The empirical sciences employ the inductive method as a process to arrive at some knowledge of the physical world. The method of hypothesis, testing, verification, and modification of hypothesis to form a theory is a well attested scientific method which has provided much insight into the physical world. And yet, the empirical sciences only obtain an indirect knowledge of the physical world by analogy as through the physical models or idealised, or mathematical models proposed and tested by scientists.
For the scientist does not ever know the intrinsic nature of any physical body, but only knows what is observed through the five senses of taste, touch, smell, sight and hearing. It is through the five senses that physical bodies are observed and documented. And then the observations are used to test the hypothesis to develop a hypothesis into a theory. The theory is then used to offer some explanation of the physical world. And yet, because theories only obtain indirect, and analogous knowledge of nature, all theories only provide incomplete, partial knowledge of nature which always of some assistance to understand nature, but is always in some manner blind to the full reality contained within physical nature. For the nature of empirical science to attain indirect knowledge of physical nature by analogy is to imply a lack of knowledge which always accompanies the knowledge attained through the sciences.
For example, science has proposed models of the atom to account for the behaviour of physical substances under particular experiments. The models of the atom seek to explain the observations and do provide some knowledge of the causes of the actions of the physical bodies. And yet every model of the atom is proposed as only a similitude and thereby an analogy of what really exists within nature. And as the model is only a similitude of the real observed body, the model will always only provide a limited understanding of the physical natures as known through atomic theory.
The limited understanding occurs for several reasons -
1) The model is always subject to observations which may be defective in some manner.
2) The model is always subject to future observations which may vary from current observations.
3) The model is incomplete, for there may be some phenomena that exists, but is never observed, which may provide some evidence to modify or abandon the model.
4) The model assumes only the action of nature and ignores any preternatural, or supernatural causes acting within nature at any time.
5) The model is only one of several options available which seek to offer some knowledge of the observations. For example, there are several models of gravity, such s mass attraction, the space-time continuum of relativity theory, kinetic theory, and the vortex theory, among others.
6) No science model proves the model, nor proves the nature of a body as such, rather than a body is a similar or diverse nature. For example, atomic theory includes more than one theory of the atom and no version of the atom is ever proven.
7) No science model is proven, and any model may be invalidated at any time through deduction, or induction.
8) Every science model is based upon at least one unproven assumption. As the assumption is never proven, any model may always be based upon an unsound assumption and the model may in fact always be false, even if the academy believes the model is largely true. For example, when measuring the distances to stars through parallax, a particular geometry of space is assumed, which cannot be proven true. Therefore the distances to the stars known through parallax may be believed to be true, when in fact the measurements may always be false due to an unsound assumption.
From the above eight points, science models are of much benefit to humanity and do provide much knowledge of the physical world, Yet science is always deficient and open to various understandings and interpretations and subjective adherence by its advocates.
The mixture of knowledge and lack of knowledge obtained by science is comparable to the virtue of faith, which attains to some truth of reality as revealed by God through the sources of revelation. The truths known through faith, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation of the Word, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the real presence in the Eucharist all provide some knowledge of the real. And yet each truth is shrouded in darkness, for each truth contains parts of reality that cannot be seen by the senses, nor understood by reason alone.
The mixture of the light of knowledge and darkness of uncertainty encountered within the empirical science models used to provide some knowledge of the real in the empirical sciences is analogous to the light and darkness encountered within the science of sacred theology which is based upon the virtue of faith. The belief required of the scientist and the academy in the inductive method, the models and theories is analogous to the faith of the Christian. The academy is premised on a natural belief in observation and reasoned theory, and the Christian faith is based upon supernatural belief is the God who reveals.
The belief assumed in the academy is a preparation for divine faith, for both acts are human acts ordered towards the nature of reality, which include the same elements of light and darkness common to the human condition. And further, from reason, we know God has created the universe, and therefore both acts of belief and faith are ordered towards some knowledge of the one God of creation and divine revelation.
Conclusion - The belief of the academy assumed as a fundamental premise in the empirical sciences is a strong basis to prepare an educated man for divine faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment