Scheidell 1 Stephen Scheidell Origins of Science 11 December 2010 Either/Or Dr.

Bishop explained1 that our course had not yet arri ed at the follo!ing dichotomy. Either"it"!as"the"result"of"natural"causes or #od"did"it. $his dichotomy dominates much of the thin%ing in contemporary discussions of explanatory po!er. &ithout entering into this debate itself' this essay !ill sur ey the history of scientific thought up through (saac )e!ton in order to sho! the ground!or% laid for this dichotomy. *oreo er' it !ill posit the logical ine itability of this dichotomy based on the follo!ing three de elopments. +irst' Occam,s -a.or eliminates recourse to stratified explanations' except in cases !hen gaps need to be filled by supplementary theories. Secondly' Da id /ume,s analysis of causality gi es clear preference to explanations in terms of )e!tonian action/reaction. +inally' the e er"increasing interpretation of nature in terms of mathematical formulae lea es little room left for the need for more than these formulae. 0fter ha ing sur eyed this history' the 1uestion of truth must be raised to the fore. &hat epistemological certainty can be gi en to our conception of causality if it is the result of history2 0 /eideggerian ans!er to this 1uestion !ill sho! that this concept of causality brought genuine insights to light' but did not complete the picture. $he essay !ill conclude !ith thought experiments proffering a stratified/participatory theory of agent causation. (n order to better elaborate the historicality of causation 3as a scientific principle4' the historical de elopments thereof must first be sur eyed. $his sur ey !ill be executed in four parts. +irst' the Egyptians and Babylonians !ill be sho!n to ha e been concerned !ith patterns alone' ha ing not de eloped a theory of causation. Second' the #ree%s !ere the first to elaborate a cause/effect distinction. $hird' the *edie als cut that same distinction more finely' complimenting it !ith the 5reator/creature distinction. +ourthly and finally' the scientific re olution laid the grounds for discarding discussions of a 5reator as unnecessary. $he earliest scientific cultures' namely Egypt and Babylon' studied astronomy.
1

6ecture' 10 December 2010.

Scheidell 2 /o!e er' they did not do so 7for %no!ledge,s sa%e8 as !e today might suspect. Babylon concerned itself !ith astrology for issues of state.2 +or Egypt ho!e er' scientific in1uiry held a t!o"fold office. On one hand' study of astronomy aided them in recogni.ing seasonal patterns for agriculture. On the other hand' clergy undertoo% the same studies as a religious duty' done in order to settle 1uestions regarding religious dates and festi als. Egypt celebrated religious practices that belie ed astronomy to be an integral element of their religion. Spradley notes' 7$he solar and nature cults !ere e entually combined and elaborated in a myth of creation from an eternal ocean.8 9 $he Egyptians furthermore added political thought to this mix. 7$he religious !orld ie! of the Egyptians too% a more definite shape !ith the identification of the pharaoh !ith the Sun"god Ra.8: (n both ci ili.ations' the 1uestion of causation !as a peripheral issue' and thus not an issue of any de eloped concern. #ree% scientific thought began /omeric mythology. ; /omer,s !orld !as not unli%e that of the Babylonians.< Both sa! natural phenomena in terms of the clash and chaos of the gods. $hales of *iletus 3ca. <:0";:< B5E4' against this bac%drop of /omeric mythology' speculated into a more rationalistic explanation of natural phenomena. /e thereby introduced the cause/effect split necessary to first de elop a theory of causality. $he ensuing philosophic tradition speculated into the nature of the first principle upon !hich all obser able reality is based. $his tradition culminates !ith 0ristotle 39=:"922 B5E4 and his theory of four causes as elaborated in his Physics.> Of specific note for our in1uiry is to see in 0ristotelian thought the possibility of multiple' compatible 7layers8 of explanation. (n fact' a close reading of the pre"Socratic fragments !ill sho! that many of them still referred to god3s4. 0s ( noted in my critical analysis responding to the D?D' Machines of the Gods' the commentators ga e me pause for anachronistically assuming that the priests 7%ne!8 that they !ere tric%ing the temple"goers into belie ing in the gods. (f certain priests !ere a!are of 0ristotle,s !or%'
2 9

@oseph 6. Spradley. Visions that Shaped the Universe. p. 1< Ibid. p. = : Ibid. ; $his is a contestable claim' no doubt. /o!e er' one may 1uestion !hether the #ree% philosophers !ould ha e ta%en up in1uiry !ithout the /omeric pro ocation. < Ibid. p. 29 > Ibid. p. 9<

Scheidell 9 they may ha e responded in the follo!ing !ay. $o set up the material cause for these !onders does not amount to intruding on the efficient cause' i.e. the acti ity of the #ods. $his four"cause theory permits a categorial separation of explanations !hile sho!ing them not only to be compatible' but e en interrelated. +or instance' a college student scrambling to !rite a final paper may !ant to ma%e tea to %eep a!a%e 3final or teleological cause4. S/he then !ill ta%e !ater and ready"made tea bags 3material and formal cause4' mix and heat them 3efficient causes4. 0ristotle and the fello! #ree%s' therefore' !ould be hard"pressed to admit a conflict of these causes. $he follo!ing history of causality may be interpreted as a narro!ing of the 0ristotelian four"fold causes. $he *edie als carried the 1uestion of natural causes into their religious thought' using natural studies to elaborate the handi!or% of #od. = $homas 01uinas 3ca. 122;"12>:4 synthesi.ed 0ugustinian religious thought !ith 0ristotelian philosophy.A )atural studies operate as elaborations of #od,s goodness' order and sustenance. /e thus began the Scholastic tradition of placing #od,s acti ity as the final or teleological cause. $his mo e opened free room to study efficient' formal and material causes !ithout excluding di ine acti ity. $he trade"off' ho!e er' is that this final cause is 7settled8 and therefore left un1uestioned. $o the $homistic synthesis' a s%eptical reaction emerged. 10 $roubled by the reliance on essentialism' &illiam of Oc%ham 3ca. 12=;"19:A4 argued that these essences exist only as ideas expressed linguisticallyB they are unnecessary for scientific explanation. $hat is to say' the formal cause is no longer a concern for scientific in1uiry. &ith the final cause settled and the formal cause eliminated' scientific in1uiry settles into analyses of change and motion' 11 i.e. efficient causes. /ere' it is !orth noting that Oc%am meant his 7ra.or8 to eliminate uni ersals as unnecessary hypotheses. $he *oderns' ho!e er' come to adopt it regarding final causes. *odern. $he presence of the roots of the either/or dichotomy can be confirmed in 1uotations such as the follo!ing from Cierre Simon 6aplace. Spradley !rites 76aplaceD telling )apoleon Bonaparte' E( ha e no need of that hypothesis F#odG.,8 12 6aplace
= A

Ibid. p. ;9 Ibid. p. <; 10 Ibid. p. << 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. p. 122

Scheidell : belie ed he had explained the solar system,s stability !ithout need of di ine inter ention.