Is morality objective or subjective?

[Will Bouwman]

You clearly don't know what that method involves, nor why it defines science.

Well, now, I gave you that information on the web page.

But you didn't give any indication that you understand it. If you understood it, you could explain it. You can't explain it, therefore you don't understand it.
You might teach me something if you can prove me wrong. Why is Bacon's method:

...the best method for dealing with material problems...

[Immanuel Can]

You clearly don't know what that method involves, nor why it defines science.

Well, now, I gave you that information on the web page.

But you didn't give any indication that you understand it.

I see. And the very fact that I pointed it out to you was not sufficient to "give any indication" that I understood it?

How did I know what site to select, then?

But to answer your question, the reason the Baconian method was such a revolution is that it disciplined observation to the things that practically work, within the physical world. Unlike reliance on things like tradition, culture, common practices, speculation, guesses, mythology, and so on, it provided a reliable method for testing such phenomena, in order to increase the probability of their being repeatable, and hence reliable and useful.

[iambiguous]

I'm not forcing you to agree.

That's true enough. It's not like IC is forcing anyone here to agree with him. On the other hand, if you do fail to agree with him regarding Jesus Christ, you will be "left behind". You will spend all the rest of eternity writhing in agony in Hell.

That's always been his bottom line here. And all of the up in the spiritual clouds theoretical exchanges he has with others here changes none of that.

Again, the main difference between him and most Christians you will come across is that he insists that beyond a leap of faith or a wager or "it says so in the Bible", there is, in fact, substantial scientific and historical proof of Gods' existence. His God.

Yet with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, he seems utterly uninterested in actually saving souls here.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, now, I gave you that information on the web page.

But you didn't give any indication that you understand it.

I see. And the very fact that I pointed it out to you was not sufficient to "give any indication" that I understood it?

Don't be daft. I can give links to any number of subjects I don't understand.

How did I know what site to select, then?

I think a moment's reflection will persuade you that being able to google 'Baconian method' is not the same as understanding it.

But to answer your question, the reason the Baconian method was such a revolution is that it disciplined observation to the things that practically work, within the physical world.

Bacon did not invent disciplined observation. Tycho Brahe is just one example I have already mentioned of an extremely disciplined observer. It was his thorough and accurate observations that Johannes Kepler used to derive his mathematical laws of planetary motion. As I have also pointed out, there is no maths in Bacon.

Unlike reliance on things like tradition, culture, common practices, speculation, guesses, mythology, and so on...

Many ancient civilisations had calendars based on meticulous astronomical observation. Quite apart from Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece, there's China, India and Mesoamerica, even the builders of Stonehenge knew a thing or two about astronomy.

...it provided a reliable method for testing such phenomena, in order to increase the probability of their being repeatable, and hence reliable and useful.

Bacon's method is primarily concerned with developing axioms through induction. The aim is to discover truth rather than utility. While truth is a goal of science, any scientist worth their salt will be entirely comfortable using tools they know are not 'the truth'. As I said, Bacon's main influence was on the founders of the Royal Society.

[Immanuel Can]

But to answer your question, the reason the Baconian method was such a revolution is that it disciplined observation to the things that practically work, within the physical world.

Bacon did not invent disciplined observation. Tycho Brahe is just one example I have already mentioned of an extremely disciplined observer. It was his thorough and accurate observations that Johannes Kepler used to derive his mathematical laws of planetary motion. As I have also pointed out, there is no maths in Bacon.

No. It's a triumph of logic, really, not of mathematics. But it takes as a priori the existence of reliable scientific "laws." That is assumptive. And the assumption comes from Bacon's belief in a coherent Lawgiver, and in His intention that mankind should be able to decode such "laws" by way of sound practices of reasoning.

Unlike reliance on things like tradition, culture, common practices, speculation, guesses, mythology, and so on...

Many ancient civilisations had calendars based on meticulous astronomical observation. Quite apart from Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece, there's China, India and Mesoamerica, even the builders of Stonehenge knew a thing or two about astronomy.

They did. Like anybody, they could observe. But they got it all wrong. They were too addicted to astrology, or to metaphysics that required the Earth to be flat, or to be the center of the universe, or to be a stage of star-controlled manipulation...so superstition so corrupted their thinking. That's what the methodology of science was designed to mitigate: observation and testing become primary; things like tradition, superstition, narrative-making, guessing, cultural practice, and so forth recede and are pushed into the background, because the method requires no reference to them.

[Dubious]

But they got it all wrong. They were too addicted to astrology, or to metaphysics that required the Earth to be flat, or to be the center of the universe, or to be a stage of star-controlled manipulation...so superstition so corrupted their thinking. That's what the methodology of science was designed to mitigate: observation and testing become primary; things like tradition, superstition, narrative-making, guessing, cultural practice, and so forth recede and are pushed into the background, because the method requires no reference to them.

In saying that the ancients got it all wrong what you're asserting is that had Bacon lived and written his so-called rules of discovery, none of those "superstitions" would have happened since the methodologies of science would have been in effect from the beginning eradicating almost immediately any astrology or metaphysic as ignorant paradigms of nature's workings. Of course, people believed in a law-giver long before Christianity, so any theistic claim that theism is responsible for science is thoroughly redundant and absurd.

[Skepdick]

I think a moment's reflection will persuade you that being able to google 'Baconian method' is not the same as understanding it.

Isn't that true for all philosophers of science who aren't scientists? You have neither knowledge nor understanding of science as experienced from the 1st person perspective.

[Immanuel Can]

But they got it all wrong. They were too addicted to astrology, or to metaphysics that required the Earth to be flat, or to be the center of the universe, or to be a stage of star-controlled manipulation...so superstition so corrupted their thinking. That's what the methodology of science was designed to mitigate: observation and testing become primary; things like tradition, superstition, narrative-making, guessing, cultural practice, and so forth recede and are pushed into the background, because the method requires no reference to them.

In saying that the ancients got it all wrong what you're asserting is that had Bacon lived and written his so-called rules of discovery, none of those "superstitions" would have happened

No. If Bacon had lived back then, he probably might have been as superstitious as everybody else was. But we can't know, since that is not what happened.

...people believed in a law-giver long before Christianity,

They didn't, actually. They were generally Polytheists, apart from the Hebrews, who were the first Monotheists. And the problem with Polytheistic gods is that they are idiosyncratic, erratic, unpredictable, capricious and emotional, as the legends have it. You can't calculate them, or describe their rules. For example, in The Odyssey, Poseidon hates Ulysses, Hera loves him, and Zeus doesn't care either way. So what is Ulysses supposed to be able to predict about what happens to him? What "rules" or "laws" can he trust?

That's how Polytheism works: a whole bunch of different gods, each with his, her or its own impulses, pull human beings back and forth as they see fit. There's no way to calculate based on any of that. All you can do is ask your shaman or witch doctor what they might do next, and what might manipulate them to change their minds, perhaps. And that's why science can't be expected in a world governed by such beings.

[Dubious]

...people believed in a law-giver long before Christianity,

They didn't, actually. They were generally Polytheists, apart from the Hebrews, who were the first Monotheists. And the problem with Polytheistic gods is that they are idiosyncratic, erratic, unpredictable, capricious and emotional, as the legends have it. You can't calculate them, or describe their rules. For example, in The Odyssey, Poseidon hates Ulysses, Hera loves him, and Zeus doesn't care either way. So what is Ulysses supposed to be able to predict about what happens to him? What "rules" or "laws" can he trust?

Not in the sense of a supreme commitment to moral laws as in the Abrahamic traditions as if they were written by the fingers of god, but certainly so in the philosophic sense of a lawgiver providing order in the universe...the so-called Prime Mover as a metaphysical concept and all that it entails. Polytheism was mostly a manufacture of state and nature gods rather than a moral one as solely and absolutely directed by a single entity whose word was law.

Your thesis seems to be that Francis Bacon, confessing himself externally as a theist having formalized a method already in vogue and practiced, that theism is responsible for science having emerged. Is that a fair assessment?

[Immanuel Can]

...people believed in a law-giver long before Christianity,

They didn't, actually. They were generally Polytheists, apart from the Hebrews, who were the first Monotheists. And the problem with Polytheistic gods is that they are idiosyncratic, erratic, unpredictable, capricious and emotional, as the legends have it. You can't calculate them, or describe their rules. For example, in The Odyssey, Poseidon hates Ulysses, Hera loves him, and Zeus doesn't care either way. So what is Ulysses supposed to be able to predict about what happens to him? What "rules" or "laws" can he trust?

Not in the sense of a supreme commitment to moral laws as in the Abrahamic traditions as if they were written by the fingers of god, but certainly so in the philosophic sense of a lawgiver providing order in the universe...the so-called Prime Mover as a metaphysical concept and all that it entails.

Whitehead makes no claim, and I make no claim, that more than a basic Theism is required. But I would suggest that mere Deism's too weak to give rise to scientific method: for while the Deist might suppose that the Prime Mover or indifferent "god" made the earth according to rules, he has no reason to presuppose that this non-caring "deity" bothered to make human beings capable of knowing the rules or laws of the universe. What's the use of there being rules, if nobody is equipped to "read" those rules or natural laws, and to make anything of what they see?

So a certain faith in the desire of the Creator to be known through His Creation, and to manifest Himself intelligibly to creatures designed to receive that understanding is also requisite. And Deism doesn't give us enough for that.

Polytheism was mostly a manufacture of state and nature gods rather than a moral one as solely and absolutely directed by a single entity whose word was law.

Well, it was also the default supposition of all ancient peoples except the Hebrews. And you're right: if one believes that the world is populated by "nature gods," one has no reason to suppose that what they do will be at all regular, law-like or predictable, so one does not imagine science is even possible. Thus, it was not the stupidity of ancient peoples, nor of the more modern Chinese or Indians, with their larger populations, that inhibited them from becoming the nations that discovered science: it was their metaphysics that did that.

Your thesis seems to be that Francis Bacon, confessing himself externally as a theist having formalized a method already in vogue and practiced, that theism is responsible for science having emerged. Is that a fair assessment?

That's not quite how I would put it. Bacon was not just an "external confessor." He was actually very devout, and believed. One look at his essay "Of Truth" will convince you of that.

Moreover, there wasn't already a "method in vogue" when he arrived on the scene; rather, there were a series of practices, traditions, superstititions and guesses that formed what was considered to be regular specialist knowledge or "science." It wasn't a method, because it wasn't at all systematic, regular or deliberate. Nobody could tell you what was really "science" and what was tradition. There wasn't a means to really sort that out properly. What Bacon did was to explain the basic sort of method that would eliminate a lot of the errant stuff and vastly increase the proportion of reliable results -- what would help to distinguish genuine science from the other stuff that tended to get passed off under that name.

And in this, he and his successors were so successful, we must note, that it really launched the whole Technological and Industrial Revolution, because so many more reliable results for material problems were suddenly available generally.

[Dubious]

They didn't, actually. They were generally Polytheists, apart from the Hebrews, who were the first Monotheists. And the problem with Polytheistic gods is that they are idiosyncratic, erratic, unpredictable, capricious and emotional, as the legends have it. You can't calculate them, or describe their rules. For example, in The Odyssey, Poseidon hates Ulysses, Hera loves him, and Zeus doesn't care either way. So what is Ulysses supposed to be able to predict about what happens to him? What "rules" or "laws" can he trust?

Not in the sense of a supreme commitment to moral laws as in the Abrahamic traditions as if they were written by the fingers of god, but certainly so in the philosophic sense of a lawgiver providing order in the universe...the so-called Prime Mover as a metaphysical concept and all that it entails.

Whitehead makes no claim, and I make no claim, that more than a basic Theism is required. But I would suggest that mere Deism's too weak to give rise to scientific method: for while the Deist might suppose that the Prime Mover or indifferent "god" made the earth according to rules, he has no reason to presuppose that this non-caring "deity" bothered to make human beings capable of knowing the rules or laws of the universe. What's the use of there being rules, if nobody is equipped to "read" those rules or natural laws, and to make anything of what they see?

So a certain faith in the desire of the Creator to be known through His Creation, and to manifest Himself intelligibly to creatures designed to receive that understanding is also requisite. And Deism doesn't give us enough for that.

Polytheism was mostly a manufacture of state and nature gods rather than a moral one as solely and absolutely directed by a single entity whose word was law.

Well, it was also the default supposition of all ancient peoples except the Hebrews. And you're right: if one believes that the world is populated by "nature gods," one has no reason to suppose that what they do will be at all regular, law-like or predictable, so one does not imagine science is even possible. Thus, it was not the stupidity of ancient peoples, nor of the more modern Chinese or Indians, with their larger populations, that inhibited them from becoming the nations that discovered science: it was their metaphysics that did that.

Your thesis seems to be that Francis Bacon, confessing himself externally as a theist having formalized a method already in vogue and practiced, that theism is responsible for science having emerged. Is that a fair assessment?

That's not quite how I would put it. Bacon was not just an "external confessor." He was actually very devout, and believed. One look at his essay "Of Truth" will convince you of that.

Moreover, there wasn't already a "method in vogue" when he arrived on the scene; rather, there were a series of practices, traditions, superstititions and guesses that formed what was considered to be regular specialist knowledge or "science." It wasn't a method, because it wasn't at all systematic, regular or deliberate. Nobody could tell you what was really "science" and what was tradition. There wasn't a means to really sort that out properly. What Bacon did was to explain the basic sort of method that would eliminate a lot of the errant stuff and vastly increase the proportion of reliable results -- what would help to distinguish genuine science from the other stuff that tended to get passed off under that name.

And in this, he and his successors were so successful, we must note, that it really launched the whole Technological and Industrial Revolution, because so many more reliable results for material problems were suddenly available generally.

I agree with almost none of what you've written; furthermore, Bacon was quite Machiavellian in his ambitions and more likely a pretend theist. In his public life, he was first and foremost a politician at a time when any hint of atheism would have been extremely inimical to his ambitions. He had to be careful, having already been accused of atheism. Any discussion of Bacon and his scientific method is really a matter of much ado about nothing, since his effect on how science was developing had, at the very best, minimal effect. Bacon wasn't required for science to advance.

[Immanuel Can]

Bacon was quite Machiavellian in his ambitions and more likely a pretend theist.

Not a bit, it seems: indications are that he was an ardent believer. You can see it in his own writing: as I suggested, just check out this: https://www.thoughtco.com/of-truth-by-f ... on-1690073

Any discussion of Bacon and his scientific method is really a matter of much ado about nothing,...

Far from it. In all the sources you can find on him, he's dubbed something like "the father of modern science," (See, for example, https://www.worldhistory.org/Francis_Bacon/, https://blog.cltexam.com/bacon-the-fath ... n-science/, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/), and though it has been improved somewhat since, his method is still held up as the foundation stone upon which the scientific enterprise stands even today.

[Dubious]

Bacon was quite Machiavellian in his ambitions and more likely a pretend theist.

Not a bit, it seems: indications are that he was an ardent believer. You can see it in his own writing: as I suggested, just check out this: https://www.thoughtco.com/of-truth-by-f ... on-1690073

I read the essay among others. Too bad he didn't live up to it being forced to resign all his positions plus getting a stint in the Tower of London due to bribery charges to which he confessed. Bacon was indeed brilliant but equally so as an opportunist not beyond using theism as one of his devices.

Any discussion of Bacon and his scientific method is really a matter of much ado about nothing,...

Far from it. In all the sources you can find on him, he's dubbed something like "the father of modern science," (See, for example, https://www.worldhistory.org/Francis_Bacon/, https://blog.cltexam.com/bacon-the-fath ... n-science/, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/), and though it has been improved somewhat since, his method is still held up as the foundation stone upon which the scientific enterprise stands even today.

However he's dubbed, it made no difference to the advancement of science.

[Immanuel Can]

Too bad he didn't live up to it being forced to resign all his positions plus getting a stint in the Tower of London due to bribery charges to which he confessed.

Well, wouldn't it be nice to believe that? But alas, circumstances were otherwise. https://sirbacon.org/baconbriberyreview.htm Given the notorious "justice" of early modern times, it's not at all surprising he chose a guilty plea over a trial. But as you can see, there was only 4 of 8.000 judgments that were even capable of question, and none that was certain evidence. So before we judge whether Bacon failed to live up to his values, perhaps we should check the facts.

However, even if he did not, what has that to do with his contributions to science? Many men have been less than perfect -- secular persons just tend to have less cause to be apologetic about it, yet commit the very same sins. It reminds one of a speck and a log...

Any discussion of Bacon and his scientific method is really a matter of much ado about nothing,...

Far from it. In all the sources you can find on him, he's dubbed something like "the father of modern science," (See, for example, https://www.worldhistory.org/Francis_Bacon/, https://blog.cltexam.com/bacon-the-fath ... n-science/, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/), and though it has been improved somewhat since, his method is still held up as the foundation stone upon which the scientific enterprise stands even today.

However he's dubbed, it made no difference to the advancement of science.

Well, you'll have no trouble finding expert sources that identify him as "the father of modern science," and laud him with other honourifics, as well. So expert opinions is all against you, I'm afraid.

But I'm curious: which is your actual critique of Bacon -- that he wasn't really a Christian, or that he was, but was a hypocrite, or that he wasn't really important to science at all? But if he wasn't a Christian, why are you concerned? And if he was, but was a hypocrite, what has that got to do with his scientific contribution? And if he didn't contribute to science, why do you care to establish that he was either not a Christian or a Christian but a hypocrite? If it's his faith that's the dubious thing, why chip at the scientific achievements all those historians seem to want to attribute to him?

Let's consider the meaning of that. The fact that you try both at the same time, rather suggests you're very earnest to find some cause to sever the connection between any Christian and any value to science. But if that's it, then you're really in trouble, since so many key figures in the history of science, and even many today, profess to be Christians. So I don't know how far that project's going to take you.

[Harbal]

Are you still going on about Bacon? It's obviously a Christian thing; the Jews and Muslims would never be involved in the promotion of Bacon.