OUR LADY OF THORNWOOD CENTER FOR HIGHER STUDIES

Faculty of Philosophy

NEWMAN, POPPER AND KUHN ON DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE

Professor: Dr. Peter Mango Student: Br. Francisco Iarritu, LC Course: phE1002 Newmans Way New York, 25th of January 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. II. III.
A. B. C.

INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3 DEVELOPMENT OF AN IDEA ------------------------------------------------- 3 SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT -------------------------------------------------- 5

Definitions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Error and Development ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6 Dialogue between different opinions ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

IV. V. VI.

THE END OF THE ROAD ------------------------------------------------------- 9 CONCLUSION------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY---------------------------------------------------------------- 11

I. INTRODUCTION John Henry Cardinal Newman was one of the most complete men of his time. He is known as an important apologist, as a great anthropologist, as the theologian of the Second Vatican Council and as a zealous pastor, but above all as a true man of God. His entire life was a thorough and earnest search for the truth. Once he found it in the Catholic Church, he determined himself to propagate and defend it with all his heart against the attacks of what he called liberalism1. A great part of his writings and speeches addressed, in one way or another, this problem in order to protect the faith of the souls entrusted to his care. He believed in scientific research and development, but he could not tolerate when science tried to teach and interfere in religions territory. It was very important for Cardinal Newman to educate men that not only knew facts, but that also knew and think while they knew.2 In this paper I want to present briefly the thought of Cardinal Newman regarding progress in science and scientific research. In the first part I will explain what the Development of an idea consists in according to Newmans thought. In the second part of the paper I will compare his ideas on scientific development and some of its elements with the theories of Karl R. Popper and Thomas S. Kuhn.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF AN IDEA

Newmans Theory of Development is mostly contained in two key works. Together they provide a complete account of Newmans idea of development. The fist work, The Theory of Development in Religious Doctrine 3, was preached in 1843 and it is the last of his Fifteen Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford. Newman preached it while still an Anglican and his main scope was to
For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. NEWMAN, Biglietto Speech, May, 12, 1879 in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/addresses/file2.html#biglietto 2 cf.. NEWMAN, Knowledge viewed in relation to learning Idea of University, in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/discourse6.html, 6. 3 NEWMAN, The Theory of Developments in Religious Doctrine Fifteen sermons preached before the University of Oxford, Sermon, in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/oxford/sermon15.htm.
1

try to explain how this world of thought [the Catholic doctrine] is the expansion of a few words, uttered, as if casually, by the fishermen of Galilee 4 . The influence that John Locke had in Newmans epistemology is not hard to notice in this sermon. Also, Newman sounds skeptical in some parts of the speech about mans ability to know the truth and to speak about God5. The second work is the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine6 written in 1845, right before he was received into the Catholic Church. In this essay Newman builds a defense of Roman Catholicism as the historical heir of Christianity 7 . Here he develops in a more complete way his hypothesis of development in order to prove the historicity of the Roman Church. Newman describes the development of an idea in the following way: One proposition necessarily leads to another and a second to a third; then some limitation is required; and the combination of these opposites occasions some fresh evolutions from the original idea, which indeed can never be said to be entirely exhausted. This process is its development, and results in a series, or rather body of dogmatic statements, till what was at first an impression on the Imagination has become a system or creed in the Reason.8 Man needs to reflect upon any idea in order to understand it fully. In this same way great ideas take time to sink in the minds of men and in society. Often this process is not just matter of years. It can take, indeed, several millennia (like in the case of the Catholic Dogmas) and need to be passed on from one generation to another in order to be fully elucidated.9 Newman talks about development in an analogical way. Thus he mentions seven different types of development: Mathematical, Physical, Political, Logical, Historical, Ethical and Metaphysical. 10 He disregards the first two types of development along with material development, since in these cases the word development is applied differently than in the other development types in which he focuses.
NEWMAN, The Theory 7. Cf. NEWMAN, The Theory 40-43. 6 NEWMAN, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development 7 M. O CONNEL, K. TILLMAN Development: The context and the content (1839-1845) Communio: International Catholic Review, (Fall 1995), 446-469, 457. 8 NEWMAN, The Theory 20. And NEWMAN, An Essay Chapter 1, n9. 9 NEWMAN, An Essay Introduction, n21 10 NEWMAN, An Essay Chapter one, part 2: on the kinds of development of ideas.
4 5

There is also another development type that Newman does not mention nor in the Essay neither in the Sermon, but he did talk about it in his later addresses to the University of Dublin. This is scientific development. Over the last two centuries and especially during the second half of the last century humanity has witnessed an enormous amount of scientific achievements that have dramatically changed the daily life of all people. Already in Newmans years science was a common topic of discussion in the philosophical circles of the time. Nowadays there is a very strong debate about the nature of science and its development. Thus, in the following section of this work the development of science, its methods and goal will be discussed comparing Newmans ideas with those of two prominent post positivist philosophers: Thomas S. Kuhn and Karl Popper.

III. SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT A. Definitions

Newman describes scientific development in a very simple, concrete and realistic way: It is the very law of the human mind to make its advances by a process which consists of many stages, and is circuitous. There are no short cuts to knowledge; nor does the road to it always lie in the direction in which it terminates, nor are we able to see the end on starting. What one begins another finishes; and a true conclusion is at length worked out by the cooperation of independent {475} schools and the perseverance of successive generations.11 On the other hand, Thomas Kuhn talks about Paradigms in science which influence in a radical the way scientists look at the world. Everything starts in the Pre-Paradigm of science, when people start investigating the causes of a problem and explanations or Paradigms are given in order to solve it. When one of the contending Paradigms is adopted we come to what he calls Normal Science. In this stage the Paradigm becomes the window through which scientists look at reality and it is used until it comes into crisis and a new Paradigm is adopted

NEWMAN, Christianity and Scientific investigation Idea of a University in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/article8.html 7

11

because of its ability to solve more problems with grater accuracy and its capacity to explain more phenomena.12 Finally, Karl Poppers idea of method has a clear Hegelian influence. For him, our desire to know comes from a tension resulting from two contradictory Thesis: First, the vastness of our knowledge and the rapidness of its growth; Second, the awareness that after each discovery we find out how little we know compared to the incalculable amount of unknown knowledge. He summarizes scientific method (Critical Rationality) in the following way: My whole view of scientific method may be summed up by saying that it consists of these three steps: 1. We stumble over some problem. 2. We try to solve it, for example by proposing some theory. 3. We learn from our mistakes, especially from those brought home to us by the critical discussion of our tentative solutions - a discussion which tends to lead to new problems. Or in three words: problems - theories criticism. I believe that in these three words the whole procedure of rational science may be summed up.13 B. Error and Development In the case of doctrine and the other types of development mentioned by Newman in his Essay, this can be either true or false. That is, it can be either a true development or else a corruption of the idea. According to Newman corruptions develop into dissolution, create nothing and are fruitless14. In the case of science every mistake and every empirical failure should be accounted as a step forward towards the truth. Sometimes error is the only way to truth in scientific researches15. In Newmans words: Theories, speculations, hypotheses, are started; perhaps they are to die, still not before they have suggested ideas better than themselves. These better ideas are taken up in turn by other men, and, if they do not yet lead to truth, nevertheless they lead to what is still nearer to
12

Cf. T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1996, 10-23 13 K. POPPER, The myth of the framework. In Defense of science and rationality . Routledge, London, 1994, 101 14 Cf. NEWMAN, The Theory8 15 Cf. Ibid. 11

truth than themselves; and thus knowledge on the whole makes progress. The {479} errors of some minds in scientific investigation are more fruitful than the truths of others. A Science seems making no progress, but to abound in failures, yet imperceptibly all the time it is advancing, and it is of course a gain to truth even to have learned what is not true, if nothing more.16 Thus Karl Popper says that the growth of knowledge consists in correcting early knowledge.17 For him, the best way to understand a problem and solve it is to pose several solutions, even if inadequate in order to get acquainted with the problem. This will lead us proceed each time with slightly better solutions until we find the right answer.18 C. Dialogue between different opinions In one of his addresses to the Catholic University Newman compared a University in the sphere of philosophy and research to what an Empire is in political history. For him a University had that name because the education had to be Universal. This means that the students should be prepared in all the areas of knowledge, not as erudite men that knew it all, but as men that were able to use their intellects in order to leaven the facts that they knew with the force of reason.19 In this same context he speaks about the dialogue between the different branches of science and philosophy. Dialogue becomes a necessary exercise of a trained mind that widens its horizons and helps for a better understanding of the world. Talking about the university professors: are like the ministers of various political powers at one court or conference. They represent their respective sciences, and attend to the private interests of those sciences respectively; and, should dispute arise between those sciences, they are the persons to talk over and arrange it A liberal philosophy becomes the habit of minds thus exercised; a breadth and spaciousness of thought, in which lines, seemingly parallel, may converge at leisure, and principles, recognized as incommensurable, may be safely antagonistic.20 Many times throughout history contrary opinions and heresies had spurred the minds of men to give an appropriate answer to the problem and to defend their
NEWMAN, Christianity and8 K. POPPER, The myth of 156 18 Cf. K. POPPER, The myth of 97-98 19 Cf. NEWMAN, Knowledge 2-5 20 Ibid. 2
16 17

ideas. Corruptions are useful insofar as they reinforce the ideas by shaping and refining them. They question principles that were thought to be true without any further investigation. They point out weaknesses and possible flaws in the doctrine and many times they help to discover the real strength of the original idea and make it possible to find in it new answers and insights that were never thought of before. Karl Popper, who shared this view, in 1963 mentioned that: Since the method of science is that of critical discussion, it is of great importance that the theories criticized should be tenaciously defended. For only in this way can we learn their real power. And only if criticism meets resistance can we learn the full force of a critical argument.21 Scientific dialogue is not just a friendly interchange of ideas and initiatives, but in order to advance in an investigation, critical discussion must be made, principles must be challenged, and theories are questioned and dismissed if they dont provide the right answer to the problem. In another passage Newman says that if philosophers like Hobbes, Bentham, or Hume were made shut up, perhaps we would have lost one of the ablest defenses of Revealed Truth given to the world.22 Thomas S. Kuhn presents a different opinion regarding the dialogue between competing theories: That of incommensurability. According to him the language of scientists that hold two different worldviews is incommensurable, because even if they try to solve the same problem and use the same language, they mean totally different things when referring to the problem in question, because they are looking at two completely different worlds. They cannot communicate or try to persuade each other that their Paradigm is actually the case. In a postscript to his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions he proposes a way in which two persons with a communication breakdown (i.e. from two different worldviews) can communicate: Both men, regardless of their differences they share a common background like culture, history, common daily life language, etc. They could become translators if they recognize each other as members of two different communities and try to isolate the scientific areas that cause difficulty in scientific communication. Then, they could use everyday language in order to try to elucidate their differences and, finally, they would try to translate each others theory and its consequences into their own language and simultaneously describe in his language the world to which that theory applies, without regarding it as erroneous or sheer madness.23

21
22

K. POPPER, The myth of 94

Cf Ibid. 11

23

Cf. T. Kuhn, The Structure 198-203

Newman would answer that with only ascertaining the point of each of the different points of view, the apparent incompatibilities soon would be resolved into the object to which they belong and that the initial dissimilitude becomes the best argument for its integrity. 24 This view makes more sense than Kuhns opinion, which sounds rather idealistic.

IV. THE END OF THE ROAD

It would not make much sense to give an account of each of the last scientific proposals without showing what the purpose of research and scientific development is according to each one of them. Newmans theory is fully grounded on reality and its final goal is to find the truth, wherever it is. Thus, he urges the men of science to seek the truth, to believe in its sovereignty25 and to be confident they will find it regardless of the errors they can make. In contrast with Newman, we have Karl Poppers theory of scientific progress as an evolutionary progress: it is how man adapts to his environment.26 For him the idea of objective truth is fundamental in scientific investigation, but it is an unknown truth and we will never be able to claim that we arrived to an objective truth: We never consider the question whether a theory is justified in the sense that we are justified in accepting it as true. At best, the critical discussion justifies the claim that the theory in question is the best available, or, in other words, that it comes nearest to the truth.27 On the other hand, Thomas Kuhn suggests a relativistic approach to the question. According to him progress does not mean coming to the truth. Progress may not be progress at all. The best paradigm to be chosen is the one that better

Cf. NEWMAN, An Essay On the Development of ideas, 1 Ibid. 16 26 K. POPPER, The myth of 2 27 K. POPPER, The myth of 161
24
25

10

solves the problems. There is not such a thing as development towards truth. It is just part of an evolutionary process without a specific goal.28

V. CONCLUSION
All of these theories have good insights in spite of the flaws that they may have. Newmans ideas are far better than the others, not because of the fact that he was Christian, but because he was a Realist, even if he may sound a little skeptical in some of his writings. Karl Popper makes a point when he denies the possibility of a theory free observation29 and when he remarks the importance of being open to other theories and to commit mistakes. Nevertheless, his falsification principle is not realistic and his critical rationalism regards faith and religion as if they were superstitions. Also he sounds a little Platonic when he talks about exosomatic knowledge and about the infinitude of undiscovered theories. Finally, Thomas Kuhn has an interesting theory but his relativistic approach totally undermines it. On this document we have seen what Development consists in. And we also saw how this can be applied to science in the modern day. Due to the very nature of the present paper, it is not possible to give a complete and more detailed account of these three thinkers. I should probably leave that task for a future project.

28 29

Cf. T. Kuhn, The Structure 170-171 Cf. K. POPPER, The myth of 86-87

11

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

KUHN THOMAS S, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1996 MONDIN B, Manuale di filosofia sistematica, volume 2: Epistemologia e cosmologia, PDUL Edizioni Studio Domenicano, Bologna, 1999 NEWMAN, JOHN H, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development NEWMAN, JOHN H., Biglietto Speech, May, 12, 1879 in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/addresses/file2.html#biglietto NEWMAN, JOHN H, Christianity and Scientific investigation Idea of a University in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/article8.html 7 NEWMAN, JOHN H, Knowledge viewed in relation to learning Idea of University, in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/discourse6.html, 6. NEWMAN, JOHN H, The Theory of Developments in Religious Doctrine Fifteen sermons preached before the University of Oxford, Sermon, in http://www.newmanreader.org/works/oxford/sermon15.htm. O CONNEL M, TILLMAN K. Development: The context and the content (18391845) Communio: International Catholic Review, (Fall 1995) POPPER KARL R, The myth of the framework. In Defense of science and rationality. Routledge, London, 1994