This is a continuing discussion on the topic of morality and philosophy. To view the previous post in this discussion, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.
Having droned on (in my previous posts) about the necessity of finding the basic laws upon which the tenets of logic and truth are based, I must now clarify what I mean by the term law. After all, the term can mean a few different things.
With respect to social conduct, laws are rules by which our behavior is governed - we abide by them or face consequences. But there is a rather obvious and fundamental difference between this type of law and the basic physical laws that are the goal of our pursuit, which is that the laws of government can be broken. They are, in a way, artificial - they are creations of humankind. We can, for example, choose to break the laws of the land (if only to a small degree) by driving faster than the speed limit, but we cannot simply decide to break the laws of gravity.
In context with these blog posts, my use of the word law is in reference to the physical laws of nature. Physical laws are not very much like social laws at all, they are more like descriptions of physical attributes of nature - they explain why things are as they are, why the Universe behaves as it does. But oddly enough, this discussion is not about physics, it's about philosophy - the philosophies of truth, logic and morality. This means that even more clarification is needed.
Most people of science know that we no longer declare our observations of physical phenomena to be laws (I am not a scientist). In the past, when some new or important concept of science was discovered and finally understood well enough to be thoroughly described, that description was framed in the form of a law. As a result, we now have the Newtonian Laws of Gravitation, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, and so on.
In more recent years the field of science has learned that it is a bit presumptuous to proclaim anything we believe we understand about nature to be a law. Instead, we now produce theories, such as the Theory of Relativity, the Germ Theory of Disease, and the Theory of Evolution. Had Newton lived today (purposely overlooking the various complications with the notion), the Law of Gravitation would most likely be known as the Theory of Gravitation.
What happened?
Surprisingly, we'll see that this seeming change of attitude by the men and women of science is not only a matter of humility. In fact, it is at this very juncture that our discussion begins to tend back towards philosophy. Like the rays of colored light that converge at a single point of white within a prism, the principles of physics and philosophy intersect where the absolute certainties of law rise to the even more powerful realization of doubt. The absolutes that were previously considered to be the most affirmative notions of fact are now seen as the far weaker and more ignorant of the two. This can seem counter-intuitive to say the least.
I must quickly point out that this insight, that certainty is lesser to uncertainty, is not mine, it was recognized long ago. But, we must take a few moments to understand it before moving on. It really is quite fascinating.
To view the next post in this series, click here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment