato did; why not Moses? Either God underestimates us (we can handle the truth after all), or the theory collapses into a form of chronological snobbery.
I worry too about the uses to which accommodation can be put. If the Bible adjusts to common beliefs in cosmology, does it do so with regard to history? Are the biblical accounts of the exodus and conquest accommodations to our feeble capacities? Does the Bible narrate these events as it does because ancient primitives liked bright colors and big noises? Are miracle stories accommodated to pre-scientific superstition? Perhaps even Scripture’s theological claims are accommodated: Is the incarnation a piece of mythology that describes something that is in fact not at all incarnational? “Slippery slope fallacy!” comes the rejoinder. And I answer, Modern theology lives on the slippery slope, which many have found quite exhilarating.
Accommodation is a big deal, I think. But the cultural stakes in Galileo’s letter were far bigger. His letter stood at the crossroads of two worlds, not only on the question of Scripture and science. Most obviously, the seventeenth-century debate about astronomy was a struggle about who could be relied on to tell the truth about creation—theologians or the magisterium later known as the “scientific community”?
When my students tell me that the sun doesn’t rise, I ask how they know. Not a one of them can reproduce Galileo’s arguments or evidence. (They’re liberal arts students, so I’m not too hard on them, and besides I can’t reproduce the argument myself.) The “super-obvious” of the heliocentric system is the super-obviousness of scientific and cultural consensus. It’s the super-obvious of expert testimony.
Copernicus and Galileo worked up their theories from observation, experimentation, geometric and arithmetic calculations. Most of us accept expert testimony about heliocentricity and other scientific discoveries because we believe they have been experimentally confirmed. That too was a cultural innovation of the first order. By what right did experiment claim sufficient authority to refute tradition and the church? The triumph of experiment with specialized instrumentation was not uncontested, as Steven Shapin and Simon Schaeffer showed nearly thirty years ago in their wonderful Leviathan and the Air Pump. Today, the victory is so complete that we have a difficult time conceiving any other method of verification.
Heliocentricity triumphed because scientists convinced the rest of us to distrust our senses. When my students ask why I believe the sun rises, I state the obvious: I see it. The sun peeks over the horizon early in the morning, rises to a higher position in the sky during the morning, and then reverses direction during the afternoon. Perhaps you have seen it too. On the same basis, I believe solid matter is solid. With Johnson, I kick a rock, but physicists tell me that the rock’s solid matter is, in the vernacular, “mostly empty space.” Though it often buttresses its authority by empirical appeals, science secured its hegemony by inculcating skepticism about everyday experience.
The most impressive coup of modern science, though, is the success of its imperialist claim that science provides not only a true but an exclusively true description of how the world goes. Since Copernicus and Galileo, we have a twinge of conscience about trusting the evidence of our senses. We are convinced that it is somehow “not true” that the sun rises, even though we can’t stop ourselves from saying so. We know that, in reality, in real reality, solids are not solid. Our everyday descriptions of natural phenomenon are perpetually enclosed in inverted commas.
That scientific hubris is the central issue I want to get my students thinking about, and the reason I’m willing to play the Neanderthal. Within my frame of reference as an earth-bound observer of the heavens—which is, of course, the only frame of reference most of us ever know—the statement “the sun rises” is simply and purely true. The straightforward empirical descriptions of Scripture, like the straightforward empirical descriptions of our common speech, are perfectly accurate. Accommodation makes theology too accommodating, too ready to buckle to the imperialism of science, too willing to concede to science the business of truly describing the world, too skeptical about the truth value of everyday experience.
To be sure, “the sun rises” is not the only true description of the relative movement of sun and earth. If I could watch the solar system from a God’s-eye perch somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy, I would see a celestial farris wheel with the sun at the hub, just like the one I can find on Wikipedia. By their calculations and experiments, scientists put me on that perch. I’m enthralled by the view, but it’s sheer snobbery when they tell us they’ve got the only seat in the house.
Peter J. Leithart is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Athanasius (Baker Academic).
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
10.7.2011 | 3:38am
David Nickol says:
It is not necessary to leave the surface of the earth to observe that the sun does not rise in the morning and set in the evening. Suppose someone in Moscow, Idaho, is on a three-way call by satellite phone with one person at the north pole and another at the south pole. The person in Moscow, Idaho, will say he is seeing the sun rise in the morning and set in the evening of a 24-hour-day, whereas the persons at the north pole and south pole will say they see the sun rising and setting only once a year, and the person at the north pole will insist the sun is setting when the person at the south pole says it's rising, and vice versa. (It is a very long phone call.)
10.7.2011 | 4:01am
Michael PS says:
The notion of accommodation can be carried even further than you suggest.
As Bl John Henry Newman remarked, "What are the phenomena of the external world, but a divine mode of conveying to the mind the realities of existence, individuality, and the influence of being on being, the best possible, though beguiling the imagination of most men with a harmless but unfounded belief in matter as distinct from the impressions on their senses? This at least is the opinion of some philosophers..."
And, again, "And since this everlasting and unchangeable quiescence is the simplest and truest notion we can obtain of the Deity, it seems to follow, that strictly speaking, all those so-called Economies or dispensations, which display His character in action, are but condescensions to the infirmity and peculiarity of our minds, shadowy representations of realities which are incomprehensible to creatures such as ourselves, who estimate everything by the rule of association and arrangement, by the notion of a purpose and plan, object and means, parts and whole..."
"Per speculum in aenigmate" as St Paul has it
As Bl John Henry Newman remarked, "What are the phenomena of the external world, but a divine mode of conveying to the mind the realities of existence, individuality, and the influence of being on being, the best possible, though beguiling the imagination of most men with a harmless but unfounded belief in matter as distinct from the impressions on their senses? This at least is the opinion of some philosophers..."
And, again, "And since this everlasting and unchangeable quiescence is the simplest and truest notion we can obtain of the Deity, it seems to follow, that strictly speaking, all those so-called Economies or dispensations, which display His character in action, are but condescensions to the infirmity and peculiarity of our minds, shadowy representations of realities which are incomprehensible to creatures such as ourselves, who estimate everything by the rule of association and arrangement, by the notion of a purpose and plan, object and means, parts and whole..."
"Per speculum in aenigmate" as St Paul has it
10.7.2011 | 4:05am
Printimine says:
Good thoughts and good Author. I really liked book mentioned in the end of the article. I have read Athanasius in the past. Lots to think about on trinitarian theology and the incarnation.
10.7.2011 | 6:57am
Resh Galuta says:
What is "chronological snobbery" and why should it be dismissed out of hand?
Isn't it the thesis that in the course of many generations, people learn how to use their brains more effectively? That literacy makes it possible to think more clearly about historical events, positional notation enables faster calculation than Roman numerals, and tensor calculus elucidates inertia, curvature, deformation and advection?
Nobody doubts that succeeding generations have learned to make more efficient use of our bodies. We have learned to put flouride in the water supply, to stretch after vigorous exercise and that drinking and driving (even an ox-cart) is unwise.
Is "chronological snobbery" just a rude epithet for what most people call "civilization?"
Isn't it the thesis that in the course of many generations, people learn how to use their brains more effectively? That literacy makes it possible to think more clearly about historical events, positional notation enables faster calculation than Roman numerals, and tensor calculus elucidates inertia, curvature, deformation and advection?
Nobody doubts that succeeding generations have learned to make more efficient use of our bodies. We have learned to put flouride in the water supply, to stretch after vigorous exercise and that drinking and driving (even an ox-cart) is unwise.
Is "chronological snobbery" just a rude epithet for what most people call "civilization?"
10.7.2011 | 7:39am
Brian says:
Is there a scientifically more accurate term for "sunrise"? If "sunrise" is such a Neanderthal term, why hasn't it fallen out of favor as a descriptive term?
10.7.2011 | 8:22am
PatrickH says:
Ironically, relativity theory agrees with you. The sun does "rise". You just have to specify that the inertial frame of reference you are using is rigidly fixed to the earth. And there is no other frame of reference, including one fixed to the sun (in which it does not "rise" because it does not move at all), that is any more privileged than the earth-bound one.
10.7.2011 | 9:08am
Alan says:
An interesting article, which raises for me some questions. First, does this account of reality mean that there is no truth, merely a variety of perspectives--where one stands depends on where one sits? Second, is it scientific "imperialism" to attempt not only to describe phenomena but also to claim the validity of the scientific view to the exclusion of other accounts? I may be mistaken, but my understanding was that science did not "explain", merely depict regularities in phenomena. Third, what exactly is the problem that the author is addressing? Many scientists find no difficulty in simultaneously believing in God and revelation on the one hand and in scientific accounts of reality on the other. Doesn't true science merely claim to be authoritative within its sphere without claiming that science encompasses all knowledge?
10.7.2011 | 9:36am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Hmmm. Is Peter Leithart actually arguing that the sun revolves around the earth, or am i missing something? If he is, how does he square this with not only the plethora of empirical data and arguments in favor of the earth going aroungd the sun, but all of the other scientific discoveries, that indirectly conform better with heliocentrism? and do I even need to bring up the epicycles?
It's hardly "snobbery'' to go where the evidence leads. I think a better discription might be sanity. It's entirely sane to follow the evidence and arguments. Indeed, one of the features that separates humans from other animals, is our capacity to transcend the interpretations of our direct senses.
Certainly the findings of empirical science in no way contradict a proper reading of scripture.
Aquinas, I think, considered it axiomatic that the findings of faith, cannot contradict the findings of reason, and observation. Ironically, I wonder if Leithart might in his heart, based on his comments here, wonder otherwise?
It's hardly "snobbery'' to go where the evidence leads. I think a better discription might be sanity. It's entirely sane to follow the evidence and arguments. Indeed, one of the features that separates humans from other animals, is our capacity to transcend the interpretations of our direct senses.
Certainly the findings of empirical science in no way contradict a proper reading of scripture.
Aquinas, I think, considered it axiomatic that the findings of faith, cannot contradict the findings of reason, and observation. Ironically, I wonder if Leithart might in his heart, based on his comments here, wonder otherwise?
10.7.2011 | 9:38am
Jim says:
Although used in a different context then this article; a very interesting aside regarding earth centric versus sun centric is N. T. Wright's use of how we observe or assume things to be; rather then accepting things as they are (truth?). This can be found in the first and last chapter of Wright's book "Justification."
10.7.2011 | 10:27am
John Hinshaw says:
Wonderful, (wonder-full) article. With all the respect due to "science" this is what many have wished to say to the scientific community .
10.7.2011 | 11:00am
G. Kyle Essary says:
Brett,
I think you missed something. He says later on in the article that he would see the plants rotating around the sun from a different perspective in the universe. I think the article isn't as much about "science" per say as perspectivalism and accommodation. The perspectival reference to the sun rising was simply the illustration to his points on accommodation.
I think you missed something. He says later on in the article that he would see the plants rotating around the sun from a different perspective in the universe. I think the article isn't as much about "science" per say as perspectivalism and accommodation. The perspectival reference to the sun rising was simply the illustration to his points on accommodation.
10.7.2011 | 11:07am
Nancy D. says:
Since it is true that according to The Word of God, everything that exists, exists in relationship, and the Earth cannot be moved from it's location in the Universe, what exactly has Science disproved?
10.7.2011 | 11:19am
Evan says:
If you wish to deny that the sun rises, it would follow that you have never gotten your car to travel below any speed limit, even when parked in your garage. It only 'appears' to be stopped, as the sun only 'appears' to have risen.
Try that in traffic court, where the truth is searched out and applied to our lives.
Try that in traffic court, where the truth is searched out and applied to our lives.
10.7.2011 | 11:48am
Nancy D. says:
One would be speeding if one views the motion in relationship to the speed limit.
10.7.2011 | 11:50am
David Nickol says:
PatrickH,
You say: "Ironically, relativity theory agrees with you. The sun does "rise". You just have to specify that the inertial frame of reference you are using is rigidly fixed to the earth. And there is no other frame of reference, including one fixed to the sun (in which it does not "rise" because it does not move at all), that is any more privileged than the earth-bound one."
There are many, many problems with this. If the earth is considered stationary, with the sun revolving around it, then the stars and even the most distant galaxies must be rotating round the earth, too. The farther from a stationary earth an object was that appeared to be rotating, the faster it would have to be moving. Distant galaxies rotating around the earth would have to be traveling far faster than the speed of light.
Also, those who believe in modern science can explain why the earth remains in orbit around the sun as an effect of the sun's gravity. If the earth is stationary and the sun is moving around it, what keeps the sun in its orbit?
The earth's rotation is detectable from things like the Coriolis effect, which explains why weather patterns generally move from west to east in the tropics and the temperate zones. If you've ever seen time-lapse video from a weather satellite, you've seen the effect.
Of course, it is perfectly reasonable to speak of the sun rising and setting to people who are in approximately the same latitude as you are. If a prisoner is told he will be shot at sunrise, he can't heave a sigh of relief and argue that the sun doesn't rise. We all know what sunrise means. On the other hand, if he is at the north pole or the south pole, a sentence to be shot at sunrise is quite different than the same sentence at the equator.
Someone who maintains that the sun really does rise in the morning and set at night is making a claim based not on taking the earth as a frame of reference, but on his own particular spot on earth, somewhere reasonably south of the north pole or reasonably north of the south pole.
It is not at all arrogant for science to maintain that the earth rotates on its axis and causes the sun to appear to rise and set. You have to throw out countless empirical observations about the earth's rotations and you also have to ignore observations of the earth from the moon.
Inertial frames of reference must be stationary or moving at a constant speed in a straight line. Once rotation and acceleration enter the picture, you're not talking about inertial frames of reference any more.
You say: "Ironically, relativity theory agrees with you. The sun does "rise". You just have to specify that the inertial frame of reference you are using is rigidly fixed to the earth. And there is no other frame of reference, including one fixed to the sun (in which it does not "rise" because it does not move at all), that is any more privileged than the earth-bound one."
There are many, many problems with this. If the earth is considered stationary, with the sun revolving around it, then the stars and even the most distant galaxies must be rotating round the earth, too. The farther from a stationary earth an object was that appeared to be rotating, the faster it would have to be moving. Distant galaxies rotating around the earth would have to be traveling far faster than the speed of light.
Also, those who believe in modern science can explain why the earth remains in orbit around the sun as an effect of the sun's gravity. If the earth is stationary and the sun is moving around it, what keeps the sun in its orbit?
The earth's rotation is detectable from things like the Coriolis effect, which explains why weather patterns generally move from west to east in the tropics and the temperate zones. If you've ever seen time-lapse video from a weather satellite, you've seen the effect.
Of course, it is perfectly reasonable to speak of the sun rising and setting to people who are in approximately the same latitude as you are. If a prisoner is told he will be shot at sunrise, he can't heave a sigh of relief and argue that the sun doesn't rise. We all know what sunrise means. On the other hand, if he is at the north pole or the south pole, a sentence to be shot at sunrise is quite different than the same sentence at the equator.
Someone who maintains that the sun really does rise in the morning and set at night is making a claim based not on taking the earth as a frame of reference, but on his own particular spot on earth, somewhere reasonably south of the north pole or reasonably north of the south pole.
It is not at all arrogant for science to maintain that the earth rotates on its axis and causes the sun to appear to rise and set. You have to throw out countless empirical observations about the earth's rotations and you also have to ignore observations of the earth from the moon.
Inertial frames of reference must be stationary or moving at a constant speed in a straight line. Once rotation and acceleration enter the picture, you're not talking about inertial frames of reference any more.
10.7.2011 | 11:52am
AL says:
Resh, Alan, Bret,
Actually, the sun's greater gravitational pull principally determines the relative position of earth and sun, but if you want to be exact about relative movement in space, both sun and earth are in motion, and each "revolves" around the other, depending on perspective. Heliocentricism briefly replaced the stationary earth with a stationary sun, but now we know that neither is stationary. So we should really say that the sun is the principal gravitational engine of the wheeling of the solar system. In a sense, Tycho Brahe's system is equally correct: sun around earth, all other planets around the sun... Infinite space, everything in motion--remember?
Y' see, the question is one of movement; which objects generate greater amounts of gravitational attraction is a different issue.
Actually, the sun's greater gravitational pull principally determines the relative position of earth and sun, but if you want to be exact about relative movement in space, both sun and earth are in motion, and each "revolves" around the other, depending on perspective. Heliocentricism briefly replaced the stationary earth with a stationary sun, but now we know that neither is stationary. So we should really say that the sun is the principal gravitational engine of the wheeling of the solar system. In a sense, Tycho Brahe's system is equally correct: sun around earth, all other planets around the sun... Infinite space, everything in motion--remember?
Y' see, the question is one of movement; which objects generate greater amounts of gravitational attraction is a different issue.
10.7.2011 | 12:18pm
Nancy D. says:
In traffic court they recognize that motion is relative or they could not determine if someone was speeding:-)
10.7.2011 | 12:37pm
Joseph says:
Reverend Leithart:
I always look forward to your articles. Thank you.
You say that you worry about the uses to which accommodation (of Sacred Scripture) can be put. This leads to a question: How do you see this statement: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall have life everlasting?"
I always look forward to your articles. Thank you.
You say that you worry about the uses to which accommodation (of Sacred Scripture) can be put. This leads to a question: How do you see this statement: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall have life everlasting?"
10.7.2011 | 12:38pm
jason taylor says:
"What is "chronological snobbery" and why should it be dismissed out of hand?
Isn't it the thesis that in the course of many generations, people learn how to use their brains more effectively? That literacy makes it possible to think more clearly about historical events, positional notation enables faster calculation than Roman numerals, and tensor calculus elucidates inertia, curvature, deformation and advection?
Nobody doubts that succeeding generations have learned to make more efficient use of our bodies. We have learned to put flouride in the water supply, to stretch after vigorous exercise and that drinking and driving (even an ox-cart) is unwise.
Is "chronological snobbery" just a rude epithet for what most people call "civilization?" "
Chronological snobbery is the specific assumption that people who come after
are right and people who come before are wrong about a given topic, regardless of evidence for which there may not in fact be any in either direction. There is for instance, no evidence that Jove did NOT destine Rome to raise up the poor and beat down the proud who resist; only the habitual assumption first of Monotheism and later of Secularism, both of which are incompatible with the existence of Jove, even though the first is not incompatible with Rome being so destined. The rejection of that theory is a corralary to premises we assume before, not because of evidence for the non-existence of Jove in themselves. For the matter of that, a fair argument could be made today that Rome WAS destined supernaturally to raise up the poor and beat down the proud who resist because it in fact did the later and to some degree even the former better then most empires.
