Category Archives: Science

The Collapse Of Philosophy And Mathematics: Descartes

Rene Descartes was a famous French philosopher, mathematician and physicist. He made an important contribution to the development of modern mathematics, and was regarded as “the father of analytic geometry” because of formulating the coordinate geometry system. As the founder of early modern western philosophy, he was also the pioneer of materialism, who had raised up the assertion of “universal doubt”. His thoughts deeply influenced the next few generations, and laid the foundation for the European rationalism. 

  Philosophy as the noumenon, mathematics as the use

  Probably the best-known thing for Descartes is his accomplishment for being a mathematician. His mathematical achievement mainly concentrated in geometry. Back then,algebra was just an emerging science, with geometric thinking still dominating the minds of mathematicians. Before Descartes, geometry and algebra were two different fields in mathematics. Standing at the height of natural philosophy, Descartes believed that Greek geometry depended too much on figures and have constrained people’s imagination. To algebra which was in fashion at the time, he felt that it was entirely subordinated to laws and formulas, and could not be a science to improve intelligence. Therefore, he proposed that we must combine the advantage between geometry and algebra to create a “real mathematics”. The center of Descartes’ thought is to reduce the problem of geometry in algebraic form, using algebraic method to calculate and prove, so as to achieve the ultimate goal of solving geometric problems. Under this idea, he founded “analytic geometry”. 

  In 1637, Descartes published Geometry, and established the plane Cartesian coordinate system. He used it to determine the location of a point, and describe the points in space. The emergence of analytic geometry changed the trend of separation between algebra and geometry since ancient Greece, unified the “number” and “shape”, and combined geometric curves with algebra equations. That the development of this corresponding relationship not only marks the beginning of the function concept, but also indicates that variables enter into mathematics, which makes it came to a great turn——from constant mathematics to variable mathematics. Dialectics ran into mathematics, and with variables, differentiation and integration immediately became necessary. Descartes’ achievement opens the way for Newton and Leibniz to discover calculus, and also for a large number of mathematicians who have made new discoveries. 

  Descartes is a rationalist. Rationalism, as it implies, believed that knowledge is based on the use of reason and logic. In rationalist’s opinion, reason is more reliable than the senses. According to Descartes, human should be able to use mathematical methods — that is, reason – to conduct philosophical thoughts.

  Axiomatization is a very important way of thinking in mathematics. Euclid’s Elements was the first deductive mathematics established by axiomatization in history. Setting out from the basic definitions, postulates and axioms, it deduced a large number of rich geometric theorems step by step, and laid the foundation of western mathematics. Descartes thought that we could also find some axioms of noumenon that could be used to establish the whole philosophy. He then discovered 4 rules from the subject of logic, algebra and geometry. These are: 

  1. Never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such;
  2. To divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution;
  3. To conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex;
  4. To make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general that I might be assured that nothing was omitted

  “I think, therefore I am”

  The philosophy thought and methodology of Descartes occupy more important position in his life. His philosophical thoughts had a great influence on the development of later philosophy and science.

  Descartes’ philosophical proposition, adopting such “method of doubt”, is to verify the reliability of the source of knowledge. We can always be suspicious of everything around us, though there is only one thing we cannot doubt, and that is the existence of my own thoughts, for while I am doubting others, I cannot doubt my own thought at the same time. When I doubt myself, there must be someone who is conducting thinking, and as the subject, “I” cannot be doubted. This is not the subject “I” of the matter, but “I” of the mind. Thus, denying one’s own existence is self-contradictory. 

  Descartes also proved the existence of “God” from his own existence. Because the subject matter “I” cannot be doubted, there must be someone who makes me exist, and who makes me exist must also make all kinds of being exist. Therefore, to every other thing exist on earth, God will be the one and the only possible answer.

Bibliography:

1. Philosophy as the noumenon, mathematics as the use

Science/Daniel

Natural Science, being one giant part in the realm of science and philosophy, contains more than mathematics and physics. According to Wikipedia, natural science is “concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation”. (Wikipedia: Natural Science)

The eldest examines of physics perhaps starts from astronomy, where ancient people try to predict the motion of Sun, Moon, and stars. Astronomical charts were found in Senemut’s tomb in ancient Egypt (Wikipedia: Ancient Egypt); events were linked with stars by ancient Mesopotamian priests (Wikipedia: Mesopotamia); countless attempts to recording the dates based on stars were made. It is interesting to notice that these events related to physics are often religious rituals, trying to calculate the god’s creations, which eventually became physics. Of course, “the main goal of physics is to understand how the universe behaves” (Wikipedia: Physics).

Early physicists are also regarded as philosophers. According to Wikipedia, “a philosopher is one who challenges what is thought to be common sense, doesn’t know when to stop asking questions, and reexamines the old ways of thought”. (Wikipedia: Philosopher) More specifically, when we are looking into the old time philosophers, it is often interesting to link their theories to religion, or discuss their beliefs and claims towards god. In this passage, we will focus on four famous physicist/philosophers of all times: Aristotle, Leibniz, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. Each of them have a different approach to describing the world, or rather have an interesting opinion towards the prescence of God.

i. Aristotle

As perhaps the earliest and one of the most unknown polymaths and as a student of Plato, Aristotle proposed a lot of interesting theories in various different regions. We will be focusing on his approach of explaining the world in the realm of physics (or rather, natural science), and analyze the more “religious” part of his theory.

In his On the Heavens, Aristotle claims that the universe is composed basically by five different elements: Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Ether (or Aether). These five elements exist in the shape of spheres, or spherical shells. The Earth, being the ground on which we live, is mostly constituted by the element Earth in a near-sphere shape. This sphere is then surrounded by a spherical shell of Water, and then a spherical shell of Air. Oceans and rivers exist in the layer of Water, while Air surrounds everything. Outside Air, a new shell of Fire exists, where comets and meteors are believed to originate from. Finally, a huge shell of Ether, called the Heaven, where the stars, the Sun, and other celestial bodies move. Here, the Ether is also called the “divine substance”. (Wikipedia: Aristotle) In Greek mythology, it was thought to be “the pure essence that the gods breathed, filling the space where they lived, analogous to the air breathed by mortals” (Wikipedia: Ether) This is one direct proof to the belief of Aristotle towards god and divination.

diagram showing Aristotle’s opinion on the universe. Graph made by author.

More information on Aristotle’s physics: Aristotle also created many qualitative claims focused on the motion of objects, which are mostly correct in a small area of application. More on this topic and contrast could be found in the following passage I wrote: C:\Users\Gebuyuan\Desktop\HGmlDroTMYfTXc62 (3).mht

ii) Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm (von) Leibniz. Picture from Google Pictures.

As another polymath, Leibniz was more well known in his Leibniz Notationcontribution in the field of mathematics and calculus. However, he also proposed an interesting “monad theory” which talks about the essence of life, creatues, reality, and god. We will delve into this theory a little deeper and examine the “monads” Leibniz defined.

“Monads” are like atoms proposed by Democritus according to Leibniz: they are uncuttable and unseperable. They are also “not matter”, because matter is always splittable. Monads are also enclosed in their own world, unable to interact with other monads. In fact, they “comes into existence when the world was made, and can neither disintegrate nor grow”, except one single monad. And this single monad is “GOD”.

Leibniz states that this “god monad” somehow “preprogrammed” all other monads so that after they are created, they can run seperately but synchronized. Each creature/life is controlled by dominating monads, which are assumed to have minds; physical forces and other substances “result from them”. In fact, the world itself is a “coordinated dream” of different monads predesigned by god.

In this theory, Leibniz proposed a logical approach to the regular execution of the world related to “god”. This is also a typical approach trying to model the world created by physicists.

iii) Conclusion

In this passage, we talked about four scientists’ relationship between god or religion. In early times, people tend to believe in god more; in recent years, seems like “religion” is substituded by science more. However, I want to point out that science cannot solve every problem; science does not propose values and ethics; and science is also based on induction. We should not regard “religion” as some sort of lie; it is also a precious part in humanity.

References

Wikipedia, Natural Science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Philosopher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Ancient Egypt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Mesopotamia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Aristotle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Ether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element). Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Leibniz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Isaac Newton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Albert Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Plato and Aristotle’s scientific method

What is the history of Science? How did we take our first steps toward science, or where is the starting point of science? Since people have systematically made knowledge about the world for millennia, there’s no specific starting point. But a reasonable place to start is ancient Greece, which the cornerstone of scientific inquiry belongs to. The Greeks practice Natural philosophy, meaning “self-conscious inquiry to nature”.Few individuals have influenced the world and many of today’s thinkers, like Plato and Aristotle. Both of them contribute to the great history of Science after Socrates.

  Socrates held that knowledge comes from asking questions. By constantly asking questions so that students can steadily break down a big problem into the smaller part which they can test the hypothesis against is called the Socratic method. This method provides what is wrong which narrows down the possibilities of what might be right. However, Socrates’s method inspired his greatest legacy, his student Plato, and his student’s student Aristotle. Both of them were inspired by Socratic’s method, but they arrived at some different conclusions.

Plato’s Theory of Forms asserts that all things that exist in reality are mere representations of perfect metaphysical constructs which he called the Forms. The reality is the material stuff we see and interact with daily. The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space, which exist beyond reality. “Even though the Forms are abstract, that doesn’t mean they are not real. The Forms are more ‘real’ than any individual physical objects. To Plato, it’s like the essence of all things. So, concepts like Redness, Roundness, Beauty, Justice, or Goodness are Forms. In other words, how do you know a chair is “ a chair”, that ’s because it has the chariness of chair. Individual objects like a red book, a round ball, a beautiful girl, a just action, or a good person reside in the physical realm and are simply different examples of the Forms.”(study.com) He separates the sensible world with the intelligible world because he holds that only the forms could be objects of knowledge and the ultimate truth. Plato would come up with a theory first, then try to fit data into his theory. “The intelligible truths could be known with the certainty of geometry and deductive reasoning. What could be observed of the material world, however, was by definition imperfect and deceptive, not ideal. The Platonic way of knowledge, therefore, emphasized reasoning as a method, downplaying the importance of observation.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

  Compare to Plato’s idealistic of abstraction, Aristotle ’s philosophy made more common sense for today’s science. His idea is based on empirical evidence: he observed the world then came up with a theory that explains it since he believes Empiricism is the starting point .“Science (epistêmê), for Aristotle, is a body of properly arranged knowledge or learning—the empirical facts, but also their ordering and display are of crucial importance.”(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Besides, Aristotle’s method also required to be systematic logical to be right.“Aristotle’s inductive-deductive method used inductions from observations to infer general principles, deductions from those principles to check against further observations, and more cycles of induction and deduction to continue the advance of knowledge.”(Wikipedia) This method is very similar to what we do today. We derived a conclusion based on observation and data to support, and by using some of our general knowledge or common sense to further observe and generate a conclusion.

  Plato’s theory is based on senses and reasoning, whereas Aristotle preferred to have observation and experiment. Both of them have contributed to the great history of science, and how we think in our world today. The two theories can both generate a well fit distinctive but reasonable conclusion through a different process. But Aristotle’s theory can be convincingly applied to the modern world.

A Brief Introduction of Science

peter

Introduction

Frankly, the relationship between Philosophy and Science, is not hard to say. Through the ancient time to modern life, Science is always base on Philosophy. Philosophy, the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Science, the study of nature of knowledge. The answer is quite clear, but the truth is not as simple as definition.

Main

What is science

Under our cognition, Science should answer those real problem but it is really hard and current cannot relate our daily life. Science is a method to tell you how does things work, how does substance move. It does not care any personal ideas and any subjective ideas. It is totally  objective.

When we observe a hydrogen atom, we do not care what is hydrogen, what is the composition of hydrogen and how does it form. We only need to know that hydrogen atom have one electronic. Even that is not totally convinced because Quantum mechanics prove that the hydrogen atom have the possibility that do not have one electronic. It can be said that Science comes from observation, and it is to find a basic law in the observation of samples. 

A famous Greek philosopher Aristotle gave some Scientific theory, like: Force is the only factor to maintain the motion of substance. But it already proved wrong because Force is the factor of change of motion. How did we proved it? Imagine there is a cube, it does not subject to any force or the net force on it is zero, the cube will be rest or constantly moving. But there is no any situation like that, and all the factor is based on imagination so the result is from our imagination, too. And those imagination based on those laws, it is a rational inference.

So Science, is the law of nature from observation, it is also the rational inference. It is more like a combination of empiricism and rationalism. It need the experience of daily life and also need the precise analyzing and calculating.

Science and Philosophy

Since the civilization of ancient Greece, the word science appeared as Greek φυσικός, same to the word Physic. In Greek it means nature. In the Greek era, philosophers were doing scientists, and Aristotle had a lot of research in the field of science.

There is Greek a word called metaphysics. Meta, means beyond something, so metaphysics means beyond physics. This is an independent subject and Aristotle called it “the first philosophy”. From the Greek philosophy’s definition, Science is a branch of philosophy, Science is nature and Philosophy is nature of nature.

After Renaissance, the developing of Science, make the Science more and more important and even some people appealed let those scientist replace philosopher. For example, the same phenomenon, an apple drop down to ground. An ancient Greek Philosopher might say, because apple love to keep close with ground. Newton stand up and say: because Apple have weight, earth have gravity!

Well, seems in the development of Science, philosophy could not help more. So, does the philosophy worth to exist? Maybe we could think something not exist. But Some naturalist appeal to not think anything not existing, like God and Cthulhu. Because it is not scientific.

The answer is, yes, definitely yes.

There are two question in the world. One, I know what exactly it is, I know how to do, we called it problems. Second, I do not know what exactly it is, I have no idea to treat that one, we called it mysteries.

The first question is more like: Does this medicine could heal the disease? Does the Goldbach conjecture correct? Science could solved those questions, because science could bring some hypothesis and wait to prove it correct. Scientist based on the condition they already knew, they could bring up with countless hypothesis, but prove it by logic and fact is taking time.

The second question is more like: What is the dark matter? Nobody have ever seen the dark matter, but the only thing we could make sure that the dark matter is existing. Without dark matter our universe would collapse, is the inference from conservation of energy. Science exactly could not help answer those question, because we do not know what is dark matter so we do not know how to observe the dark matter! Even though the scientists spend lots of time to bring with so many hypothesis, it will be useless. There is no way to observe, to prove.

So there the philosophers might can help. Maybe a new definition from another perspective would come out. Sounds like a little bit weird, but it is just like the example I given above. Ancient Greek philosopher considered the apple would drop off to gravity is because apple love to keep close with ground. If there is no answer, the only true answer is the right answer, because people need a answer. So philosopher would give definition, as a temporary solution in the field of science.

The right is not same to correct, but after thousand years Newton appeared and he solved the problem. So there I predict, scientist will bring with a definition and wait for a nice chance to solve the question: What is the dark matter?

Science and Essence

We already mentioned that science is the law of nature from observation, it is also the rational inference. Basically, Science do not care any essence problem. So if science do not care any essence problem, who will? Does philosopher can answer what is the original form of world? If yes, the answer would just like the Greek philosopher thoughts of dropped apple. So only Scientist would think about the essence, if they need to know an object, the best way to know is from the composition: atoms. Scientist would research essence for science.

Developing of Science, include lots of quest of essence. But Science is not a subject of essence, law of nature. And the law of nature is from observation and inference. Could it really have the quality to know the essence? Essence is not like any law, essence is essence. Use a method of observing and inferring might be the best choice of humanity. But it also means that you could only touch the essence and never hold it entirely.

Work Cited

Dedao App