Unit 2_Portfolio SRF (2) PDF

Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 U2. The “faith” of the reason. The basis of scientific knowledge 1. Introduction: a) A bri...

Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 U2. The “faith” of the reason. The basis of scientific knowledge 1. Introduction: a) A brief historical retrospective of knowledge A brief historical retrospective 1) Science in Ancient Greece. Aristotle. Knowledge is based on empirical observation: natural objects develop according to certain patterns.  These empirical observations led him to the conclusion that nature is teleological, that is, that everything in nature has an intrinsic goal and end, including human beings. And that end is to develop their own nature. The notion of teleology explains the why of nature.  He explains reality by means of his theory of "the four causes". These four causes are: material cause (matter), formal cause (form), efficient cause (doer), final cause (for what).  He came to the conclusion of the necessity of the existence of an Immobile Motor or Prime mover that would be the cause of the existence of things and the maintenance of their existence. This prime mover had to be incorporeal, for if it had matter it would need a cause to exist, and for the same reason, it lacked the possibility of change and was therefore also perfect. This prime mover he considered to be the final cause of the universe. 2) Science in the Middle Ages: St. Thomas Aquinas. Emergence of the first universities.  The philosophical method was seen as a way of approaching theological questions in order to clarify the relationship between faith and reason. Philosophy and theology were thus understood as two successive, perfectly harmonised steps in human knowledge. From the late Middle Ages onwards, the legitimate distinction between the two fields of knowledge was gradually transformed into a separation. 1  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 A brief historical retrospective 3) Science in the Modern Age: I. Newton Birth of the "modern" sciences (16th century); the scientific method is systematised: develops the (mathematical) formalisation of the sciences and their empirical basis. This is the experimental sciences as we know them today. Separation into "types" of sciences: natural, human and philosophical. Philosophical paradigm shift: from "reality" to "method" as the main criterion of knowledge. The Science-Philosophy-Theology relationship is broken. New philosophical currents: Rationalism (French school, represented by Descartes: 1596-1650). It holds that knowledge comes from clear and distinct ideas presented to the mind. And mathematical demonstrations perfectly fulfil the requirement of the criterion of truth. Empiricism (English school, Francis Bacon: 1561-1626). Defence of data acquired by observation through the senses as the "foundation" of the new sciences. It leads to a prevailing trend (which continues to this day): From "modern science" to "scientific materialism": Positivism It arose from Comte (1798-1857) (antecedents in empiricism). Thesis: human knowledge has evolved in three stages: 1) Mythological explanation of reality in terms of "action of divinity". 2) Metaphysical or philosophical explanation of reality based on abstract principles. 3) Scientific explanation based on positive (empirical) relationships between phenomena. Thesis: the only valid knowledge is that which comes from experience (Positivism), consequently, the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge and the only valid method is that employed by the natural sciences. (Scientism) Reduction of the concept of "experience": the philosophical (human experience of the world) and the religious (experience of the mystical and the divine) are no longer considered knowledge. 2  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 b) Activity: Explain the highlight concepts. Is positivism and scientism a scientific theory? Class explanation: Explain the contradiction of scientism. Science and Ideology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu) Watch the video and answer what Nietzsche is criticising: (15) Ciencia = Verdad? (Nietzsche) - Filosofia en 8 Bits - Subtitulado español – YouTube c) Analyse: read the phrase and try to explain the reasons of its affirmation. Do you agree with it? “When one considers what religion is to mankind and what science is, it is no exaggeration to say that the future course of history depends on the decision of this generation as to the relation between the two. We have here the two strongest general forces influencing man which seem to be set against each other: the force of our religious intuitions and the force of our urge for precise observations and logical deductions.” (Alfred N. Whitehead, 1925). 