It is not, in fact the thesis that over the centuries people learn to use their brain more effectively. It may be your thesis, but that does not mean it to be a general rule. Furthermore the word "effectively" begs the question of what it is effecting. My mind is totally incompetent toward effecting the killing of mastodons and the dragging off of captive females by their hair. As I suspect(without conclusive evidence of course) is yours. Tools are more sophisticated in effecting the generation and refinement of resources and society on the whole has been more effective at the sum total of information available. The improved smartness of given people is more arguable; the best that can be said is that more people have the education which would have been appropriate to burghers in the past because most of us are in fact burghers. Or at least most contributors to this discussion. On the other hand, in a lot of countries, the average person lives a life not all that different from a Medieval serf.
Furthermore the "course of many generations" thesis, discounts ups and downs and twists and turns in societal assumptions. And it usually involves retrospective squeezing of history to find elements of an event that fit this thesis; for instance the Sack of Constantinople was progressive because it forced the West to look for new sources of spice, and the Black Death was progressive because it raised the labor value of those who survived.
And chronological snobbery is not what most people mean by civilization. Would most viewers of a hypothetical After The End movie consider that society more civilized then the society that the viewers live in because it is in the hypothetical future?
Isn't it the thesis that in the course of many generations, people learn how to use their brains more effectively? That literacy makes it possible to think more clearly about historical events, positional notation enables faster calculation than Roman numerals, and tensor calculus elucidates inertia, curvature, deformation and advection?
Nobody doubts that succeeding generations have learned to make more efficient use of our bodies. We have learned to put flouride in the water supply, to stretch after vigorous exercise and that drinking and driving (even an ox-cart) is unwise.
Is "chronological snobbery" just a rude epithet for what most people call "civilization?" "
Chronological snobbery is the specific assumption that people who come after
are right and people who come before are wrong about a given topic, regardless of evidence for which there may not in fact be any in either direction. There is for instance, no evidence that Jove did NOT destine Rome to raise up the poor and beat down the proud who resist; only the habitual assumption first of Monotheism and later of Secularism, both of which are incompatible with the existence of Jove, even though the first is not incompatible with Rome being so destined. The rejection of that theory is a corralary to premises we assume before, not because of evidence for the non-existence of Jove in themselves. For the matter of that, a fair argument could be made today that Rome WAS destined supernaturally to raise up the poor and beat down the proud who resist because it in fact did the later and to some degree even the former better then most empires.
It is not, in fact the thesis that over the centuries people learn to use their brain more effectively. It may be your thesis, but that does not mean it to be a general rule. Furthermore the word "effectively" begs the question of what it is effecting. My mind is totally incompetent toward effecting the killing of mastodons and the dragging off of captive females by their hair. As I suspect(without conclusive evidence of course) is yours. Tools are more sophisticated in effecting the generation and refinement of resources and society on the whole has been more effective at the sum total of information available. The improved smartness of given people is more arguable; the best that can be said is that more people have the education which would have been appropriate to burghers in the past because most of us are in fact burghers. Or at least most contributors to this discussion. On the other hand, in a lot of countries, the average person lives a life not all that different from a Medieval serf.
Furthermore the "course of many generations" thesis, discounts ups and downs and twists and turns in societal assumptions. And it usually involves retrospective squeezing of history to find elements of an event that fit this thesis; for instance the Sack of Constantinople was progressive because it forced the West to look for new sources of spice, and the Black Death was progressive because it raised the labor value of those who survived.
And chronological snobbery is not what most people mean by civilization. Would most viewers of a hypothetical After The End movie consider that society more civilized then the society that the viewers live in because it is in the hypothetical future?
10.7.2011 | 12:45pm
Rob Flammang says:
Patrick H,
If you fix your frame to the earth, then it is not inertial. There is no such thing as an "inertial frame of reference ... rigidly fixed to the earth".
-Rob
If you fix your frame to the earth, then it is not inertial. There is no such thing as an "inertial frame of reference ... rigidly fixed to the earth".
-Rob
10.7.2011 | 12:45pm
Randy says:
Any planet you want can be the center. Making the Sun the center just makes the mathematics simpler. But, if like most of us, you're not plotting the motions, it hardly matters. The center can be wherever it's convenient for you to put it. I put it in my living room.
10.7.2011 | 1:11pm
Nancy D. says:
At the end of The Day, just as God Has Created us central to His Created Universe, we should make God the center of our universe.
10.7.2011 | 1:29pm
CKG says:
@ Randy -
Exactly so. The old Ptolemaic 'geocentric' perspective was perfectly valid, as far as it went; Copernicus' heliocentric system just made for simpler math (although, it must be said that when Newtonian gravitation was added to the 'explanatory lexicon', things got much worse for geocentrism). Copernicus' genius was synthesizing the observational data (ie, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west) into a more 'comprehensive' perspective.
I am reminded of something JH Newman said in 'The Idea of a University' (I'm sorry, I can't pull the exact quote off the top of my head), to the effect that, when science seems to have proved something contradictory to revelation, a Christian can be confident that it is either
a) not really proved
b) not really contradictory, or
c) not contradictory to anything really revealed. . .
Exactly so. The old Ptolemaic 'geocentric' perspective was perfectly valid, as far as it went; Copernicus' heliocentric system just made for simpler math (although, it must be said that when Newtonian gravitation was added to the 'explanatory lexicon', things got much worse for geocentrism). Copernicus' genius was synthesizing the observational data (ie, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west) into a more 'comprehensive' perspective.
I am reminded of something JH Newman said in 'The Idea of a University' (I'm sorry, I can't pull the exact quote off the top of my head), to the effect that, when science seems to have proved something contradictory to revelation, a Christian can be confident that it is either
a) not really proved
b) not really contradictory, or
c) not contradictory to anything really revealed. . .
10.7.2011 | 1:46pm
Joe McFaul says:
I am shocked that the reverend cannot determine that the earth rotates casuing the sun to apparently "rise." Thisis not a matter of expertise. It is a matter of basic scientific literacy. Any 12 year old child of common intelligence can demostrate the earth's rotation.
He confesses to being scientifically illiterate and remarkably unobservant. On that basis he "must" rely on experts--he ahs no choice. But don't speak for the those, including my 12 year old children, that everybody is equally as scientifically ingnorant as he proudly claims to be.
He is so ignorant of science I am left speechless.
He confesses to being scientifically illiterate and remarkably unobservant. On that basis he "must" rely on experts--he ahs no choice. But don't speak for the those, including my 12 year old children, that everybody is equally as scientifically ingnorant as he proudly claims to be.
He is so ignorant of science I am left speechless.
10.7.2011 | 1:50pm
Coleman Glenn says:
It seems to me that there is some evidence in the New Testament that the Old Testament was written with some degree of accommodation - not necessarily accommodation to less developed minds, but accommodation to harder hearts: Jesus said, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). I do agree that with most of the "accommodations" in the Bible, it's simply a matter of truth from a different viewpoint; but this one in particular seems to say that God really did allow something that was in itself evil because otherwise the people at the time would have completely rejected Him.
10.7.2011 | 1:51pm
Mike Melendez says:
"Chronological snobbery", (CS), I take to mean the idea that cavemen were dumb, unlike us more knowledgeable folk. CS is at base a category mistake confusing intelligence with knowledge. I like the cartoon refutation I once saw where a wife addresses her husband, "If you're so rich, why aren't you smart?"
10.7.2011 | 1:52pm
Mark says:
Sorry, David N., but you are wrong. you need to brush up on your relativity.
10.7.2011 | 2:42pm
Hugh McCann says:
Nothing can be proven by observation; the celestial bodies' movements viewed from Earth need a fixed point of reference. Psalm 50:1 has it right. 'Science' has again got it wrong. Interestingly, Eccl. 1 speaks of rivers, sea, and wind, and all these descriptions are readily accepted by creationists as 'proven true,' yet verse 5 about the sun is not legit, so we are told to discount that bit.
John Byl ~ http://bylogos.blogspot.com/
Dean Davis ~ http://clr4u.org/
John Byl ~ http://bylogos.blogspot.com/
Dean Davis ~ http://clr4u.org/
10.7.2011 | 3:01pm
Robert Gimello says:
Does Peter Leithart really mean to suggest that "truth" is always perspectival? That way, we know, lies the precipice of relativism (a condition in which everyone - except, of course, the "snobs" - thinks he has his own front-row "seat in the house"). Yet this seems to be the implication of Prof. Leithart's pedagogical conceit.
10.7.2011 | 3:39pm
Joe Sansonese says:
The sun does not rise. Neither does the sun not not rise. ALL motion, both uniform and accelerated, is relative. It is amazing how the truth of the General Theory of Relativity has been acknowledged for going on a century now, yet the implications seem not to have sunk in, seem incapable of sinking in. Ill-educated people insist on saying "Yes, yes, motion is relative and all that, but surely 'the plethora of evidence' indicates that it is the sun that is stationary blah blah" without for a second noticing that they are talking nonsense.
