5 Comments
founding
Jun 7Liked by Stacy Trasancos

As an amateur philosopher of science, I can add this. In the early 20th century, there was quite a kerfuffle between philosophers (who were mostly physicists and chemists at the time). In those days, physicists considered the objective of philosophy was to reduce all things to their elements.

They imagined that physics was obviously the cardinal science, and that all other sciences are in principle reducible to the laws of atoms. Each science had its own language, its own substances, objects, and exemplars. But any discourse about such substances is reducible to discourse about atoms.

There was an image of the "hierarchy of sciences" with physics as the base.

Chemistry is reducible to physics. Biology is reducible to chemistry. Psychology is reducible to biology. Sociology is reducible to psychology. History is reducible to sociology. In the end, everything is reducible to physics.

You, Stacy, are re-enacting the drama of that time. The logical positivists were emboldened by early success in reducing the language of chemistry to the language of physics. But common sense nagged us. If everything can be reduced to physical elements, what is the point of chemistry?

Mathematicians by the way taunted the physicists. The queen of science is actually mathematics. Father Stanley Jaki adopted this view. Numbers alone decide. It is a poke in the eye to the reductionist project.

Again, what is the point of separate sciences if all theories are reducible to physics? Scientists in the universities staged a mutiny, and "reductionism" became a derogatory term. Every science has the obligation to discourse about its own proper objects in a way that "carves nature at its joints." It is not natural to require biologists to reduce their theories to physics. It might be possible, but why is it not natural?

It is not natural because it is not the way the human person desires to understand things. Biologists see the necessity of treating bodily systems as organized substances that must be recognized in their own right even if they could be reduced to physical laws. Biological systems have observable properties that emerge out of the collection of atoms. The system is greater than the sum of its parts. New phenomena come into being by the organization of atoms.

A human finger, when wounded, has the ability to heal itself. This self-repair is intrinsic to the human body, arising from its atomic structure. Should a biologist express the process of self-repair in the language of physics, it would yield elegant differential equations, yet they would be devoid of any specific subject matter.

Physics indeed portrays a version of reality, but it is not the one we inhabit. In its realm, there are neither daffodils nor wedding anniversaries. Science is conducted through the human intellect. While elements aid in comprehending our world, true understanding requires language and concepts suited to the topic. Echoing Aristotle, explanations should extend only as far as the nature of the subject allows.

Expand full comment
Jun 6Liked by Stacy Trasancos

I’m looking forward to the series of posts! Relating Aristotelian metaphysics to modern science has always been an interesting topic for me.

Expand full comment
Jun 5·edited Jun 6Liked by Stacy Trasancos

>>>So…um…atheists, maybe we could research how to find alignment and hold a true view of nature together perhaps?<<<

This is actually why I really like Oppy's framework, because it emphasizes a lot of common agreement with Theists. On reading with initial remarks, I can imagine Oppy saying something like:

"Right, Dr. Trasancos, you and I both accept what modern science tells us about the elements/fundamental particles; we both accept the relevant working laws of nature and the relevant conditions that govern reactions, change, etc. However, you want to go beyond this framework and add things like formal causality and a God that sustains all these things together, whereas I see no need to do so. In my view, All the relevant explanatory questions can be answered by an appeal to what science tells us about the elements; it's not clear that Theism provides any additional explanatory power or understanding to our contemporary naturalistic picture of the elements. So, Dr. Trasancos, the ball is in your court: why do we need to go beyond our naturalistic picture of the elements? What additional explanatory power does Theism provide?"

Expand full comment
author

I would love to have that conversation with him then. I have read Oppy's work and tried to hear what he is saying. It's not so much as "want" to go beyond the framework of naturalism but that I reach a limit and ask myself whether I am willing to keep going or not. I can say with 100% certainty that "all the relevant explanatory questions" cannot be answered by appealing to science and the elements. Not even close. But stating it that way only begs the question about what is "relevant". We might have different answers. And Oppy might put the ball in my court, but I'd say okay. I have my reasons for going further. If he wants me to be responsible for giving him his reasons, then he's going to have play ball in my court and not expect me to come over into his. That sounds snarky, and I don't mean it that way, but it's what I would say.

Expand full comment

So, I think Oppy would ask what those specific reasons are in terms of the need to go further. Below is an excerpt from a previous comment I wrote that I think can provide some clarity:

Imagine someone who accepts everything that science tells us about how lightning is formed but then says that alongside that, we need to posit Zeus as responsible for the formation of lightning. Oppy (and most naturalists) would say that the postulation of Zeus is otiose, as we can explain everything we need to with recourse for natural causes. It's not clear that Zeus does anything additional explanatory.

So, in choosing between two theories:

Science/Natural Explanations for Lightning

Science/Natural Explanations for Lightning + Zeus,

We should choose the former theory, which explains everything that the latter theory tries to explain and is much simpler. Oppy says the same thing applies to Theism as well:

Naturalism: Natural World

Theism: God + Natural World

Oppy would say that we don't need to go beyond the natural world because opposing theories don't provide any additional explanatory power and are less simple than Naturalism.

So to imagine Oppy talking again:

"Right, Dr. Trasancos. When explaining lightning, you and I both recognize that we don't need to go beyond what modern science tells us to explain the relevant data. You and I agree that postulating Zeus as an explanation is unnecessary. I contend that we're in the same exact position regarding Theism and Naturalism. Now, to be clear, I don't think believing in God is similar to believing in Zeus; I'm just making a point about the relevant theoretical frameworks on offer and how we go about showing which position is true or not".

Also, Oppy is very open to dialogues/discussions with Theists, so I'd highly encourage you to send an email to invite him to your podcast. He's generally very receptive.

Expand full comment