Philosophy of Science Paper_Mahesh

8/3/2019 Philosophy of Science Paper_Mahesh

1/7

11/22/2011

Project under the supervision of Prof. Dhruv Raina as a part ofPhilosophy of Science course | Young India Fellowship

PHILOSOPHY

OF SCIENCE

PROJECT

A MELODRAMA OF POLITICS,SCIENCE AND

RELIGION

Mahesh Jakhotia YIF11M_25


2/7

Philosophy of Science project 1

A MELODRAMA OF POLITICS, SCIENCE AND RELIGION

ABSTRACT: The aim of my project is to understand how religious, scientific and political

reasons shaped and inspired the theory ofOrigin of life and universe in a progressive way

and to look it from a philosophers point of view. I also want to explore the aspect on what

makes a radical idea like Darwins evolutionary theory which was different from the existing

paradigm to be accepted amongst the scientific community.

1) POLITICAL CHANGES WHICH INFLUENCED THE DEBATE

1.1) Scopes trial: In 1920s a young teacher Jon Thomas Scopes was prosecuted for

teaching Darwinism in classrooms. The then presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan

was the person who prosecuted Scopes and this caught the attention of the world. The federal

government declared Scopes as guilty and fined him $100. This influenced the book

publishers to remove the Evolution theory from their curriculum to avoid any legal setbacks.

1.2) Russian arm superiority: In 1950s things started to change their base because of the

superiority of Russians in rocketry and arms world. Americans realized that its education was

not training the young minds and this made them to change their curriculum. Thus evolution

started appearing in the subjects once again and the support of evolution started.

1.3) Story of Huxley: Reach bred clergymen could only become scientists:

In the Oxford Evolution Debate in 1860, there were two main characters Bishop

Wilberforce, a clergy man and a scientist. He himself delivered a scientific paper on the day

before the debate. Second character was Huxley who came from a low income family, but

also was a scientific researcher. Bishop Wilberforce never thought that science and theology

would have to part Company.

By far the most remarkable feature of the Oxford debateas compared with the myth that

later grew around itis that all the main protagonists left the Oxford Museum well satisfied

with their performances and convinced that they had personally carried the day

Why is there a division of religion and science? For this you need to know the story of

Huxley. Huxley came from a low income family, and at that time accepting money for

scientific research was considered undignified according to the church clergymen. And most


3/7


of the well-bred people of science had their own personal wealth or derived it from other

sources.

Hence he thought the division of Religion from state would make things better. The resultant

exodus of amateurs from the higher ranks of scientific debate would permit Huxleys coterie

of scientific careerists to assume the reins of power.

2) SCIENTIFIC REASONS

2.1) Development of Geology: Though philosophers like Herodotus, Aristotle, Lucretius,

Strabo, and Seneca believed in the theory that the phenomena of evolution they observe is

because of natural and not supernatural causes. However it remained as facts as they could

not substantiate their claims. When geology started developing fossil study was madepossible, hence the facts about evolution could not be substantiated.

Modern geology began in the 18th cent. When field studies by the French mineralogist J. E.

Guettard and others proved more fruitful than speculation. The German geologist Abraham

Gottlob Werner, in spite of the many errors of his specific doctrines and the diversion of

much of his energy into a fruitless controversy (in which he maintained that the origin of all

rocks was aqueous), performed a great service for the science by demonstrating the

chronological succession of rocks.[1]

3) RELIGIOUS REASONS

3.1) The paradox of time: In Christianity it was believed that earth was born approximately

6000 years ago. This totally contradicts with almost all the scientific theories Darwin

theory, and The Big Bang Theory in which the universe was born 13.7 billion years ago.

Hence the Day-age creationism was re-explained by the creationist community, in which the

duration of day was changed to millions of years to satisfy the scientific statements. Their

premise was that sun was born on the 4 th day of the creation, hence it is not possible to say

that duration was for 24 hours, instead it must have been for very large durations of time,

which totally supports the big bang theory.

3.2) Intelligent Design: Intelligent design merged as a progression theory of the creationists.

The IDs explain that the world is irreducibly complex composed of a single system of several

well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of

any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly


4/7


complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial

function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive

modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system

that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. [2]

Even big bang theory explains that the Universe was once a small point which was extremely

hot and in dense state which eventually expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the

young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. But how did

the hot and dense state comes into place initially? This is one of the most important questions

posed by creationists.

3.3) Similarity with the Platos and Aristotles ideologies: The debate between the

creationist and evolutionist can be considered as similar to Platos and Aristotles. Plato

believed that supernatural cause is the reason behind our creation. Everything already existed

in the supernatural world. Whereas Aristotle attributed the phenomena they observed to

natural and not supernatural causes.

4) KARL POPPERS VIEW ON DARWINISM

Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept offalsifiability as a way to

distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific, but those that are

untestable are not. However, inUnended Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the

conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but

ametaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories.

Only a few years later, Popper wrote, "I have in the past described the theory as "almost

tautological" I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research

programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of

the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation".

His conclusion, later in the article is "The theory of natural selection may be so formulated

that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not

strictly universally true."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popperhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_(management)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_(management)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_(management)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popperhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science


5/7


5) HOW COME DARWINS RADICAL IDEA WAS ACCEPTED EVEN THOUGH IT

WAS WAY AHEAD OF TIME?

Sometimes it so happens that when a scientist comes up with a theory it is not accepted, but

after a few years when some other scientist comes up with the same theory a few years later it

is accepted by the scientific community?

To understand this scenario we need to look at a few things:

a. The theory might have been way ahead of time.b. The scientist might have not used the right vocabulary to explain the concepts.c. The scientist might have presented his research to wrong scientific communities.

But if we see Einsteins relativity theory or Darwins evolution theory, it was accepted by

people, even though it was different from the existing paradigms. For a work to get

acknowledged a few facts need to be checked.

a. Was the scientist in good terms with all his peers? Was he ready to listen to thearguments given by his counter-scientists?

b. Was the proposed theory his first one or later one? Because if it is his second or thirdtheory then he has already developed a credibility for himself in his first two theories.

c. Was the theory presented in front of right optimistic scientific communities? If thewell-known communities accept his arguments then rest of the other communities

have to accept his theory as it has already been consented by the main ones.

Darwin was able to satisfy all the three factors. Evolution theory was not his first theory.

Moreover he was very much open to criticism from counter scientists and was never known

to have a cold war with any other scientist.

Charles Darwin would be remembered today, even if he had never published his work on

evolution, for his geology. His geological work ranged from physical geology, on volcanoes,

coral reefs and the upheaval and subsidence to land; to paleontology, collecting fossils during

his time on theBeagle voyage and studying fossil barnacles in his home in Downe, Kent. His

own work on geology contributed greatly to his views of life on earth, but he was equally

adept at understanding the work of others and how it related to his ideas. As a young man


6/7


Darwin was passionate about geology, dreaming of becoming a big name in the field. In

1859, just months before the publication of On The Origin of Species, Darwin won the

Wollaston Medal, the highest honour of the Geological Society of London for his numerous

contributions to Geological Science, marking him out as one of the great Victorian

geologists.[4]

6) CONCLUSION: Getting to a conclusion for such a debatable and contesting topic is a

realistically impossible goal. The conflict between Creationism and Evolutionism exist even

today in large numbers. Science has explained many theories. In big bang theory scientists

discovered the origin of life by explaining that universe expanded from a small ball of high

energy and temperature. The expansion happened because of the decrease in temperature.

The most basic question to be asked is why did the universe divide into subatomic and atomic

particles when the temperature decreased? Who assigned this property to objects? Why is it

that hot things always have to expand? There must have been a creator who has assigned the

properties in such a way so that the universe starts building up indirectly.

7) APPENDIX

Evolution theory is made up of five main principles.

First, to be in aposition to procreate, organisms have constantly to fight forsurvival. Second, on occasion random hereditary variations arise. Third, every so often, one of these slight variations will confer on its bearer an

important

Advantage in the fight for survival.

Fourth, this individual and its descend-ants will procreate more than those organismslacking the useful acquisition.

Fifth, eventually enough of these changes will accumulate in order for a new speciesto emerge.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory

What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/index.htmlhttp://www.geolsoc.org.uk/index.html


7/7


Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to theirdistance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who

discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the

universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we shouldbe able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radio astronomers Arno Penzias

and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -

270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which

pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists

were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for

their discovery.

Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in theobservable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

8) REFERENCES

[1]:http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0858359.html

[2]:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

[3]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy#cite_note-0

[4]:http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=c3

[5]: The Golem by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch

[6]: Philosophy of Science

A very short introduction by Samir Okasha.

[7]: Fabulous science: Fact and fiction in the history of scientific discovery by John Waller

[8]: The Black Swan Theory : The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0858359.htmlhttp://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0858359.htmlhttp://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0858359.htmlhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy#cite_note-0http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=c3http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=c3http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=c3http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=c3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy#cite_note-0http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0858359.html

Documents

Philosophy of Science Paper_Mahesh