So is the conclusion that a rumbling volcano or the sun is a god, it seems.
It [working model], to some degree of accuracy models what is observed - that is the way in which it works.
But what is observed is not necessarily how things really are.
Until a more accurate model, Ptolemy's ruled.
And therein lies the problem. We confuse "what works" with "how it must be." Just because Ptolemy's system still works (we haven't moved to another planet!), it doesn't mean it's geocentrically presumed world is correct.
Let me try to illustrate what I mean by another example: since no one really sells old-fashioned records (generally speaking), my old turntable is just a historic decoration, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work! Find me a record and it will play music again.
However, just because it produces music doesn't really explain or establish what music truly is. It's only one way of capturing music and reproducing it, but it proves nothing of the nature of music itself.
I think it should be clear that Aquinas Cosmological Argument is more in the sphere of philosophy than science - although all philosophy still relies on the physical accuracy, the sense observation, being true. It draws conclusions and arguments from science.
Aristotelian "science" is no science (it was based on observation and perceptual conclusions, lacking in what is known as scientific method; it is based on logical arrangement of human impressions). He, for example, "explained" gravity by stating that all things fall towards the center (?); from that, Aristotelian philosophy concludes that we must be in the center (of the world)! Not very scientific at all.
However, one can see why the Church liked it. Combined with Ptolemy's geocentrically based "working model", and theology, seeing man as God's central creation, it is easy to see that the Old World Order was a powerful belief system that seemed unshakable much more than our belief in the Bing Bang and first cause is likely to be.
Three independent sources of knowledge came to the same conclusion: theology (by divine revelation), philosophy (logic, reason) and a working mathematically-derived scientific method of navigation (grounded in the repeatable results and observable, physical reality) all pointed to the earth and man as being in the physical and spiritual center of the created world!
Thus, no matter which source of human knowledge was examined, the conclusion (result) was the same! Who could argue with that? Is there any wonder that, when presented with carter-pocketed lunar surface in Galileo's telescope, the Vatican officials concluded it was the devil, the father of deceit and lies, "distorting" the image of perfect heavens to make them believe they were imperfect things in God's house! In some respects, many even on these forums today use the same argument, invoking the "devil" as being behind any source of doubt!
Just considering the mindset of the world of Galileo's time, and prior, can immediately show you why Aquinas' philosophical conclusions not only "made sense," but had backing in every known field of human knowledge! Yet, today we know that (at least) two of these sources of human knowledge were in error. Of course, theological error is difficult to prove, which is why it still lingers. It's only basis of credibility is someone's willingness to just believe it.
Needless to say, our evidence for modern cosmological beliefs is not even close to the synchrony of knowledge achieved in the Old World Order, that turned out to be dead wrong, as least cosmologically speaking.
The Big Bang is the "religion" of science that has been around for only a few decades, and has already been revised n-number of times. There is certainly a big question as to why the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerated speed when it should be slowing down.
And the fact that blackboard scientists, desperately trying to balance their equations, keep reaching for nebulous (no pun intended) "degrees of freedom," such as dark energy and dark matter—without even knowing what they are or how to detect them—tells me that they are as much in the dark about our origins as anyone else is and are trying to make the ultimate discovery by hoping for a miracle.
I doubt the miracles will come anytime soon, because man will never know everything simply because there is too much too know. So, I don't really see anything man knows except as a working models, which, as Box's wise statement says "are all wrong, except some are useful." We should also keep in mind another famous inidivdual's saying: "man's gotta know his limitations."
In general I agree: science only names, describes and models reality - and any model could be wrong.
And that should hand over our beds and in front of our bathroom mirrors so we remind ourselves every day who we are, if not where we come from. :)
Thanks for your input.
Don't think that compares favorably with the first cause argument. But show your work so we can see. :)
But what is observed is not necessarily how things really are.
There is still the Myth of the Given, but sense observation is the firmest knowledge we have. What would you propose we replace that with is a fair question.
However, just because it produces music doesn't really explain or establish what music truly is.
Relevant to a philosopher, not so much to a music lover. It has value depending on its use.
So, I don't really see anything man knows except as a working models, which, as Box's wise statement says "are all wrong, except some are useful."
Because models are models - never the thing itself. Still we know more about reality with them than without.
In a very similar way, concepts are not the thing itself, words are all metaphors, models, comparisons with something else - not the same as the experience of the thing itself.
Direct experience, without concepts or models, is another way of knowing. Mystic much, Kosta? :)
I think we're in agreement mostly here. I find it a bit of a role reversal for me advocating the virtues of observational facts and logic and you emphasizing their limitations is knowing reality.
But it's cool.
Good post, thanks for making it.
Models have limits, man