Both Newton and Lavoisier Provide some some rules and insights to Reasoning in Philosophy (Newton) and Chemical Nomenclature and Education (Lavoisier). Newton, who is considered to the father of modern physics, discussed "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy" with his four rules. Within these rules Newton basically explained how we are to understand "Natural Philosophy." The bulk of his discussion was centered around Rule III in regards to bodies.
In general, would you agree with Newton's method/rules in order to understand nature?
Lavoisier, who is considered to be the father of modern chemistry, discussed various ways in order to understand chemistry in a systematic way. Lavoisier begin by stating that "The Art of Reason is nothing more than a language well arranged" (Pg. xvi, Paragraph 1).
What do think Lavoisier is trying to convey to the audience with this statement? Do you agree?
Lastly, what do like most about Lavoisier and Newton's Text?
Personally, I was really interested with Lavoisier's text because taking chemistry courses for the past 2+ years. It is really interesting to see where chemical knowledge started and how it has changed significantly with more modern nomenclature as implemented by IUPAC.
Background Information about Lavoisier. Courtesy of Dr. Leopold May, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at CUA.
ReplyDeletehttp://faculty.cua.edu/may/Lavoisier.pdf
Personally, I find the scientific texts to be awfully confusing. I am not much of a science person, but I can try my best to understand how it all relates to this class.
ReplyDeleteNewton's rules seemed to me to be centered mostly around observation. From what I read in Barbour's commentary, I think that those observations could possibly be Newton's way of saying that God does/did have a significant role in human nature.
I believe that Lavoisier explaining the art of reason as nothing more than a language somewhat unifies humankind to reason. In other words, I think he is saying that by this "language" it is possible for humankind to know the art of reason. I hope this makes sense, because I will admit to being a little confused as to the relationship between Lavoisier's text and religion.
Both authors are obviously highly intelligent men that are trying their best to explain science and nature.
I don't blame you chemistry and physics are some pretty confusing subjects.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there wasn't anything obvious about the connection between religion and science within Lavoisier's text, but in the context of Lavoisier's time period. He lived in a time of revolution (The French Revolution) and the Age of Enlightenment, which spanned from late 16th to early 19th century. Therefore, what Lavoisier is stating within his text is pretty much radical and different to his time period, where God and religion played a huge role as social norms.
I think that Lavoisier's language via chemical nomenclature is to understand nature through chemistry and I think that as humanity we are able to understand God's work and presence through nature. Thus, we can convey and explain what we see in nature via chemistry.
I agree with Newton in that our senses which we use to gather data during experiments is how we learn to understand nature. In questioning nature itself, it begins with an observation. We observe something and want to find the cause of it. In trying to find the cause of it we change and isolate factors that we believe to be the cause in order to identify which one is the causer. By experience with nature, we then are able to understand. Observations are what make conclusions, and observations are the result of using our senses to understand.
ReplyDeleteI think when lavoisier said, "The Art of Reason is nothing more than a language well arranged" (Pg. xvi, Paragraph 1), he was saying that without the right organization reason means nothing. But when reason follows the right trail, starting with small concepts, and building into larger more complicated concepts reason is then effective. By saying this Lavoisier want to impart that reason has basis in everyday understandings, but when linked and properly organized, reason is formed.
I greatly admire Lavoisier for the stance he took when referring to that which he didn't understand. He was very reasonable, systematic, and logical. He explained everything he said. I applaud his attempt at organizing the periodic table. He saw a need and adjusted for it.
ReplyDeleteConcerning Newton's text I like how his system of rules are so well thought out that when Newtonian Physics was revised to accommodate for Atomic Physics and Einstein's discovery of the speed of light Newton's rules are the ones we used for revising his subject that he pioneered. What I am saying is this, while the discovery Newton is known for was adapted and revised based on newer theories, the 4 rules that Newton originally outlined were the ones the scientific community unconsciously used.
I think with any of the theologians and philosophers we have and will study will have known flaws so all we can really do is sift through their arguments and see what we can make of them.
ReplyDeleteIn general I think Lavoisier's claim about the art of reason is on point. Reason is something that we are partially born with but it must be maintained and built upon in order to be used properly to its fullest effect.
Similarly, I think we need to take Newton's ideas with our utmost respect because, as Irant said, they are the building blocks on which many present day scientific theories were formed upon.
I agree with Lavoisier's comment in his text when he says "we cannot improve the language of any science without at the same time improving the science itself; neither can we, on the other hand, improve a science, without improving the language or nomenclature which belongs to it." Scientific experiments only further and add value to science as a whole. If an experiment leads to a wrong outcome, then one conduct the experiment differently to achieve the desired outcome.
ReplyDeleteNewton’s text was a pretty confusing for me, but I did understand his idea about how observations lead to experiments which lead to conclusions. This is the scientific method that we know today. I would classify as an empiricist because he believed sensory experience (i.e. experimentation) was how one discovered truth.
--Michael Beatson
This is the first time that I really haven't known what to post about - I understood the texts individually, but like everyone else, am having a little bit of trouble relating them to one another. We'll probably flesh everything out in class tomorrow, though, so until then, I'll just try to give a working understanding of what I gathered from everything.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting for me to compare Newton's philosophy of scientific understanding with Lavoisier's. It almost seemed like Newton was a little more open-minded in his understanding of how the world worked, whereas Lavoisier was very concerned with being correct in his pursuit of the truth (which is good), but ended up formulating a set of rules that seemed to me to be potentially a little too restrictive. Scientifically speaking, though, this may be the best way to make new discoveries - I'm not a 'science person', so I can't offer a much better analysis.
Barbour's insight was important in giving context; I hadn't known much about Newton's religious beliefs previously, and found his perspective interesting.
I would like to agree with Alex (Irant)in saying that Newton has shaped modern science as a whole, and not just physics. This text served a purpose even as his ideas were being updated.
ReplyDeleteLavoisier was an enjoyable read as well, as I especially enjoyed his emphasis on using reasoning to obtain the truth. His logic is impeccable, in that anyone can follow his chain of thought. Too often one is left wondering just how an author or philosopher reached a certain conclusion, and that did not happen with this text.
I want to point out the quote that Michael highlighted and how i thought it tied in with what we covered in the last class from the Barbour text: "we cannot improve the language of any science without at the same time improving the science itself; neither can we, on the other hand, improve a science, without improving the language or nomenclature which belongs to it." I think this goes along the same line as the core values staying the same but the peripherals changing. He's saying (i think) that to get more thoroughly into the meaning of a science, it relies upon a full understanding and communication. I think the same thing can be applied to faith, in that, we can change the surrounding pieces to better our understanding of the core truth.
ReplyDeleteNow, i think this plays inherintly into Lavoisier's understanding of reason. Reason is to be cultivated and not simply given. It is grounded out of organization and structure.
I think at their core, both Newton and Lavoisier's texts are more than just a reading in science, but a structure on how to look at reason in a whole.
I found this to be the most interesting reading yet. I was really intrigued that they were more interested in finding substances on earth as a reason for being here, rather than a 'being.' I also like what Mike wrote about experiments ending incorrectly. Even though the experiment is wrong it has still helped you to further understand what you are looking for. I guess this was how I related the texts to religion. People are born into a religion and very few try different ones out for themselves to find what they really believe in. Instead most people stay in one religion for whichever reason.
ReplyDeleteThe text makes me think about Bonaventure and his division of the arts, or different lights. How one finds truth within one of the arts and that made them find God. Someone mentioned they don't understand how this text can be related to religion. If we take the definition of religion, (a way of life). These guys found another way of living their lives during a time where how you live your is one of the most important things. Especially when you are spending it doing experiments and almost going in the opposite direction with how others live their lives. But these guys found that truth within it, if not we would not have the theories in science we have today. So really what i'm getting from the text is, they made their science their religion and they made it a language. So I do agree with 26murphy when she explained Lavoisier's art of reason as nothing more than a language. If any one of us speaks 2 different language, you will know that it is not everything in one of them that can be translated into the other. Each language is specific to the culture it came from.
ReplyDelete