General relativity requires only that a suitable gravitational field be specified to relativize the physicval sense of inertia. Inertia is gravity and vice versa, thus the so-called g-force felt on a carousel can be considered, depending on the arbitrarily chosen frame of reference, to arise from the accelerated motion of the carousel (rotation always indicates acceleration in some frame) or from a local gravitational field acting on the rider who experiences the force. there is no possibility of choosing one perspective over the other. NONE. NADA. ZIP. You have to get over the shock, but it is black-letter physics to say that the earth is dead still at the center of the universe and everything else is whirly-gigging around it. That is not an accomodation to our ignorance, it is the expression of our highest science. Insofar as Galileo insisted that the earth moved (eppur si muove), he was WRONG. It's also worth noting that because he assumed circular rather than elliptical orbits, his predictions were WRONG even granting that the sun does not rise. He knew that and his inquisitors knew it, and he knew that they knew it, a fact that gets conveniently left out of the tale.
The choice of whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa is just that, simply a choice. The main reason one choice is made rather than another is in the heliocentric theory, the calculations. Further, from the virial theorem of cosmology, it is perefctly justifiable to take the earth as not only unmoving but at the center of the universe. In other words, to adopt the common-sense position adopted by the entire human race for millennia before geniuses like Kepler and Galileo showed up to confuse matters.
FYI: my education was in theoretical physics (Fordham, 68).
General relativity requires only that a suitable gravitational field be specified to relativize the physicval sense of inertia. Inertia is gravity and vice versa, thus the so-called g-force felt on a carousel can be considered, depending on the arbitrarily chosen frame of reference, to arise from the accelerated motion of the carousel (rotation always indicates acceleration in some frame) or from a local gravitational field acting on the rider who experiences the force. there is no possibility of choosing one perspective over the other. NONE. NADA. ZIP. You have to get over the shock, but it is black-letter physics to say that the earth is dead still at the center of the universe and everything else is whirly-gigging around it. That is not an accomodation to our ignorance, it is the expression of our highest science. Insofar as Galileo insisted that the earth moved (eppur si muove), he was WRONG. It's also worth noting that because he assumed circular rather than elliptical orbits, his predictions were WRONG even granting that the sun does not rise. He knew that and his inquisitors knew it, and he knew that they knew it, a fact that gets conveniently left out of the tale.
The choice of whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa is just that, simply a choice. The main reason one choice is made rather than another is in the heliocentric theory, the calculations. Further, from the virial theorem of cosmology, it is perefctly justifiable to take the earth as not only unmoving but at the center of the universe. In other words, to adopt the common-sense position adopted by the entire human race for millennia before geniuses like Kepler and Galileo showed up to confuse matters.
FYI: my education was in theoretical physics (Fordham, 68).
10.7.2011 | 3:47pm
David Nickol says:
I think Peter J. Leithart is either saying something trivial or false.
It's trivial to say that the Bible, or someone speaking in everyday conversation, is wrong to say, "The sun rises." It is a perfectly adequate communication of experience for most purposes, and it would be foolish, even if you believe the Bible to be 100% literally true, for a Biblical passage to say "as the earth rotated on its axis, it appeared to them that the sun itself was actually moving rather than the earth . . . ." Under oath in court, no one would ever be considered to commit perjury for saying that the sun rose, even an astronomer who knew about planetary rotation, the earth's orbit, and so on.
It is wrong, however, to assert that the scientific understanding of gravity, earth's rotation, orbits, and so on, does not give us a deeper and more complete insight into the positions and movements of the earth and the sun. To pretend that what an observer in a certain spot on earth sees with his or her own eyes is true on the same level of the scientific understanding of the sun's centrality in the solar system (which, note, is called the SOLAR system) and the earth's rotation, is to put what an individual sees with his own eyes on a par with what has been deeply observed, measure, subjected to experiments, and so on. It is to devalue scientific knowledge as just another way of looking at things, as if empirical truth didn't really matter.
It's trivial to say that the Bible, or someone speaking in everyday conversation, is wrong to say, "The sun rises." It is a perfectly adequate communication of experience for most purposes, and it would be foolish, even if you believe the Bible to be 100% literally true, for a Biblical passage to say "as the earth rotated on its axis, it appeared to them that the sun itself was actually moving rather than the earth . . . ." Under oath in court, no one would ever be considered to commit perjury for saying that the sun rose, even an astronomer who knew about planetary rotation, the earth's orbit, and so on.
It is wrong, however, to assert that the scientific understanding of gravity, earth's rotation, orbits, and so on, does not give us a deeper and more complete insight into the positions and movements of the earth and the sun. To pretend that what an observer in a certain spot on earth sees with his or her own eyes is true on the same level of the scientific understanding of the sun's centrality in the solar system (which, note, is called the SOLAR system) and the earth's rotation, is to put what an individual sees with his own eyes on a par with what has been deeply observed, measure, subjected to experiments, and so on. It is to devalue scientific knowledge as just another way of looking at things, as if empirical truth didn't really matter.
10.7.2011 | 4:23pm
John S says:
I've sometimes been called as dumb as a bag of hammers, so why I'm on this site I'm not sure. But I find it interesting that some in the comments are so rigorous in defense of science as if the author still believes the earth is the center of the solar system and is, well, as dumb as a bag of hammers.
Someone above said it better (including the author), but from our perspective on earth the sun does rise. I've never met a human yet who won't say 'look at that sunrise' because science says 'taint so. (When I do hear it I'm going to accuse the person of having no soul, which is another aspect of this discussion).
I'd say it's simply looking at a different facet of the diamond, perhaps a smaller one, maybe even a less significant one. In one sense it does rise, in another sense is doesn't. Current thinking is to banish the slave women rather than ponder or experience the paradox, nuance, and other side of one's brain.
Someone above said it better (including the author), but from our perspective on earth the sun does rise. I've never met a human yet who won't say 'look at that sunrise' because science says 'taint so. (When I do hear it I'm going to accuse the person of having no soul, which is another aspect of this discussion).
I'd say it's simply looking at a different facet of the diamond, perhaps a smaller one, maybe even a less significant one. In one sense it does rise, in another sense is doesn't. Current thinking is to banish the slave women rather than ponder or experience the paradox, nuance, and other side of one's brain.
10.7.2011 | 4:29pm
John S says:
Joseph, I know you're not asking me but since this is a public forum...
Look at verse 63, context shows as a direct response by the one who just made that statement, and to me which clearly holds the answer to your question. At least brings some degree of clarity.
Look at verse 63, context shows as a direct response by the one who just made that statement, and to me which clearly holds the answer to your question. At least brings some degree of clarity.
10.7.2011 | 4:31pm
Joe Z says:
I think Leithart's point about science is not that all perspectives are relative and equally true, but rather that science as a cultural institution functions for most people as an oracular authority, whose pronouncements are to be accepted as obvious even if the reasoning and empirical evidence behind them are totally opaque to us. It's very difficult to resist scientific imperialism when science holds this kind of position for most people. That seems exactly right to me.
10.7.2011 | 4:39pm
Dean Davis says:
I've mulled and studied the question of cosmic structure for over a decade (lots of hair visible on my floor).
For a (relatively) brief statement of my conclusions, with lots of pathways for further study of the best defenders of geocentricity, you can visit:
http://clr4u.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-case-for-cosmic-geocentricity/
http://clr4u.org/writings/essays/345.html
A will and wooly road, but at the end: glory!
For a (relatively) brief statement of my conclusions, with lots of pathways for further study of the best defenders of geocentricity, you can visit:
http://clr4u.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-case-for-cosmic-geocentricity/
http://clr4u.org/writings/essays/345.html
A will and wooly road, but at the end: glory!
10.7.2011 | 5:01pm
David B says:
I think I like his point, but it seems to open a door to relativity to truth in general. Since he says that from a galactic point of view, he would see the earth revolving around the sun, but from earth the sun rises and sets, he seems to be concluding theologically that truth depends on "point of view?" From the presuppositions you are seeing the empirical truth from? What implications does this have for the trinity or the evangelical apologetic of Absolute Truth? Or am I just missing something entirely here?
10.7.2011 | 5:56pm
T.D. Roy says:
Resh Galuta,
One could say many of the same things about the educated elite and blue-collar workers. Economics and lawyers are indubitably better at positional notation, calculus, and footnotes. Does that put us in a better position to make decisions that affect other persons, or to decide that their feelings and tastes are "just too pathetic"? That is the very definition of snobbery, which snobs prefer to call "civilization".
Has the advance of scientific knowledge really outdated philosophic musings on being, nothingness, and human nature? Likewise, a kneejerk reaction that removes the need to seriously consider the intricate reasonings of the great philosophers of the ages - to conduct a 'deep reading', even, and pull out hitherto unseen arguments from them - is chronological snobbery.
One could say many of the same things about the educated elite and blue-collar workers. Economics and lawyers are indubitably better at positional notation, calculus, and footnotes. Does that put us in a better position to make decisions that affect other persons, or to decide that their feelings and tastes are "just too pathetic"? That is the very definition of snobbery, which snobs prefer to call "civilization".
Has the advance of scientific knowledge really outdated philosophic musings on being, nothingness, and human nature? Likewise, a kneejerk reaction that removes the need to seriously consider the intricate reasonings of the great philosophers of the ages - to conduct a 'deep reading', even, and pull out hitherto unseen arguments from them - is chronological snobbery.
