Of all Aristotle’s other nine categories that describe objects, quantities stand in “splendid isolation” from other categories of words. That is the point. The overwhelming majority of propositions the human mind must address to understand reality–and here is the brilliance of this axiom–have nothing to do with numbers.[31] In antiquity, nature was described mostly qualitatively, but in modernity, quantitative measurements are required to define physical laws. This change to quantities marks the Scientific Revolution that transformed the world. In Aristotelian physics, “more or less” was enough because Aristotle’s physics noted details qualitatively of substances in the natural world, but Newtonian physics changed that. Newtonian physics addresses every proposition aiming for quantitative exactness, and “more or less” is no longer appropriate. The Scientific Revolution was a change to recognize the significance of exact quantities.
Since exact science derives its exactness from measurements, the application of quantities, it is limited to matter; and since science is limited to matter, it has no philosophical or religious implications whatsoever. “Herein,” Jaki wrote, “lies the crux of all talks about science and religion, and even about science and any non-scientific field of inquiry, generally known as the humanities.”[32]
At this point, in trying to assimilate this definition, you are probably asking, “But what about chemistry, biology, and the other fields that are scientific, such as medicine, political science, and social science?” There absolutely needs to be an answer for that. Jaki sometimes further clarified that by “exact science” he meant physics, and because he was a physicist, it is understandable that he started there. He understood that physics was the purest quantitative science: “Physics, to restate, with some emphasis, a definition I give in various publications ‘is the quantitative study of the quantitative aspects of things in motion.’”[33] That definition is also his definition of exact science.
However, Jaki did not stop with physics; he used the term “exact science” to emphasize that which is “exact” knowledge from that which is not exact, which he called “reasoned discourse.” Since mathematics does not measure, it is a form of logic. Physics and astronomy are the most exact sciences since they are the quantitative study of the quantitative aspects of objects in motion. Biochemistry and biophysics are becoming exact sciences because they are becoming fields that measure objects in motion. Chemistry is an exact science that deals with averages of interactions between many objects. Evolutionary biology is an exact science only so far as it measures quantities and is about mechanism, but when extended as an explanation beyond that, it is reasoned discourse, and in the case of materialistic Darwinism, unreasonable discourse. Neurology is an exact science only when it measures the brain or nervous system, but it cannot measure the soul. A characteristic of exact science is that, being based on measurements, it allows exact predictions. Psychology, sociology, and political science are minimally exact sciences where–and only where–they concern quantified data collected by measurement.[34] For the most part, those disciplines are matters for philosophical consideration. Jaki went so far as to say that theology should not be called a science because it rests on considerations that are not quantitative.[35]
Jaki pointed out, however, that even “the understanding of quantities rests on non-quantitative propositions.”[36] Newton’s laws of motion explain quantitative data, but even in the strictest sense, universally non-numerical words are needed to give any meaning to numerical quantities. Therefore, reasoned discourse stands at the beginning and at the end of quantities, embedding science within it. Exact science depends on reasoned discourse.
Jaki did not insist on the distinction between “exact science” and “reasoned discourse” to diminish science, but to emphasize the power of reasoned discourse. As a brief but necessary side note, there is a theological underpinning to this emphasis related to the doctrine of imago Dei, that man is made in the image of God. Scripture revealed that the Holy Trinity is an ordered procession. The Father generates the Son as a divine internal act of the intellect (which is why the Son is also called the Word or the Logos), and the Father and Son together as one substance spirate (from spīrāre, breathe forth) the Holy Spirit as a divine internal act of the will. Thus, humans created with a rational soul also have intellect and will. This is the theological explanation for the intellectual power to even do science and the will to do it right, which is why Jaki highlighted the “power” of reasoned discourse. More simply, humans innately know what numbers are, but numbers are not the limit of all human reasoning.
So then, the other sciences besides physics are all exact insofar as they are the application of quantities to objects by measurement. To the extent that the various branches of science use numbers connected with measurements, they are exact, but that distinction does not, as shown before, disallow for non-exact sciences. The attentive reader may have guessed by now where this is headed and why Jaki’s concise definition based on quantities and exactness may be rejected by those who adhere to Scientism. The logical conclusion points to the difference in religion and science:
One should not forget even for a moment the most fundamental rule (indeed a fact) which should govern all reasoned (indeed sane) discourse about the relation of science and religion: Quantities form one conceptual domain, and all other concepts another. Painful as this may be to incurable reductionists, the two domains are and remain irreducible to one another.[37]
To grasp how quantities form a conceptual domain independent of all other concepts is to grasp that Jaki clarified a fundamental distinction between science and religion that, one can speculate, should have been heeded more carefully all along in the history of science. The distinction has still not been fully developed, but hopefully these ideas will lead to more clarified discussions about the future of science.
Why Does This Definition Matter?
Why Does This Definition Matter?
Scientists today have difficulty defining their own field because of the failure to distinguish exact science from reasoned discourse, and if scientists cannot even define science, then neither can anyone else. There is a very real difficulty and confusion, though students of science will often not admit it. Maybe they are not aware of the difficulty because they were never taught it, or maybe they want science to have more power than it does. The Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology, for instance, defines science as “the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts.”[38] But what does that mean, and where are the boundaries?
Jaki took issue with turning science into philosophy, something such a vague definition certainly allows since “events,” “conditions,” and “principles” can be interpreted broadly.[39] Jaki noted that even such giants of modern science, like Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, and Arthur Compton produced books that gave credence to the erroneous perception that exact science is a “potent source of philosophical insight.”[40] If Jaki’s insistence that exact science be limited to measurement of objects in motion was followed, it would be clear to anyone that science cannot answer all the problems that humans face. It would be clear that the desire to graft philosophy onto something non-philosophical (or non-science onto what is scientific) is a perversion of both science and philosophy that ought to be avoided for the sake of true progress.
And so, in an even deeper sense, what Jaki really did with his insistence that science, the quantitative study of the quantitative aspects of objects in motion, be grounded in exactness was to protect science as science so that other questions of humanity, existence, philosophy, and religion could be considered more fully with the power of reasoned discourse. That these disciplines have been marginalized by an over-reliance on “science” to shore up positions that are actually the work of the intellect separate from numbers and quantities is proof that such perversion has already occurred.<
br />
Solid reasoned discourse, including philosophy and theology, does not need quantification from exact science to support it, since those discourses ought to be able to stand on their own merit. That is a most significant point. It is strong praise of the human ability to reason, an ability that is not praised enough or given enough confidence by a modern culture that too often invokes science as if it were a marketing tool. Understanding this distinction makes it possible to wade through the immense studies and claims wrapped up as science, or as Jaki loved to say, used as one of the three S's, Sport, Sex, and Science (and sometimes he added a fourth, Smile), that sells ideas.[41]
Consider the repercussions of having confused these distinctions. In 2009, the Science Council in the U.K. announced a year-long effort to give a new “official” definition of science, the first “ever published” according to the The Guardian periodical.[42] It took a year for the members of the council to declare science to be “the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.” This definition may sound sophisticated at first, but, just as is the Academic Press definition does, it leaves room for philosophy-grafting. As such it gives science an undue, false power to describe the universe and mankind’s purpose. It is remarkable that the atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling applauded this definition for its generality.[43] The danger with these ambiguities in an increasingly secular culture is that under such broad and indistinct definitions, it is possible for non-religious people to conclude that science can give the answers to non-scientific questions that have nothing to do with quantities and matter, ergo Scientism. As Jaki said, it leads to the conclusion that science is the “savior of mankind.”[44]
One can only wince at what Jaki would have said about the essay contest organized and funded by philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris, who wrote a book in 2010 titled The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, which claims that “questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science.”[45] In 2014, Harris is offering $2,000 to the winner of an essay contest to refute the premise of his book and $20,000 to anyone who convinces him to abandon the premise. Jaki undoubtedly would have turned out a clever phrase about the contradictions in moral landscapes, human values, and monetary value being grafted onto a mind who also wrote the book that claims free will is an illusion.[46] Indeed people have looked upon Harris’ claim about science determining human values with consternation and rejection, but so lost has modern thought become in the absence of clarified distinction between quantities and qualities that opponents are at a loss to understand why Harris could be wrong.
To even say something simple such as “a rock is there” is beyond the purview of exact science. How shocking is that? But to ponder it reveals something quite profound. Quantities do not alone identify what something is. Science cannot define what a substance is, or whether the substance is an object or a being. Science does not measure demonstrative pronouns or identify verbal states of being, a radically simple concept to grasp but not a concept commonly acknowledged. Science only addresses the how.[47]
Exact science is therefore extremely limited in its applicability. Jaki thought this was a standard of most importance, not just for scientists, but even more so for philosophers and theologians. Consider this strong admonishment: “Whenever a philosopher/theologian yields the fraction of a hairsbreadth on the intrinsic limitation of exact science, he runs the grave risk of the heedless boy who put his hand through the fence of the lion’s cage. The risk is that of a potential tragedy.”[48] The advice there is of utmost importance for theologians. Theologians do not need to rely on science to shore up the material of their discipline. They do not need information about quantities of objects in motion to defend what reason can discover or what God has revealed. Scientific discovery can contribute to the appreciation or understanding of philosophy and theology, but those disciplines ought to first stand on their own merits. So much for science, as Jaki would say.
