Descartes
stressed that we must talk and write in a clear and distinct way. We have seen
this in my blog last week. However, for him it was not only a manner how to say
things but it was essential for his whole scientific approach. According to Descartes
science in his time was an unsystematic gathering of facts. Moreover he was not
satisfied with the syllogistic logic that had been developed by Aristotle and
the logic of the scholastics, which were the accepted methods of learned thinking
in those days. As such these were valuable methods, so Descartes, but they were
only useful for arranging knowledge but not for acquiring new knowledge. New
facts were fitted into the existing dogmatically accepted systems with the help
of these systems of logic, but if this wasn’t possible, so the worse for the
facts. Galileo’s problems with the roman-catholic church are a case in point. Descartes
saw that the old ways led to stagnation in the development of science and that
the old ways of thinking had become obsolete. Methodical thinking should have
to replace the old dogmatism. For him “method” became the essence of
investigating and discovering new knowledge. This made him the founder of
modern science.
Trying to systematize
the acquirement of knowledge, Descartes first asked what we know anyway, as an
unquestionable starting point for knowledge, a so-called Archimedean point
(named after the Greek scientist Archimedes, who was looking for a solid point
in space in order to move the earth with a lever). This led him to his famous
idea “I think so I exist”: The fact that I think shows that it is
unquestionable that I exist. For Descartes this was the “first principle of philosophy”.
But why is it so sure that I know this? According to Descartes this can be only
so, because I see it in a clear way. By reasoning this way he got his main rule
of thinking: “The things that we receive in a very clear and distinct way are
all true”.
Descartes
made this rule the foundation of his method. Essentially this method says that in
order to get knowledge, we must either reduce existing or newly acquired insights
or sense impressions to clear and distinct views or deduce them in a clear and
distinct manner from other clear and distinct views. Although observations are
important for getting new insights, they are not central. Most important are
reason and doubt as means to determine whether the acquired knowledge is really
so certain as assumed.
For
Descartes “clear” and “distinct” are not vague concepts. He gives them a well
defined meaning. He tells us also how to get clear and distinct knowledge and
how to order our data. His method consists of two phases: First comes analysis
and then synthesis. Here I cannot specify them in detail, but by analysis a phenomenon
is unravelled into its most elementary parts, until one knows each element in
detail and knows what makes it different from the other elements and what the
relations with the other elements are. If possible one must try to grasp not
more elements in one thinking than one can handle. In the phase of synthesis a
theory is built up. It’s just the opposite of analysis. All the elements are
fitted together into a deductive system in such a manner that one gets insight
into the way the elements cohere. In a sense, the situation that existed before
the analysis begun is restored but there is an important difference: Before the
analysis took place the coherence of the elements was confused, after the
synthesis it has become visible how the elements cohere. In short (my words)
confusion has been transformed into knowledge.
Descartes’s
systematization of knowledge acquirement led to a methodological turn in
science. No longer the fixed and usually traditional ideas became the measure
of new knowledge, but the question whether we got our knowledge in the right
way. Knowledge was no longer true because it fitted our till then justified
ideas but because we could justify the way we got it. Doubt became central to
science but not the sceptic doubt that says that in the end there is no truth,
but the methodological doubt that asks whether the method used is right; the
doubt that says “better is not good enough”. This kind of doubt doesn’t bring
the idea of truth into discredit but it brings truth nearer, step by step just by
questioning it.
Sources
Descartes’s ideas on method can be found in his Discourse on Method and his Principles of Philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment