Background History:
● Modern science came about as a result of developments in the 16th-18th centuries
● Earlier scientific thinkers lacked the systematic approaches to evidence that
developed from the sixteenth century and shaped modern science.
● Most of the first ‘modern’ scientists were religious and didn’t see their work as
conflicting with established Christian teachings.
The Rise of Science
● With the rise of science came the assumption that human reason could understand
the way the world works without any divine influence
● This implied: a trust in evidence and experiment as a means of acquiring knowledge
an assumption that the world is orderly and intelligible
a willingness to challenge all claims to truth and therefore to set aside the authority of
the Church
The Autonomy of Human Reason:
● The rise of science led to the perception of human reason as autonomous i.e. free to
follow its own agenda, rather than simply following religious teachings
● This threatened the authority of religion
● Scientists developed a systematic approach to understanding the world, which was
entirely independent of religious ideas
Method of Science
● We trust science because of the methods used (observation, reason, experiment) and
the emphasis on evidence and reason
● Conclusions are repeatedly tested, and independent observers can test them again
● Carl Sagan claimed Science is like democracy – both are transparent: everyone can
look at the data and not be misled
● Empiricism -
- Knowledge is gained through the senses, through evidence which can be
tested.
- All real knowledge of the world is based on sensation.
● Rationalism -
- The mind is the source of knowledge. Truth can be deduced using the powers
of reason
- Sense experience is secondary and is fallible. It can be mistaken.
Descartes on Uncertainty
● Employed systematic doubt.
● He decided to “reject as absolutely false anything which gave rise in my mind to the
slightest doubt”
● He rejected the sense experience as it can be mistaken
, ● How do we know we’re not deceived by an evil demon or we’re not in a dream the
whole time?
The Scientific Method
● “It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why
he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence,
not on authority or intuition.” (Bertrand Russell)
● There are two fundamentally different processes involved in gaining knowledge:
deduction and induction
The Deductive Approach
● If one proposition is true, others may be deduced from it. That works well, provided
the first proposition is correct
● So, for example, the medieval view of the heavens was that they were perfect, and
the circle was a perfect shape; therefore, the planets had to move in circles.
The Inductive Approach
● The inductive method depends on observation and testing and was the key feature of
the development of science.
● Scientists:
- observe and gather evidence
- analyse the evidence, and draw conclusions (hypothesis)
- devise experiments to test out the hypothesis
- modify the hypothesis, if necessary argue for a theory that will explain the
evidence and results
- once there is a theory, use deduction to predict things that should be the case
if the theory is correct
- establish tests that can either verify or disprove the theory
● It is sometimes assumed that science delivers certainty, but the inductive process
can only give a high degree of probability
● Science is naturalistic (deals with the natural world as it is experienced) and therefore
potential conflicts with any supernatural claims of Christianity.
Strengths of the scientific approach:
+ Science is always open to challenges and willing to reject previously held beliefs
+ Religion is often accused of the opposite.
+ Parable of the Gardner - the perceived differences between statements based on faith
and statements based on scientific evidence, and the problems associated with
unfalsifiable beliefs (beliefs not capable of being false)
+ Science is based on inductive reasoning. There is always the possibility the
conclusions are wrong, but this is a healthy part of the process.
● Modern science came about as a result of developments in the 16th-18th centuries
● Earlier scientific thinkers lacked the systematic approaches to evidence that
developed from the sixteenth century and shaped modern science.
● Most of the first ‘modern’ scientists were religious and didn’t see their work as
conflicting with established Christian teachings.
The Rise of Science
● With the rise of science came the assumption that human reason could understand
the way the world works without any divine influence
● This implied: a trust in evidence and experiment as a means of acquiring knowledge
an assumption that the world is orderly and intelligible
a willingness to challenge all claims to truth and therefore to set aside the authority of
the Church
The Autonomy of Human Reason:
● The rise of science led to the perception of human reason as autonomous i.e. free to
follow its own agenda, rather than simply following religious teachings
● This threatened the authority of religion
● Scientists developed a systematic approach to understanding the world, which was
entirely independent of religious ideas
Method of Science
● We trust science because of the methods used (observation, reason, experiment) and
the emphasis on evidence and reason
● Conclusions are repeatedly tested, and independent observers can test them again
● Carl Sagan claimed Science is like democracy – both are transparent: everyone can
look at the data and not be misled
● Empiricism -
- Knowledge is gained through the senses, through evidence which can be
tested.
- All real knowledge of the world is based on sensation.
● Rationalism -
- The mind is the source of knowledge. Truth can be deduced using the powers
of reason
- Sense experience is secondary and is fallible. It can be mistaken.
Descartes on Uncertainty
● Employed systematic doubt.
● He decided to “reject as absolutely false anything which gave rise in my mind to the
slightest doubt”
● He rejected the sense experience as it can be mistaken
, ● How do we know we’re not deceived by an evil demon or we’re not in a dream the
whole time?
The Scientific Method
● “It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why
he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence,
not on authority or intuition.” (Bertrand Russell)
● There are two fundamentally different processes involved in gaining knowledge:
deduction and induction
The Deductive Approach
● If one proposition is true, others may be deduced from it. That works well, provided
the first proposition is correct
● So, for example, the medieval view of the heavens was that they were perfect, and
the circle was a perfect shape; therefore, the planets had to move in circles.
The Inductive Approach
● The inductive method depends on observation and testing and was the key feature of
the development of science.
● Scientists:
- observe and gather evidence
- analyse the evidence, and draw conclusions (hypothesis)
- devise experiments to test out the hypothesis
- modify the hypothesis, if necessary argue for a theory that will explain the
evidence and results
- once there is a theory, use deduction to predict things that should be the case
if the theory is correct
- establish tests that can either verify or disprove the theory
● It is sometimes assumed that science delivers certainty, but the inductive process
can only give a high degree of probability
● Science is naturalistic (deals with the natural world as it is experienced) and therefore
potential conflicts with any supernatural claims of Christianity.
Strengths of the scientific approach:
+ Science is always open to challenges and willing to reject previously held beliefs
+ Religion is often accused of the opposite.
+ Parable of the Gardner - the perceived differences between statements based on faith
and statements based on scientific evidence, and the problems associated with
unfalsifiable beliefs (beliefs not capable of being false)
+ Science is based on inductive reasoning. There is always the possibility the
conclusions are wrong, but this is a healthy part of the process.
