Carson Baker

John Manchak
HONORS 392
5 November 2013
Science at Play

ARISTOTLE. But dont you see how simply absurd you sound? Objects simply do not compel
themselves forward without end, they simply must come to a stop! Pray tell but one example of
an object which forever continues to move without a mover.
NEWTON. My dear friend, for what reason ought an object to stop? I say that if a force begot an
object into motion surely a new force, in fact such a force that is equal and opposite, must be
introduced to bring this motion to a halt. But this surely is not to you a foreign concept! For the
stars in the heavens certainly exhibit this ceaseless motion and what pray tell compels them to
move?
ARISTOTLE. But the heavenly bodies are compelled for they are affixed to the heavenly sphere,
which gives them their perfect motion. For why should they to do anything else? They are
resting in their natural place.
NEWTON. Please sir, refresh my memory as I have forgotten. By what do you deem is an
objects natural place?
ARISTOTLE. I shall indeed. Simply an object yearns to return to its natural place, and whenever
removed from it by force, when this force is removed, the object quickly returns to its ordered
place. For why does a rock fall toward the earth? And even so why does a rock fall as it passes
through water, and yet in water air rises? And yet watch a fire as it burns, and its tongues long to
rise above even the air. Each object has its place and seeks to return from whence it came.
NEWTON. Then what of the floating ship which seems at ease to glide upon the water surface?
No Aristotle, each object does indeed continue upon its current path unless it is influenced
otherwise. For who are we to go against God? How dare we jump and disrupt the cosmic order
and seek to place ourselves above the air? But I say to you, explain the motion of the dewdrops
which rise from the ground. There is no morality with which a ball travels through the air, and it
is no more holy by the time it comes to a halt. No motion is more pure or just than any other, for
God holds all things and they do as he pleases.
KUHN. Gentlemen your arguments are certainly most interesting. I admire too the faith you each
have in your own conceptions. But is not this needless fighting? Who is to say he has the better
argument?
NEWTON. Good sir, I thank you for your comments. There is but a way to determine when an
argument is better, that is through careful testing and analysis. For I say that by applying the laws
of my scientific theorems even the common man can predict the behavior of the natural world in
which he lives. With simple collection of data I can prove to any man I am correct.
ARISTOTLE. I do say, Newton, the pretentious nature which surrounds your supposed theorems
are quite distasteful. Furthermore your theories explain very little I am afraid. For while you
seem to be well convinced, and rightly so, that a rock will plummet to the earth when dropped
you provide no explanation of why. For what cause does a rock fall to the earth? You provide no
motive for the stone, it simply falls because it does. Is this then truly any reason in and of itself?
No a rock returns to the ground because that is where it belongs, that is where it is meant. The
cosmic order is restored, and the rock, finally at peace, stands still.
KUHN. Gentlemen if I may I do believe your theories are both acceptable. Your theories each
act under the pretense of a different paradigm which you each apply in different ways. To say
Newton that your theory is necessarily better than Aristotles here is claiming far too much. For
who are we to say that we have grasped reality? Are we yet so confident that we may claim with
any certainty what is really there? To be fair, within the confines of its own paradigm Newtons
theories more accurately predict and describe certain events. But is the puzzle solved? It would
rather seem that Aristotle is correct to say that Newtons theory, though with explanatory power
regarding the how, is much weaker in regards to explaining the why.
CARSON. Sirs, if I may, I applaud your discussion and find your explorations to be especially
enticing. However I must disagree with Kuhns proposition of multiple acceptable arguments, for
certainly not each of you are correct!
ARISTOTLE. The lad speaks the truth. What are our enquiries if not the pursuit of truth? And
what greater truth exists than the ordering of the earth and the heavens? Surely the knowledge of
the great spheres is the most compelling truth, for it gives rhyme and reason to our very being.
