A key difficulty is the meaning (use) of ‘proof’. Ultimate example is Newton’s proof of gravity. Mathematical proof. After that book, the ‘scientific method’ was adopted.
However, then Faraday/Maxwell and then Einstein ‘proved’ him wrong.
Best analysis of this epistemological problem (I’ve found) is Micheal polayni’s ‘Personal Knowledge’. World class chemist who turned to philosophy of science and proof.
His take is that we must use good judgement, keen insight, careful discernment and deep analysis. That’s not proof. It’s all we have.
I think modern world wants certainty. Can’t have it. Frustrating.
Even mathematics has no firm foundation. Think Gödel.
Jefferson copied axiomatic method of Euclid, we hold ‘these truths to be self-evident, humans created with rights’, therefore . . .
He started with axiom and then deduced conclusions. QED.
When modernity rejected premise of human as made in god’s image, left his conclusion . . . without foundation. Constitutional force reduced.
Another way to describe what modernity is searching for is valid reasons for faith. Ultimately, as Aristotle explained, the premises of deduction must simply accept beliefs on faith.
Otherwise, you just have infinite regress.
No way to avoid this.
Paul wrote . . .
“Faith is evident demonstration of things not beheld”.
Think Newton. A devout Christian.
He named his book “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy “.
Natural philosophy good description of what now called ‘science’.
He wrote this work to provide evidence for a creator.
That’s reason for faith, or evidence for a conclusion, but, isn’t ‘proof’ since no such method exists.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy your work.
Liberty requires an objective moral code. Otherwise, it has no normative value. My "liberty" would just be whatever I want to do, regardless of its consequences on others. "Order is the law of all intelligible existence" (John Stuart Blackie).
Kate, Bruce
Excellent interview.
I’ve pondered these issues myself.
Some observations.
A key difficulty is the meaning (use) of ‘proof’. Ultimate example is Newton’s proof of gravity. Mathematical proof. After that book, the ‘scientific method’ was adopted.
However, then Faraday/Maxwell and then Einstein ‘proved’ him wrong.
Best analysis of this epistemological problem (I’ve found) is Micheal polayni’s ‘Personal Knowledge’. World class chemist who turned to philosophy of science and proof.
His take is that we must use good judgement, keen insight, careful discernment and deep analysis. That’s not proof. It’s all we have.
I think modern world wants certainty. Can’t have it. Frustrating.
Even mathematics has no firm foundation. Think Gödel.
Jefferson copied axiomatic method of Euclid, we hold ‘these truths to be self-evident, humans created with rights’, therefore . . .
He started with axiom and then deduced conclusions. QED.
When modernity rejected premise of human as made in god’s image, left his conclusion . . . without foundation. Constitutional force reduced.
Another way to describe what modernity is searching for is valid reasons for faith. Ultimately, as Aristotle explained, the premises of deduction must simply accept beliefs on faith.
Otherwise, you just have infinite regress.
No way to avoid this.
Paul wrote . . .
“Faith is evident demonstration of things not beheld”.
Think Newton. A devout Christian.
He named his book “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy “.
Natural philosophy good description of what now called ‘science’.
He wrote this work to provide evidence for a creator.
That’s reason for faith, or evidence for a conclusion, but, isn’t ‘proof’ since no such method exists.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy your work.
Clay
Liberty requires an objective moral code. Otherwise, it has no normative value. My "liberty" would just be whatever I want to do, regardless of its consequences on others. "Order is the law of all intelligible existence" (John Stuart Blackie).