In an essay given in 2003, “What God Has Separated . . .” Jaki taught that this separation of science (quantities) and religion is not just a separation of his making, but one God Himself created in the mind of man. Mankind knows this separation because the human mind innately knows the difference between quantities and everything else. Christ demonstrated this too when asked about what to do with a coin. The Lord said, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”[49] Purpose and free will are qualities that cannot be measured, and therefore, their consideration does not belong to science or to things limited to this physical world. They are matters for revealed religion or philosophy. The reminder in Mark’s Gospel is a good one for those who think science can explain everything. “How is a man the better for it, if he gains the whole world at the expense of losing his own soul?”[50] Truly, a person could learn all the science there ever could be learned about the motion of objects in the physical world, and it would not save his soul.
“Science does not tell us what we should do, it does not even tell us what is, simply because there are no units of measurement for is. Revealed religion depends and rests on that verb is.”[51] God is existence itself, “I Am who Is,” and religion is about purpose of the highest conceivable kind, life after death and personal immortality.[52] The etymology of the word “religion” means to re-ligare; ligare means to tie a knot, so re-ligare means to reunite with God.[53] Jaki made this point often, the only real religion is the one “steeped in Christian Revelation,” a personal Creator who brings forth the universe out of nothing and who inspired man to pray to Him by becoming Incarnate and by purchasing through his life, death, and resurrection the eternal rewards of Redemption. Jaki summed it up beautifully: “I only wish that Catholics would really cherish the word is even though science cannot say anything about it.”[54]
Jaki mentions in his autobiography that he had the goal to more fully develop this idea in his 1999 publication, Means to a Message: A Treatise on Truth. He explains that “the scientist singles out what is quantitative in reality and therefore he deals only with matter and only insofar as matter embodies quantitative features.”[55] The scientist, qua scientist, does not probe into the deeper questions about where the matter came from, why it is here, or who gave it its quantitative properties; he instead accepts that those objects really exist a priori.[56] Those questions about existence and being belong to philosophy and theology. This insight is valuable because it puts science at a dead stop with the material world and measurement.
In the final chapter of his intellectual autobiography, Jaki further wonders why it was that even Aristotle failed to more methodically treat one of his “most portentous remarks.”[57] Jaki first remarked on this idea thirty years prior in The Relevance of Physics, and he spent much time developing it because it applies to his argument about “The Savior of Science.” One of Jaki’s greatest contributions to the understanding of science is based on this simple concept, the role which quantities play in science, a concept overlooked in ancient times as well as in modern, a concept Jaki himself realized he had not fully appreciated in his earlier works.
If there is a conviction that has grown in me during these last four or five decades, it relates to something with very sharp edges and well-defined faces. I mean the decisive role which quantities play in science and their inability to play that role elsewhere. On re-reading various books of mine on science, I find more than one proof of my having been aware of this difference early on.[58]
The significance of this simple rule is that it at once demonstrates why science cannot be un-scientific. Religion is about morality; science is not. It also subordinates science to religion because cultures need the former more than the latter. In his autobiography, Jaki explains that “real culture” must attend to questions that “most agitate a human being.”[59] There must be attention to religion’s questions, and since religion cannot exist without the form of
a cult, worship directed towards God, cultures–by necessity, by definition–must do so. As any admirer of Jaki’s knows, this is where his brilliance and his passion united with force. He could speak or write so powerfully about science and culture and point his audience straight to Christ.
Real cult means real religion, that is, a religion with a God in its center to whom man can be truly "re-ligated" (the etymology of the religion) so that he may truly worship. No true worship is deserved by a God who is the product of a cosmic process, let alone the distillation of a process theology. The only God who deserves a proper cult, which is worship, is much more than the Creator who brings forth the universe out of nothing.[60]
Chapter 2 – “Was Born”
Chapter 2 – “Was Born”
Jaki did not argue that science was invented by Christians or that it originated with Christians. He argued that science, as defined in the previous chapter, was born into a “viable discipline” from a “cultural womb” that properly nurtured it, and that it was nearly born in other cultures too, but died. By “was born” Jaki means a transition–a breakthrough–from independent insights, skills, and practical inventions to a self-sustaining discipline of theoretical generalizations and investigations about the physical world. Science, once born, matured into a universal enterprise of exact physical laws and systems of laws.[61]
Science Was Born of Christianity Page 3