10.7.2011 | 6:42pm
Joe McFaul says:
"I think Leithart's point about science is not that all perspectives are relative and equally true, but rather that science as a cultural institution functions for most people as an oracular authority, whose pronouncements are to be accepted as obvious even if the reasoning and empirical evidence behind them are totally opaque to us."
I agree--
--
but there's no reason for it to be opaque other than illiteracy in the subject matter. I can't read Greek either, it's opaque to me, so I rely on translators. If I wanted to, I could become proficient in Greek. There's no hubris in being proficient in science any more than there is in being proficient in Greek--if "hubris" means whatever it meant in acient Greek anyway.
If he wanted to, he and other commenters could become proficient in science as well. First, start with recognizing the distinction between earth's "rotation" around its own axis causing sunrise (easy to demostrate in your own backyard) and earth's "revolution" around the sun (trickier, but still doable with some backyard science).
I agree--
--
but there's no reason for it to be opaque other than illiteracy in the subject matter. I can't read Greek either, it's opaque to me, so I rely on translators. If I wanted to, I could become proficient in Greek. There's no hubris in being proficient in science any more than there is in being proficient in Greek--if "hubris" means whatever it meant in acient Greek anyway.
If he wanted to, he and other commenters could become proficient in science as well. First, start with recognizing the distinction between earth's "rotation" around its own axis causing sunrise (easy to demostrate in your own backyard) and earth's "revolution" around the sun (trickier, but still doable with some backyard science).
10.7.2011 | 6:49pm
pentamom says:
"Any 12 year old child of common intelligence can demostrate the earth's rotation."
I'd like to see you do it without asserting a whole bunch of things that you can only know because you accept a whole lot of assumptions you can neither prove, nor even understand the basis of very well.
Or, by a naked appeal to authority, which is really what your "basic scientific literacy" is.
More likely, though, you're misconstruing the use of "demonstrate" in this context. We're not talking about an orange, a basketball, and a flashlight, here. We're talking about showing it as a matter of scientific explanation.
I'd like to see you do it without asserting a whole bunch of things that you can only know because you accept a whole lot of assumptions you can neither prove, nor even understand the basis of very well.
Or, by a naked appeal to authority, which is really what your "basic scientific literacy" is.
More likely, though, you're misconstruing the use of "demonstrate" in this context. We're not talking about an orange, a basketball, and a flashlight, here. We're talking about showing it as a matter of scientific explanation.
10.7.2011 | 6:51pm
pentamom says:
"From the presuppositions you are seeing the empirical truth from? What implications does this have for the trinity or the evangelical apologetic of Absolute Truth?"
The implications for Christian doctrine seem clear and unthreatening -- the God's Eye perspective is the only "absolute" one, and that is available to us through revelation. Anything of a lower order is useful only within a limited context, but the limits can be rather wide in some cases.
The implications for Christian doctrine seem clear and unthreatening -- the God's Eye perspective is the only "absolute" one, and that is available to us through revelation. Anything of a lower order is useful only within a limited context, but the limits can be rather wide in some cases.
10.7.2011 | 7:40pm
PatrickH says:
Sorry, David N, and the other guy. Relativity theory was invoked precisely to disabuse people of the notion that there is a privileged frame of reference ("inertial" dropped, point conceded) that says that the earth "really" goes around the sun or that the sun "really" goes around the earth. You have to specify your frame of reference. That's the point. All those who say that "empirical science" shows the sun does not rise because it's the earth that's "moving" are ignoring precisely the empirical science that says (frame of reference specified, of course) that the sun does rise.
10.7.2011 | 9:33pm
Mary says:
Not a one of them can reproduce Galileo’s arguments or evidence. (They’re liberal arts students, so I’m not too hard on them, and besides I can’t reproduce the argument myself.)
Just as well. They aren't good arguments or evidence. Nothing that Galileo put forth is currently accepted as evidence of heliocentrism.
Two arguments put up against him were 1. if we are moving through space, we would be closer to any given star at one point, and farther away at others, so why don't they look any different? and 2. if the earth is moving, why doesn't it have any affect on objects' motions.
Later, we found that telescopes could demonstrate stellar parallax; two stars appear to shift relative to each other in the course of a year, just as two trees, one nearer than the other, can appear to shift from one side to the other as you walk by.
And very sensitive measurement found faint swerves in falling objects.
In Galileo's time neither could be discovered, because the instruments weren't sensitive enough. You can't support a theory on the grounds that maybe if you had more sensitive instruments you could find evidence; you have to wait for them.
Just as well. They aren't good arguments or evidence. Nothing that Galileo put forth is currently accepted as evidence of heliocentrism.
Two arguments put up against him were 1. if we are moving through space, we would be closer to any given star at one point, and farther away at others, so why don't they look any different? and 2. if the earth is moving, why doesn't it have any affect on objects' motions.
Later, we found that telescopes could demonstrate stellar parallax; two stars appear to shift relative to each other in the course of a year, just as two trees, one nearer than the other, can appear to shift from one side to the other as you walk by.
And very sensitive measurement found faint swerves in falling objects.
In Galileo's time neither could be discovered, because the instruments weren't sensitive enough. You can't support a theory on the grounds that maybe if you had more sensitive instruments you could find evidence; you have to wait for them.
10.7.2011 | 9:35pm
Mary says:
Any 12 year old child of common intelligence can demostrate the earth's rotation.
If by "demonstrate" you mean can say, that's a matter of parroting what has been taught.
If by "demonstrate" you mean can prove, I seriously doubt any child would be allowed near instruments sensitive enough to pull it off
If by "demonstrate" you mean can say, that's a matter of parroting what has been taught.
If by "demonstrate" you mean can prove, I seriously doubt any child would be allowed near instruments sensitive enough to pull it off
10.7.2011 | 9:38pm
Mary says:
Relativity theory was invoked precisely to disabuse people of the notion that there is a privileged frame of reference ("inertial" dropped, point conceded) that says that the earth "really" goes around the sun or that the sun "really" goes around the earth.
Except that general relativity does indeed allow some references frames to be priveleged. Acceleration. That is why in the twin paradox, one twin will really be younger than the other when they meet again: he's the one who accelerated.
A train pulls out of the station. We can tell that the train accelerated and the station didn't because on the train we feel the acceleration, and it would spill full glasses of water and the like. The earth is accelerating toward the sun -- and missing it, which is why it's in orbit -- not going in a straight line. This produces effects on falling objects, however fine.
Except that general relativity does indeed allow some references frames to be priveleged. Acceleration. That is why in the twin paradox, one twin will really be younger than the other when they meet again: he's the one who accelerated.
A train pulls out of the station. We can tell that the train accelerated and the station didn't because on the train we feel the acceleration, and it would spill full glasses of water and the like. The earth is accelerating toward the sun -- and missing it, which is why it's in orbit -- not going in a straight line. This produces effects on falling objects, however fine.
10.8.2011 | 9:33am
Bret Lythgoe says:
G. Kyle Essary: I think that you're right that Mr. Leithart was using his geocentrism/heliocentrism example, as evidence for his "accommodation/perspectivism'' point. However, the geocentric/heliocentric example could only work, to illustrate his larger point, if his criticism of the heliocentric theory was valid; but his criticism is not. Heliocentrism is as well established, as anything else, scientifically.
The milky way galaxy, of which we and our solar system is a part of, revolves as well. But if one believes this, one must believe that the earth revolves around the sun, since both views rely on similar scientific methodology.
Mr. Leithart seems to believe that we're accommodating to science illegitimately. Certainly no one is for that. But if it's rationally been deemed that scientific methodology is more efficacious in determining the truth of a matter, then it would be legitimate to do so, and this seems to be the case in empirical matters, generally, of which the behavior of our solar system is a conspicuous example. But, obviously, if the methodology of theology is demmed more efficacious, in certain areas of reality, as it like would be concerning many aspects of the Christian religion, then it would be illegitimate to relay on the methods of science, to find the truth, in these areas.
Speaking of Truth, as John Searle, I believe in a review of a book on postmodernism, for THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, pointed out, just because something is from a particualr perspective, does not mean it's not true. We have true perspectives.
The milky way galaxy, of which we and our solar system is a part of, revolves as well. But if one believes this, one must believe that the earth revolves around the sun, since both views rely on similar scientific methodology.
Mr. Leithart seems to believe that we're accommodating to science illegitimately. Certainly no one is for that. But if it's rationally been deemed that scientific methodology is more efficacious in determining the truth of a matter, then it would be legitimate to do so, and this seems to be the case in empirical matters, generally, of which the behavior of our solar system is a conspicuous example. But, obviously, if the methodology of theology is demmed more efficacious, in certain areas of reality, as it like would be concerning many aspects of the Christian religion, then it would be illegitimate to relay on the methods of science, to find the truth, in these areas.
Speaking of Truth, as John Searle, I believe in a review of a book on postmodernism, for THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, pointed out, just because something is from a particualr perspective, does not mean it's not true. We have true perspectives.
10.8.2011 | 10:24am
pentamom says:
Joe -- can you demonstrate (as in prove) why a pendulum accurately describes the movement of the earth, or perhaps better, why the movement of a pendulum proves something about the movement of the earth? Could a 12 year old child?
I don't think "demonstrate" in this context means "set up a demonstration that mimics the activity." I think it means "show, without appealing to external authority, that it is the case." Without some extremely sophisticated knowledge, you couldn't do that, and I doubt you have it -- not because I question your intelligence or competence, but because only an extremely small number of people are capable of this.