3  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 2. Science and religion: defining the boundaries Stephen Hawking: Questioning the universe | TED Talk a) Activity: What does Hawings advocate? After reading the text below: Can he, from physics, answer the question about the existence of God?, Why? Does the universe need an explanation outside itself if it already has its own physical laws that even allow us to think of “self-creation”? When we speak of “explanation” it is necessary to specify what it is that we want to explain, because, for the same fact, there may be different levels of description. Thus, for example, the explanation of Messi falling to the ground in a soccer match is varied: it is due to the force of gravity, to his having tripped over an obstacle on the field […] or his own intention to trick the referee into giving a foul […]. The universe has natural explanations, which are the ones investigated by science. It is to understand how, from very basic physical processes, the universe is as we know it (with galaxies, stars, planets and life). Today, […] the Big Bang model is the one that best fits the experimental data available to us. However, there are other theoretical models (such as the universe without boundary Hartle's and Hawking's unconstrained universe […]). It must be said that these models currently have no experimental support. That is why the Big Bang is still the model most widely followed by scientists. But what would happen if new measurements were to prove one of these models right? Well, we would simply be faced with the usual way in which science advances, where the experimental evidence ends up which theories best explain the observed reality. The Big Bang model, like all scientific models, is a provisional model that can be improved eventually. These are all physical or natural explanations of the universe. They explain it on the basis from a series of natural transformations (from one evolving reality to another). However, such explanations fail to answer a more radical question that we can ask ourselves: Why does something exist rather than nothing at all? If we pretend to answer this question by resorting to natural laws, we would not find an answer, because we could keep on asking: And why do these laws exist? We say that the universe needs an explanation “outside” of itself, not in terms of physical but to answer this radical question. The ultimate reason of the existence of the universe is studied by philosophy and theology. [Philosophical proposition of God’s existence:] Following the rational of these fields of knowledge, distinct from and complementary to that of science, we come to know that the universe has a necessary cause (which exists by itself and cannot not exist) outside of it; and that this Cause is God, who created the universe, with its natural laws. Thus, when we speak of creation, we ask for the ultimate reason for existence. For the concept of “self-creation” is contradictory in itself: What is not cannot be responsible for its own being.[Argument]: That which needs to be created, because it might not be, does not have in itself the reason for its being and cannot be “created”. So, we affirm that the universe must have the ultimate reason for existence in another being, whose existence is necessary, whom we call God. (J. Miras and T. Trigo (ed.) Eunsa, Arguments, “50 questions on faith”). 4  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 b) Activity: Explain the highlighted concepts and answer the questions. Do we need more than scientifics explanations about the world?, why? Which is the solution proposed to solve the distance between science and religion? Bridging the gap The "Intelligent Design" theory (IDT), recently proposed by Michael Behe, William Dembsky and others *(5) say that progress in biology reveals the existence of many contrivances that suggest the existence of an intelligent design. This is true. Recent progress shows that nature is full of teleological dimensions. Nevertheless, an explicit reflection on finality is a philosophical task. I would not admit that intelligent design forms part of science itself. A central tenet of the IDT is that specified complexity is a reliable empirical marker of intelligent design. Probably this is true, but this kind of argument is philosophical, not scientific. A transformation of current science is proposed also in this case, introducing within science philosophical elements. Nothing will be gained, however, if we label as scientific something that is not really science. In order to avoid the evils introduced by the disenchantment of the world we should, first of all, respect the autonomy of natural science. Then we can try to bridge the gap between the sciences and the humanities in a rigorous way, presenting philosophical thinking as such. This can be done in different ways. I will present now my own proposal […]. There exists a methodological gap between the natural sciences on the one hand, and the humanities and spirituality on the other. Karl Popper, an agnostic himself, recognizes that "science does not make assertions about ultimate questions -about the riddles of existence, or about man's task in this world"; that "science has nothing to say about a personal Creator"; and that "argument from design may not be within the reach of science." *(6) By the way, this means that scientific progress should not be considered a major cause of the disenchantment of the world. To bridge this gap we need to find something common to both sides. A serious candidate is represented by the