NEWTON. You are one to speak of truth Aristotle! But certainly if our paradigms (as our friend
Kuhn wishes to call them) contain but a trace of non-truth, is not the whole infected by its
presence? With what certainty shall we believe in that which is known to be flawed? And thus
we must certainly do right by our theories and find out which reflection of reality, or again which
paradigm if you will, resembles the truth about which we live.
KUHN. Sirs you show the value of my proposition better than I ever could. Is this not truly
science? The mode of study considering your presumptions, Aristotle, perhaps provides a more
complete package of the understanding of the universe. For every action has its place, operation,
and purpose within your framework. And yet within this paradigm alone there can be fewer
conclusions as to the precise predictable behavior of earthly bodies. Newtons system tells me
with greater certainty and reliability where a cannonball will land when fired than your
framework, Aristotle, could begin to describe. And yet again, Newtons system is lacking, and in
fact dull, when it comes to explaining the motive of the cannonball. The two views you have
each provided then are each incompatible, and in fact incommensurable with the other, for each
paradigm justifies itself on its own terms.
CARSON. Yes, though each paradigm as you have said understands the world in a separately
useful way, the world does in fact only operate in one fashion. Should we not continue to
question which mode the world most truly operates in?
ARISTOTLE. Indeed! For if we allow for the interpretation of the world to follow multiple
paradigms, each of their explanatory powers is significantly lessened. If truths inherent within
one system are not regarded in another, what do we say about their truthfulness?
NEWTON. It is well said.
KUHN. It is on these points gentlemen which we disagree. Quite the contrary, I propose that
science is not on this pursuit of truth as you have asserted. In fact I would argue that there exists
within science "no coherent direction of ontological development" (Pg. 206). Rather than a
continual march of refinement toward a better understanding of the world, when a new paradigm
arises it replaces the incompatible knowledge and thus is wholly different from what has come
before. This produces, I would argue, not a more complete picture of the universe with fewer
gaps of ignorance distorting the image, but an entirely separate image.
NEWTON. Ah, but is this new image not a betterment of the first?
KUHN. Perhaps only for solving certain particular puzzles. As we have seen, your two
philosophies concerning the world speak to different issues. Yours, Newton, is
phenomenological, while yours, Aristotle, is ontological. Furthermore, to ever say that we have
reached truth is exceedingly improbable and ignorant, for our perceptions are hardly keen
enough or consistent enough to have any significant degree of confidence in our knowledge.
CARSON. It would seem then that we are only further from knowing the truth. There must be
some means by which we can compare these theories, and indeed we must compare, for the
world only operates in one way, and it is our desire to discover that way.
NEWTON. Once more the boy speaks well. Furthermore the almighty, omnipotent God of the
universe is one who is rational, relatable, and understandable. By studying the world around us
which has the very fingerprints of God we learn about the character and nature of God himself.
God is absolute, and God is true. How can we say his creation is contrary to His nature? If, as
you claim, there are two or more senses in which we may understand the world around us, then
God is not absolute, unchanging, or knowable. Rather this reflects a God that is uncertain,
irregular, and irrational. Certainly the Almighty God would not taint our perceptions of Himself
through the creation of such a world!
KUHN. Ah but this then is the true heart of the matter! I do not believe in your God good sirs,
nor do I believe in an absolute knowable truth of the world. Human beings are detached from
truth, and thus our human science does not correspond in any exact way to reality. Thus there
exists no truth which guides our science and propels us toward conclusions, but rather our
science is a means by which we may better solve the puzzles presented before us. What we see is
merely an illusion of understanding. Therefore both theories are equally valid means of
understanding the world in which we live.
CARSON. Then if there is no absolute and understandable truth by what basis do we base any of
our observations? We then have no certainty of any of our conclusions, even those most
fundamental principles of the universe. It would seem based your methodology allows you to
know very little!
KUHN. This is true, but do remember that ascertaining truth is not my quest. That was yours.
ARISTOTLE. It would seem that your paradigm has trapped you more than you hoped. Rather
than allowing you to adhere to multiple claims as equally valid, you are left with nothing upon
which to stand, and thus nothing in which to believe. Allowing for everything has left you to
believe in nothing, and thus there is no purpose for our world.
NEWTON. Furthermore Kuhn, without a belief in God, scientific research serves what purpose?
If not to better know the God of the universe, what then is your motivation? To know truth itself?
But you have said that there is no truth. What then is the chief end of man?
KUHN. Do not take me sirs with such skepticism! I am not arguing for the futility of life, nor
certainly the futility of science. To say we are unable to know truth is not to say that our efforts
are in vain, for surely the work of science has accomplished a great deal and will only increase in
its utility. Though there exists no imposed chief end of man as you have labeled it, this is not to
say nothing has purpose or use. To say there is no means of knowing truth is not to say there is
no knowledge. Rather we endeavor to discover new ways of understanding the world that we
might enhance our ways of knowing, and empowered by this knowledge, advance our ways of
living. This is why revolutionary thinking is essential to the advancement of science. By limiting
the frame by which we understand the world and operating normally within this paradigm we
are forcing one methodology by which we interact with nature. But by experimenting outside of
the limiting bounds of normal science, a scientific revolution if you will, we enable a new
avenue of scientific discovery which may prove to be incomparable with those which had come
before it, because it is derivative of a different set of rules by which its claims are governed.
ARISTOTLE. This is simply a glorification of human progress and advancement. This paradigm
as you have described is not without motivation, not without a standard. Science has become the
study of the ways that humanity can reliably control and effect nature. It is for this goal of
control that you pursue. This is merely a different truth. Not a truth in God, or a truth inherent
within the universe, rather you seek the truth of the effects of man.
KUHN. You speak oddly, but speak well. It is however important to note that there remains no
static overarching truth governing our science. For the the entire scientific process may occur
without the benefit of a set goal, a permanent fixed scientific truth, of which each stage in the
development of scientific knowledge is a better exemplar (Pg. 172-173)
NEWTON. And yet all of our scientific models thus far are based on a set of underlying
presumptions. For instance, all science depends on the consistency of mathematics. Furthermore,
certain laws are the same in all paradigms in which we have created. Does not the corroborative
effort of all paradigms point to the constancy of certain foundational scientific codes? Where is
the world without the triangle? Where is the world in which time and space themselves have
changed? Certainly the existence of fundamental presumptions underlying scientific paradigms
points to the existence of a controlling, constant, understandable truth of the world.
KUHN. And yet even these paradigm shifts are possible.
CARSON. But do you not see? However you seek to describe the world, certain behaviors are
unilaterally unchanging, and in fact necessary. We see that when I drop a stone, it falls straight to
the earth, and does so in a likewise matter for however many trials wish to be performed. There
is no meaningful paradigm shift in which the stone does not fall to the ground. The fact that the
stone falls is simply true and indicative of constancy within the universe. Is it purely by
probabilistic chance that we have accounted for this falling with all accepted scientific
paradigms? Certainly there are undermining truths of the universe, and certainly we are able to
know them.
ARISTOTLE. Indeed, which hearkens back to my initial point where it is essential that the
meaning be grasped for the phenomenon which we experience. If we do not admit that stones fall
to the earth without variance, then we are fools. It is meaningful that the rock has fallen.
NEWTON. And it is clear that we can know the ways in which the rock falls and behaves. It is
simply compelled by the force of gravity until it experiences the additional normal force of the
earth surface which brings the rock to a halt.
ARISTOTLE. No, Newton, as I have said the rock falls because it is meant to fall. Just as rocks
do not fall upward for they would encroach on the heavenly spaces, so too the rock falls toward
the earth, its birth place, as it is destined and meant to.
NEWTON. No, Aristotle, for the rock cannot compel itself. For was the rock made in the image
of God? Rather as I have said
KUHN. So these scientists return to their playful search for truth.















Work Cited
Kuhn, Thomas S., and Ian Hacking. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University
of Chicago, 2012. E.O. Smith Moodle. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.l