I don't think "demonstrate" in this context means "set up a demonstration that mimics the activity." I think it means "show, without appealing to external authority, that it is the case." Without some extremely sophisticated knowledge, you couldn't do that, and I doubt you have it -- not because I question your intelligence or competence, but because only an extremely small number of people are capable of this.
10.8.2011 | 12:19pm
John Hinshaw says:
Wow. The tyrannies of one world perspective (the scientific one) are mildly challenged (I repeat: in a wonder-full, brief fashion) and out come the Inquisitors. I'm still waiting for the new millenium to show us a different way of acceptance. The previous millenium ended with the dominance (dare I say, dictatorship) of the view which gave us nuclear fission, prefrontal leukotomy, Zyklon B, tee-totalism, RU 486, etc. Can't we have a conversation about alternatives?
10.8.2011 | 4:58pm
Joe McFaul says:
"can you demonstrate (as in prove) why a pendulum accurately describes the movement of the earth, or perhaps better, why the movement of a pendulum proves something about the movement of the earth? Could a 12 year old child?"
Yes.
For 12 year olds: http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/
For people smarter than a 5th grader:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Yes.
For 12 year olds: http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/
For people smarter than a 5th grader:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
10.9.2011 | 1:10am
Matthew N. Petersen says:
First, yes, most people could, if told how, and given a lengthy enough explanation demonstrate the earth spins on its axis. With precise enough instruments, most people could observe parallax, and show the earth rotates around the sun. (Though most people would not be able to do either without significant help, both to know how to conduct the experiment, and how to interpret the experiment.)
But that isn't the point of the article, if I understand it correctly. As I understand it, the point is to question whether there is only one valid perspective, and that one a mathematical/physical one.
It isn't quite exactly parallel (as I will explain later) but it seems Pr. Leithart believes we have all become Eustace Scrubs who endlessly repeat "in our world, stars are balls of burning gas." And we need Ramandu to tell us that even in our world that is not so.
Somewhere, Lewis raises the question of whether our current perception of our experiences, or our remembrance of them after the Resurrection will be true. He concludes that both may in fact be true, since each statement comes with an implicit caveat "from here". He explains: Though I know the mountains that now look blue will, when I arrive, look green; this does not imply that they are not in fact blue. They are blue from here.
The same applies to the current discussion. Some facts--not all, but some--carry an implicit "from here" in them. The most obvious, and most scientific, is constant motion. But this does not mean, by any means, that it is the only one. Nor, as I said, that all facts are relative to position. Christ is risen! Yesterday, today, forever, and everywhere. But some facts, including, so far as I can tell, whether the sun rises, are only true or false from a particular perspective.
An example of truth that depends on the perspective taken comes from the question of what a tree really is. (Yes, this example is slightly different.) Is it really mostly empty space? Is it really just gauge fields? Yes, and no. Yes, gauge fields are its material cause. But gauge fields, emphatically, are not its formal cause. As Ramandu would say, to precisely the same sort of philosophical boorishness, "even in our world, that is not what a tree is, but only what it is made of."
Which still misses a larger point. Is Scripture "childish"? Are anthropomorphisms God's lisping to accommodate us? I, for one, say that is simply nonsense. God may not have delivered Israel from the land of Egypt by his outstretched arm, but he surely did deliver us with his outstretched arms.
Anthropomorphisms are not accommodation, like all the Law, they are prophesies. As Athanasius says: "It is only on a cross that a man dies with arms outstretched. Here again we see the fitness of his death, and of those outstretched arms."
But that isn't the point of the article, if I understand it correctly. As I understand it, the point is to question whether there is only one valid perspective, and that one a mathematical/physical one.
It isn't quite exactly parallel (as I will explain later) but it seems Pr. Leithart believes we have all become Eustace Scrubs who endlessly repeat "in our world, stars are balls of burning gas." And we need Ramandu to tell us that even in our world that is not so.
Somewhere, Lewis raises the question of whether our current perception of our experiences, or our remembrance of them after the Resurrection will be true. He concludes that both may in fact be true, since each statement comes with an implicit caveat "from here". He explains: Though I know the mountains that now look blue will, when I arrive, look green; this does not imply that they are not in fact blue. They are blue from here.
The same applies to the current discussion. Some facts--not all, but some--carry an implicit "from here" in them. The most obvious, and most scientific, is constant motion. But this does not mean, by any means, that it is the only one. Nor, as I said, that all facts are relative to position. Christ is risen! Yesterday, today, forever, and everywhere. But some facts, including, so far as I can tell, whether the sun rises, are only true or false from a particular perspective.
An example of truth that depends on the perspective taken comes from the question of what a tree really is. (Yes, this example is slightly different.) Is it really mostly empty space? Is it really just gauge fields? Yes, and no. Yes, gauge fields are its material cause. But gauge fields, emphatically, are not its formal cause. As Ramandu would say, to precisely the same sort of philosophical boorishness, "even in our world, that is not what a tree is, but only what it is made of."
Which still misses a larger point. Is Scripture "childish"? Are anthropomorphisms God's lisping to accommodate us? I, for one, say that is simply nonsense. God may not have delivered Israel from the land of Egypt by his outstretched arm, but he surely did deliver us with his outstretched arms.
Anthropomorphisms are not accommodation, like all the Law, they are prophesies. As Athanasius says: "It is only on a cross that a man dies with arms outstretched. Here again we see the fitness of his death, and of those outstretched arms."
10.9.2011 | 11:40am
jason taylor says:
"Does Peter Leithart really mean to suggest that "truth" is always perspectival? That way, we know, lies the precipice of relativism (a condition in which everyone - except, of course, the "snobs" - thinks he has his own front-row "seat in the house"). Yet this seems to be the implication of Prof. Leithart's pedagogical conceit. "
Um, no. He said some truth is perspectival.
Um, no. He said some truth is perspectival.
10.9.2011 | 11:47am
jason taylor says:
An easy way to get across the author's point is to try to write exactly the same statement in scientific and in poetic forms:
"Tis cold and tis windy at the harbor today"
or "Low temperature and high intensity air currents affect the environment of the maritime infrastructural facilities today"
The first actually tells more because it appeals to the imagination. Yet we are inclined to prejudice the second format even when, as in this case, it provides no more specific information.
The main use of the second format is to provide precision. In this case it does not. However the point would be that many people would still assume the superiority of the second format.
"Tis cold and tis windy at the harbor today"
or "Low temperature and high intensity air currents affect the environment of the maritime infrastructural facilities today"
The first actually tells more because it appeals to the imagination. Yet we are inclined to prejudice the second format even when, as in this case, it provides no more specific information.
The main use of the second format is to provide precision. In this case it does not. However the point would be that many people would still assume the superiority of the second format.
10.9.2011 | 4:45pm
pentamom says:
Joe, you're missing the point. You (I assume) and the 12 year old can only explain what you have been told by others who have made the observations and done the math. And even then, most 12 year olds and most adults don't have the knowledge necessary to show how it works. They might all be capable of it, but they *don't actually know how.* They are relying on knowledge transmitted to them, if they're capable of it at all.
99.99% of people alive today do not "know" that the earth circles the sun based on their own independent scientific verification. Even the people who are able to show it with a pendulum do not "know" that this is really how it works, rather accepting it as a useful explanation they have come to accept. They believe it with good reason, based on a sound approach to and respect for credible authority.
99.99% of people alive today do not "know" that the earth circles the sun based on their own independent scientific verification. Even the people who are able to show it with a pendulum do not "know" that this is really how it works, rather accepting it as a useful explanation they have come to accept. They believe it with good reason, based on a sound approach to and respect for credible authority.
10.9.2011 | 4:51pm
pentamom says:
"God may not have delivered Israel from the land of Egypt by his outstretched arm, but he surely did deliver us with his outstretched arms."
I'm more inclined to go with Jason on this one -- He delivered Israel from Egypt "by his outstretched arm" because "by his outstretched arm" is a poetic rendering that reflects the realities of how he did it, i.e. by an active exertion of His power. It's not the most technical possible description, but neither is it anything less than a true description of what happened. God reached out and Did Something. That's what "by his outstretched arm" tells us, and it provides true and necessary information that "by a series of disasters and a really big wave" *does not* provide for us.
This is a good example, because "he delivered Israel by his outstretched arm" is not a simplified rendering for people incapable of understanding what happens when a wave meets an army of chariots, or when a great power is brought to its knees by a series of disasters it cannot cope with. They were perfectly aware that physical means were in play, but those physical means were a manifestation of his outstretched arm, not "instead of" it.
I'm more inclined to go with Jason on this one -- He delivered Israel from Egypt "by his outstretched arm" because "by his outstretched arm" is a poetic rendering that reflects the realities of how he did it, i.e. by an active exertion of His power. It's not the most technical possible description, but neither is it anything less than a true description of what happened. God reached out and Did Something. That's what "by his outstretched arm" tells us, and it provides true and necessary information that "by a series of disasters and a really big wave" *does not* provide for us.
This is a good example, because "he delivered Israel by his outstretched arm" is not a simplified rendering for people incapable of understanding what happens when a wave meets an army of chariots, or when a great power is brought to its knees by a series of disasters it cannot cope with. They were perfectly aware that physical means were in play, but those physical means were a manifestation of his outstretched arm, not "instead of" it.
10.9.2011 | 7:58pm
David Nickol says:
pentamom,
You say, "99.99% of people alive today do not "know" that the earth circles the sun based on their own independent scientific verification."
Well, if that is the standard for "knowing," how much can anyone "know"? I have never been to London, so how do I "know" it is really there? I have never seen a virus getting in my mouth or nose resulting in a cold, so how do I "know" cold viruses cause colds? I have never done experiments demonstrating that without vitamin C, human beings will get scurvy, but don't I have a right to say I "know" that? I didn't attend any of Henry VIII's weddings, so I don't "know" he had a total of six wives.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that we can see films of the earth rotating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmmv0gOfWw
If seeing is believing, that's proof, unless of course you assume NASA has faked the video. We've also sent people to the moon who have sent back video of the earth rotating in space. They (and we) can see the earth turning on its axis and the sun remaining basically stationary. We can see weather patterns moving from west to east across the United States (evidence of the Coriolis effect) on any decent weather report that uses time lapse satellite video. The pendulum experiment is just one of many indicators of the earth's rotation.
Also, seeing with your own eyes is not necessarily proof. Look at this optical illusion:
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html
Even when you *know* squares A and B are the same shade, one looks dark and one looks light.
Something bothers me about Leithart's saying: "If I could watch the solar system from a God’s-eye perch somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy, I would see a celestial farris wheel with the sun at the hub, just like the one I can find on Wikipedia." (And it's not just that he misspelled "ferris wheel"!) It is not even remotely necessary to go as far as the Andromeda galaxy to see the earth spinning on it's axis. In fact, of course, you could not see the sun and the planets from that far away. You can see it from a satellite. And you don't have to go anywhere near that far to see the earth orbiting the sun.
Of COURSE there is nothing wrong with talking about the sun rising and setting to anyone sufficiently distant from the north or the south pole. But as I have pointed out, the sun rises and sets very differently depending on where you are on the earth—once a day for most of us, but once a year at the north and south poles.
You say, "99.99% of people alive today do not "know" that the earth circles the sun based on their own independent scientific verification."
Well, if that is the standard for "knowing," how much can anyone "know"? I have never been to London, so how do I "know" it is really there? I have never seen a virus getting in my mouth or nose resulting in a cold, so how do I "know" cold viruses cause colds? I have never done experiments demonstrating that without vitamin C, human beings will get scurvy, but don't I have a right to say I "know" that? I didn't attend any of Henry VIII's weddings, so I don't "know" he had a total of six wives.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that we can see films of the earth rotating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmmv0gOfWw
If seeing is believing, that's proof, unless of course you assume NASA has faked the video. We've also sent people to the moon who have sent back video of the earth rotating in space. They (and we) can see the earth turning on its axis and the sun remaining basically stationary. We can see weather patterns moving from west to east across the United States (evidence of the Coriolis effect) on any decent weather report that uses time lapse satellite video. The pendulum experiment is just one of many indicators of the earth's rotation.
Also, seeing with your own eyes is not necessarily proof. Look at this optical illusion:
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html
Even when you *know* squares A and B are the same shade, one looks dark and one looks light.
Something bothers me about Leithart's saying: "If I could watch the solar system from a God’s-eye perch somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy, I would see a celestial farris wheel with the sun at the hub, just like the one I can find on Wikipedia." (And it's not just that he misspelled "ferris wheel"!) It is not even remotely necessary to go as far as the Andromeda galaxy to see the earth spinning on it's axis. In fact, of course, you could not see the sun and the planets from that far away. You can see it from a satellite. And you don't have to go anywhere near that far to see the earth orbiting the sun.
Of COURSE there is nothing wrong with talking about the sun rising and setting to anyone sufficiently distant from the north or the south pole. But as I have pointed out, the sun rises and sets very differently depending on where you are on the earth—once a day for most of us, but once a year at the north and south poles.
10.9.2011 | 11:14pm
matthew n. petersen says:
pentamom,
I think that's basically Calvin's and Galileo's point though. The only difference, if it is one, is that you say God is lisping to accommodate human languages, not primitive minds.
I think that's basically Calvin's and Galileo's point though. The only difference, if it is one, is that you say God is lisping to accommodate human languages, not primitive minds.
10.10.2011 | 1:05pm
pentamom says:
No, I don't say God is lisping at all. I am saying that he is fully expressing what he intends to express in the clearest and most descriptive way possible.
If you were to imagine a way to describe God's rescue of Israel from Egypt in a way that was more fully descriptive and accurate than "by My outstretched arm," what would it look like? I can't think of anything better. I don't see any "accommodation" in that description at all, but a full-orbed statement of exactly what happened.
Unless your claim is merely that by using words, God is lisping? If so, I don't think that's either a useful insight (it may be true, but it hardly in any way affects how we should understand the words) nor what is generally meant by "concession."
If you were to imagine a way to describe God's rescue of Israel from Egypt in a way that was more fully descriptive and accurate than "by My outstretched arm," what would it look like? I can't think of anything better. I don't see any "accommodation" in that description at all, but a full-orbed statement of exactly what happened.
Unless your claim is merely that by using words, God is lisping? If so, I don't think that's either a useful insight (it may be true, but it hardly in any way affects how we should understand the words) nor what is generally meant by "concession."
10.10.2011 | 1:06pm
A Donathan says:
It seems to me the point is not whether a given person could, if shown how, demonstrate the earth's rotation or any other scientific fact. It is likely that many (most?) of Leithart's students were not aware of Foucault's pendulum (I wasn't, or I had forgotten it if I ever knew about it), and yet they believed in the rotation of the earth anyway, without questioning it. And apart from this topic, there are many scientific truths that cannot be demonstrated by an accessible backyard proof. (Facts of genetics, microbiology, astrophysics, e.g.) Our access to such perspectives is not direct or simple, instead relying on authority, testimony, and conceptual arguments, yet many of us accept those perspectives as superior.
As David Nickol demonstrates, that acceptance is so ingrained in us as to provoke incredulity and whenever someone even so much as probes or questions it. The suppose superiority of scientific ways of knowing is supposed to be so self evident that it needs no argumentation. Yet is scientific knowledge really more "deep" and more "complete" than other ways of knowing or seeing? Why? How? I don't think it is, and I think it would be hard to provide a convincing argument for it. Most scientists don't, not necessarily being concerned with philosophy of science, yet many assume it and won't tolerate any challenge to it.
As for empirical truth, to constrict empirical truth exclusively to science is to beg the question. Is what I observe with my own eyes not empirical? How, after all, does a scientist use a microscope? With his own eyes. If, then, I observe the sun rising in the sky with my own eyes, is this not also an empirical observation? It is, of course. If I stub my toe on a solid rock, is this not an empirical observation of the rock's solidity? It is. Empiricism is not really at issue here. We all observe the world. At issue is how we observe the world and whether there are superior ways of observing, evaluating, interpreting, sythesizing, and speaking about the world. I am grateful to Dr. Leithart for offering us tools for navigating the question, and a means for liberating ourselves from the limitations of exclusive scientism.
As David Nickol demonstrates, that acceptance is so ingrained in us as to provoke incredulity and whenever someone even so much as probes or questions it. The suppose superiority of scientific ways of knowing is supposed to be so self evident that it needs no argumentation. Yet is scientific knowledge really more "deep" and more "complete" than other ways of knowing or seeing? Why? How? I don't think it is, and I think it would be hard to provide a convincing argument for it. Most scientists don't, not necessarily being concerned with philosophy of science, yet many assume it and won't tolerate any challenge to it.
As for empirical truth, to constrict empirical truth exclusively to science is to beg the question. Is what I observe with my own eyes not empirical? How, after all, does a scientist use a microscope? With his own eyes. If, then, I observe the sun rising in the sky with my own eyes, is this not also an empirical observation? It is, of course. If I stub my toe on a solid rock, is this not an empirical observation of the rock's solidity? It is. Empiricism is not really at issue here. We all observe the world. At issue is how we observe the world and whether there are superior ways of observing, evaluating, interpreting, sythesizing, and speaking about the world. I am grateful to Dr. Leithart for offering us tools for navigating the question, and a means for liberating ourselves from the limitations of exclusive scientism.
10.10.2011 | 1:06pm
pentamom says:
David:
"Well, if that is the standard for "knowing," how much can anyone "know"? I have never been to London, so how do I "know" it is really there? I have never seen a virus getting in my mouth or nose resulting in a cold, so how do I "know" cold viruses cause colds? I have never done experiments demonstrating that without vitamin C, human beings will get scurvy, but don't I have a right to say I "know" that? I didn't attend any of Henry VIII's weddings, so I don't "know" he had a total of six wives. "
Well, exactly.
"Well, if that is the standard for "knowing," how much can anyone "know"? I have never been to London, so how do I "know" it is really there? I have never seen a virus getting in my mouth or nose resulting in a cold, so how do I "know" cold viruses cause colds? I have never done experiments demonstrating that without vitamin C, human beings will get scurvy, but don't I have a right to say I "know" that? I didn't attend any of Henry VIII's weddings, so I don't "know" he had a total of six wives. "
Well, exactly.
10.10.2011 | 3:20pm
David Nickol says:
pentamom,
Peter J. Leithart says, "If I could watch the solar system from a God’s-eye perch somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy, I would see a celestial farris [sic] wheel with the sun at the hub, just like the one I can find on Wikipedia."
I think you would have to say that Leithart can't "know" that. So is he justified in saying it?
Granted, no one has specified a precise definition of "to know" here, so I suppose you can use your own definition if you like. But by your definition, hardly anyone knows anything.
And Leithart says: "When my students ask why I believe the sun rises, I state the obvious: I see it." Well, in the very early days of motion pictures, people ran terrified from a room where a movie of an oncoming train, seemingly coming straight at them, was projected on the wall. Seeing is not necessarily believing.
I think you would have to argue that not only don't *I* know that Henry VIII had six wives. *Nobody* alive today knows it. We can only hope we are right in trusting historical records. And of course Christians can't *know* Jesus actually lived, let alone rose from the dead. We can't actually *know* there was a person named Paul who wrote the Epistle to the Romans. There's almost nothing, by your definition, that we can know except our own sensory experiences, and even those may be deceiving.
You seem to be saying that according to your definition of knowledge, there can be no knowledge except by personal experience. I am not expert on epistemology, but you seem to be espousing a fairly extreme form of skepticism. I can't claim to "know" George Washington was the first president of the United States, because I wasn't there. At best I can say I believe I have good reasons for "believing" George Washington was the first president of the United States, but I don't "know" it.
Your whole case is based on your own definition of "knowledge," and someone with another definition can say, "We know for a fact Henry VIII had six wives, and George Washington was the first president of the United States."
Peter J. Leithart says, "If I could watch the solar system from a God’s-eye perch somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy, I would see a celestial farris [sic] wheel with the sun at the hub, just like the one I can find on Wikipedia."
I think you would have to say that Leithart can't "know" that. So is he justified in saying it?
Granted, no one has specified a precise definition of "to know" here, so I suppose you can use your own definition if you like. But by your definition, hardly anyone knows anything.
And Leithart says: "When my students ask why I believe the sun rises, I state the obvious: I see it." Well, in the very early days of motion pictures, people ran terrified from a room where a movie of an oncoming train, seemingly coming straight at them, was projected on the wall. Seeing is not necessarily believing.
I think you would have to argue that not only don't *I* know that Henry VIII had six wives. *Nobody* alive today knows it. We can only hope we are right in trusting historical records. And of course Christians can't *know* Jesus actually lived, let alone rose from the dead. We can't actually *know* there was a person named Paul who wrote the Epistle to the Romans. There's almost nothing, by your definition, that we can know except our own sensory experiences, and even those may be deceiving.
You seem to be saying that according to your definition of knowledge, there can be no knowledge except by personal experience. I am not expert on epistemology, but you seem to be espousing a fairly extreme form of skepticism. I can't claim to "know" George Washington was the first president of the United States, because I wasn't there. At best I can say I believe I have good reasons for "believing" George Washington was the first president of the United States, but I don't "know" it.
Your whole case is based on your own definition of "knowledge," and someone with another definition can say, "We know for a fact Henry VIII had six wives, and George Washington was the first president of the United States."
10.10.2011 | 7:27pm
Mark Kelly says:
Chronological snobbery is a term used by C.S. Lewis to describe Moderns, and their rather evolutionary mindset of 'newer is better, older is just benighted and backward.'
10.10.2011 | 9:33pm
matthew n. petersen says:
pentamom,
That may not be what is meant by concession today, but I am relatively sure it is what was meant historically. Every human word, simply by being human comes up infinitely, and indeed infinitely many infinities, short of the Divine Reality. As such, Scriptural language lisps to accommodate our human condition. Scripture may be a supersubstantial ray, but God Himself in Himself, is beyond being, and thus beyond any language. He speaks as if he has hands, because that is the best way for us to understand him, but in fact He does not. In fact He is infinitely far above even being, and any human word comes up infinitely short of the reality which He is.
And indeed there is Scriptural support for this sort of language. Moses veiled the reality (II Corinthians 3). The Law was the shadow of the reality (Colossians 2). And most clearly, in Hebrews, where it is stated that the Law is a pattern and symbol of the Reality.
But throughout the New Testament, the reality which they are a symbol is not some God in Himself. Rather, as St. Paul says, the substance is Christ. The Law speaks of God in a figure, using veiled human words, because the words were images of the Word, Jesus Christ, our King and our God.
That may not be what is meant by concession today, but I am relatively sure it is what was meant historically. Every human word, simply by being human comes up infinitely, and indeed infinitely many infinities, short of the Divine Reality. As such, Scriptural language lisps to accommodate our human condition. Scripture may be a supersubstantial ray, but God Himself in Himself, is beyond being, and thus beyond any language. He speaks as if he has hands, because that is the best way for us to understand him, but in fact He does not. In fact He is infinitely far above even being, and any human word comes up infinitely short of the reality which He is.
And indeed there is Scriptural support for this sort of language. Moses veiled the reality (II Corinthians 3). The Law was the shadow of the reality (Colossians 2). And most clearly, in Hebrews, where it is stated that the Law is a pattern and symbol of the Reality.
But throughout the New Testament, the reality which they are a symbol is not some God in Himself. Rather, as St. Paul says, the substance is Christ. The Law speaks of God in a figure, using veiled human words, because the words were images of the Word, Jesus Christ, our King and our God.
10.11.2011 | 10:03am
michael Currie says:
Speaking of what "we know" it will be interesting to see how the recent findings, if they hold up, regarding neutrinos exceeding the speed of light effect many if not all of our basic premises as to the nature of the world. I do know that if i stub my toe one more time on the rock in my front yard I will be getting rid of it.
10.11.2011 | 1:05pm
pentamom says:
David, my point is precisely the opposite -- we *are* justified in saying many things we can't "know" in an absolute sense. But because of that, we should be a little more cautious about the claim then, that we "know them as a scientific fact," a little more willing to admit our dependence on the reliable authority of others, and a little more open to revelation from a reliable source being another form of knowledge we can depend on, than the typical proclaimer of "scientific fact" is wont to be.
I am not arguing for an inability to know, I am arguing against the claim that scientific observation is the only truly reliable means of knowing, because, after all, most of us don't actually have access to actual scientific observation of some things we take very much for granted.
I am not arguing for an inability to know, I am arguing against the claim that scientific observation is the only truly reliable means of knowing, because, after all, most of us don't actually have access to actual scientific observation of some things we take very much for granted.
10.11.2011 | 4:31pm
matthew n. petersen says:
pentamom,
What is your definition of "know"? The most common definition is true justified belief (appropriately modified to avoid Gettier problems), which does not imply absolute certainty. Moreover, I am unaware of any definition of knowledge that implies absolute assurance. If any such definition is given, the only possible response is absolute skepticism, since absolutely finite beings can know absolutely nothing with absolute certainty.
Indeed, as David said, it seems that to have a useful definition of knowledge, it cannot imply absolute certainty, for then there is no knowledge of anything, by anyone.
What is your definition of "know"? The most common definition is true justified belief (appropriately modified to avoid Gettier problems), which does not imply absolute certainty. Moreover, I am unaware of any definition of knowledge that implies absolute assurance. If any such definition is given, the only possible response is absolute skepticism, since absolutely finite beings can know absolutely nothing with absolute certainty.
Indeed, as David said, it seems that to have a useful definition of knowledge, it cannot imply absolute certainty, for then there is no knowledge of anything, by anyone.
10.11.2011 | 10:24pm
pentamom says:
You know what? My first sentence in my last comment was admittedly misleading.
My point is not whether we can "know" things, my point is that there are of necessity sound and reliable ways of knowing that are not dependent on "scientific observation," or "knowing science," even if they are about scientific facts. That is because either making the observation, or really understanding the significance of the observation, is beyond the means of 99% of us -- and some number of things are beyond the observation of everyone. The greatly learned and widely-read biologist does not understand quantum mechanics "scientifically," he understands it based on accepting the authority of physicists, and vice versa for the well-informed physicist's knowledge about genetics. Therefore, what we claim to "know based on science" is really not quite that -- it is a knowledge based on trust in those who do the particular kind of science we're referring to at the moment.
Therefore, I find the commonly touted notion that the average person either bases his beliefs about the natural world on "science" or foolishly fails to do so, rather naive. In reality, almost everyone bases his beliefs about the natural world on trust in authority. That should make us more humble about accepting non-naturalistic sources of authority as well, since few of are actually basing what we believe about reality on "science" anyway.
My point is not whether we can "know" things, my point is that there are of necessity sound and reliable ways of knowing that are not dependent on "scientific observation," or "knowing science," even if they are about scientific facts. That is because either making the observation, or really understanding the significance of the observation, is beyond the means of 99% of us -- and some number of things are beyond the observation of everyone. The greatly learned and widely-read biologist does not understand quantum mechanics "scientifically," he understands it based on accepting the authority of physicists, and vice versa for the well-informed physicist's knowledge about genetics. Therefore, what we claim to "know based on science" is really not quite that -- it is a knowledge based on trust in those who do the particular kind of science we're referring to at the moment.
Therefore, I find the commonly touted notion that the average person either bases his beliefs about the natural world on "science" or foolishly fails to do so, rather naive. In reality, almost everyone bases his beliefs about the natural world on trust in authority. That should make us more humble about accepting non-naturalistic sources of authority as well, since few of are actually basing what we believe about reality on "science" anyway.