issues usually called "boundary questions". John Polkinghorne refers to them saying: "there are questions which arise from science and which insistently demand an answer, but which by their very character transcend that of which science itself is competent to speak." *(7) Those questions should be closely related to science, as we are told that they "arise from science." However, they would not be, properly speaking, scientific questions. But, what does it mean that, although they are not scientific, they "arise from science"? It is much easier to understand that they cannot be answered by science, because if they are not strictly scientific, it is impossible to answer them by using the methods of science. I dare say that, properly speaking, genuine boundary questions cannot arise from science. Scientists are human beings, and they may pose themselves metaphysical questions in connection with their work. But this could be better called "subjective connections", in that some scientists may pose themselves metaphysical questions studying, for instance, the origin of the universe, while other scientists perhaps do not feel it necessary to pose such questions. Dialogue between science and religion requires a common partner that can be neither science nor religion. Philosophy is a good partner, probably the only real candidate. That is why Ian Barbour says: "Any view of the relationship of science and religion reflects philosophical assumptions. Our discussion must therefore draw from three disciplines, not just two: science(the empirical study of the order of nature), theology (critical reflection on the life and thought of the religious community), and philosophy, especially epistemology (analysis of the characteristics of inquiry and knowledge) and metaphysics (analysis of the most general characteristics of reality)." *(8) (ARTIGAS, M., url: The Mind of the Universe. The Presuppositions and Implications of Science as a Bridge between Science and Religion. Grupo Ciencia, Razón y Fe (CRYF). Universidad de Navarra (unav.edu)) 5  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 c) Synthesis. Activity: Is it possible to “prove” the existence of the soul? Choose one or two of the links provided and answer the following questions. -Do the studies provide relevant information regarding the existence of the soul or something other than the immaterial brain? Do these experiments and dated phenomena prove the existence of the soul? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeM4m_4dWeA&n ohtml5=False https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07- worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page http://mikepettigrew.com/afterlife/html/u_k__study.html https://bioethics.georgetown.edu/2015/07/consciousness- after-clinical-death-the-biggest-ever-scientific-study- published/ https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300- 9572(14)00739-4/fulltext 6  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 3. Fundamentals of experimental method. The scientific process a) Experimental method and its basis: 1) Observation of physical/material/natural phenomenon. 2) Hypothesis: Formulation of a possible explanation of the phenomenon observed. 3) Experimentation: observations for hypothesis testing following a concrete experimental process. 4) Formalisation: Embedding observations in a formal framework of laws and theories expressed in an unequivocal language, free from any social or cultural limitation: mathematical language. 5) Publicity: Observations, experiments and languages become public and recognisable. b) Activity: -Explain the opportunities that experimental methodology offers to us. -Read the next text and answer the question: Are natural sciences always certain? 7  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions T. Kuhn (1922-1996), in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, sketched a new image of science, whose structure is essentially dynamic. He argues that scientific disciplines have two stages that mark their development: a period of normal science, whose activity takes the form of problem-solving within a given theoretical framework, generally accepted by the scientific community; and a period of extraordinary science, which opens up when ‘normal science’ comes into conflict due to the presence of irreversible anomalous situations. In this stage there is a paradigmatic crisis in which several theories compete with each other, and it only closes when the community reaches consensus on a new paradigm and a new period of normal science begins. No scientific discipline emerges as ‘normal science’, but must pass through a pre-scientific stage. This phase is characterised by the lack of a general theoretical framework, a solid and consolidated body of doctrine - called ‘paradigm’ by Kuhn - to guide research. In this period it is not possible to speak of scientific work in the proper sense. During the pre-paradigmatic period, theories are not capable, on their own, of giving rise to the formation of a paradigm; they require the help of some factors external to the science in question, such as: the inspiration of a dominant philosophical current, the discoveries of another science, or some personal or historical circumstance that impels the scientist to begin a well-defined investigation which, after a more or less long period of study, gives rise to a paradigm. In addition to these factors, there is a set of integrated methodological and theoretical beliefs that make it possible to choose, evaluate and criticise the information that has been collected over time. ‘To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must appear better than its competitors; but it need not, and indeed never does, explain all the facts that can be confronted with it’ [Kuhn 1996: 17-18]. Once the paradigm is constituted, the stage of normal science begins, in which the activity of scientists is directed towards offering criteria for formulating and selecting the problems to be solved according to the conceptual and instrumental tools at their disposal. Its purpose, therefore, is not to solve pressing social problems, but to enable the rapid progress of normal science. During this period, work is done in areas where it is assumed that a solution already exists. (Sánchez Campos, M., Thomas S. Kuhn, en Fernández Labastida, F. & Mercado, J. A. (ed.), Philosophica: Enciclopedia filosófica on line, URL: http://www.philosophica.info/archivo/2007/voces/kuhn/Kuhn.html) 8  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 c) Methodological and philosophical presuppositions of sciences Activity: Read and understand the next theories and answer: -Does the “experimental method” count with something else than “verification”? 1) Falsificationism: Theory of scientific progress (K. Popper (1902-1994): To investigate: Explain what the Popper’s falsificationism theory defends. Put a real example about it. Scientific knowledge does not advance by confirming new laws or theories but by discarding those that do not conform to experience. Theories or laws are not directly induced from observations, but observations are used to corroborate the former, and a single negative case is sufficient to disprove a theory. … Thus: Some “beliefs” are the basis for scientific progress. No research (knowledge) starts from scratch, but needs certain coordinates or pre- judgements from which to start... These prejudices condition the interpretation of the fact studied and the conclusions. 2) Philosophical presuppositions: Science advances on the basis of certain implicit assumptions that are not part of science but constitute its foundations. These presuppositions are implicit and belong to the philosophical domain: 1) Ontological: the very existence of a real world that has a natural order. 2) Epistemological: that world and its order are cognizable by reason. 3) Ethical: scientific activity is a valuable human endeavour. 3) Principle of conservation of beliefs: -Knowledge: A properly justified belief (Plato). -Justification: Verify correspondence between thought/assertions and reality. There are different forms of verification. 9  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 -PCB: It is irrational to hold a belief to be true when it would require us to reject too many other beliefs we already hold for which there is no compelling reason. PCB. Hermeneutic circle" of knowledge: For any proposition P, if: Taking a certain cognitive stance towards P (e.g., believing it, rejecting it, or withholding judgment) would require rejecting or doubting a large number of your current beliefs, You have no independent reason to reject or doubt all of these other beliefs, and You have no compelling reason to adopt such a cognitive stance towards P, Therefore: it is more rational for you not to take that cognitive stance towards P. -Exercise: Gives examples of reasonable but undemonstrable beliefs: -Different criteria of truth Tradition: one takes as true that which over time has been considered true by the community to which one belongs. In the case of the myths of many peoples, this has played a very important role. Authority: a statement is taken as true because it comes from some person to whom credit is given for his knowledge of a given subject. The case of the Ptolemaic model of the universe coming from Aristotle. Logical coherence: this is a criterion applied to the formal sciences and occurs when a statement is derived, directly or through theorems, from axioms and, at the same time, does not contradict the rest of the statements of the system. Verifiability: what is thought will be true if, when contrasted with reality, it coincides with it. The method of verification can be simpler (by direct observation) or following the steps of scientific experimentation. Utility: it holds that a statement will be true when it is beneficial and useful to affirm it, when it allows the person to orient himself in reality or to advance in his research. Evidence: is that which is presented to the understanding as indisputable, that which, once it is understood, we have no choice but to accept; for example: “the whole is greater than the part”, or in the so-called “first principles”, such as the 10 “principle of identity” which states that a thing is equal to itself (A=A).  Dentistry Science, reason and Faith Portfolio U2 -REVIEW OF KEY CONCEPTS U2- 11