existing models based on unaltered
sensory experience, or to derive properties from that experience only through
methodologies recognized and accepted in that particular science, the body of
which constitutes what is called epistemology.
In technical
terms, let’s assume that the scientist discovers the following:
<person>
<name> Jesus </name>
<property> walks on water </ property>
</person>
A new property is
observed not previously known of a person. In such a situation, the scientist
will work unrelentingly to find if that property is actually new or an artifact
of other, established properties; in this case:
<person>
<name> Jesus </name>
<property> stands on glass </property>
</person>
We are overly
simplifying here for the sake of presentation, but we assume the argument is
transparent and can be readily comprehended by the reader. In correcting the
formal specification, the scientist applied all the inference rules available
to recast the anomalous property to an accepted one. At this point we observe
that any naturally skeptical person would probably react like our scientist.
Now let’s consider
another situation, that of objects falling to the ground, and define the
concept of force:
<force>
<property> action of an object upon another </property>
</force>
As we saw in
Chapter 3, there are four basic forces in nature, i.e. strong nuclear force,
the weak force, electro-magnetic force and gravity. So we have:
<force>
<name> strong nuclear force </name>
<property> atomic nucleus distance</property>
</force>
<force>
<name> weak force </name>
<property> inter-atomic distance </property>
</force>
<force>
<name> electro-magnetic force
</name>
<property> familiar distance </property>
</force>
<force>
<name> gravity </name>
<property> intergalactic distances </property>
</force>
In these examples,
we have objects whose properties are not directly observable. They are inferred
from the successful applications of theories that use them to explain and
predict phenomena of nature, themselves directly observable, such as, for
gravity the falling of an apple from a tree to the earth. This is not formally
different from positing a god with an unobserved property (“never dies”). In
each case, a property finds its presence justified by accepted results. The
main difference appears to be in the trust attributed to the result. Science,
physics in particular, has been particularly aggressive at positing such
hypothetic entities as immanent, calling them the source of laws (the law of
gravity), even though such laws are periodically changed as new knowledge
accumulates. For example, consider the potential changes such as we find in the
current discussions in quantum physics related to the formulation of the
gravitational force; the quest is
|