Scientific Knowledge

Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" talks about intellectual virtues and then proceeds to outline each one of the chief intellectual virtues. Finding how this relates to rhetoric wasn't particularly easy. I found myself asking through the readings (indeed all the readings), how is this related to rhetoric? These texts feel heavily philosophical, and perhaps that is due to the influence of Athenian Intellectual society. Perhaps they blended philosophy and rhetoric much more than I originally thought. Nevertheless, in this blog post I will try to "unpack" (as Dr. Barnet is so fond of saying) some of the things Aristotle was getting at and how it might relate to the rhetoric we hear concerning the creationism vs evolution debate in science.

In the beginning of the text, Aristotle seems to lay out his reasons for why there are particular areas of knowledge and what manner they should be used. He seems most concerned with temperance or this sense of balance when it comes to knowledge and application of said knowledge. "We should not know what sort of medicines to apply to our body if someone were to say 'all those which the medical art prescribes the art.' Hence it is necessary with regard to the states of the soul also, not only that this true statement should be made, but also that is should be determined what is the right rule and what is the standard that fixes it." Aristotle speaks about the right rule and that seems to me to mean a balance with concern to intellect. It seems to me that it is a product of Athenian society (or perhaps philosophers of the time) to be concerned with balance in the soul and in one's practices. Why is this important to rhetoric?

I believe it is because doing rhetoric or putting its ideas into practice requires a sort of balance. For instance, if you create a document with a primary audience in mind, you must balance audience needs with that of your creative ideas. In a way, when rhetoric is used correctly, it bridges that gap: what the reader wants and what the writer wants to convey.

With this in mind, I'll turn to the idea of scientific knowledge as a virtue and its relation to creationism. This particular point of contention for many people seems to lack that balance that Aristotle spoke of. Most people are aware that creationism argues the Biblical creation story that God created humans and maintain that they did not evolve. Some extremist even see the concept of evolution as satanic. Some people who sit on the other side of the camp, think that evolution is logical, scientific and thus more reliable than blind faith. I'm not concerned with putting forth who is right or who is wrong, but I think that Aristotle's definition of scientific knowledge can help explain why this division exists.

"We all suppose that what we know is not even capable of being otherwise; of things capable of being otherwise we do not know, when they have passed outside our observation, whether they exist or not. Therefore the object of scientific knowledge is of necessity. Therefore it is eternal; for things that are of necessity in the unqualified sense are all eternal; and things that are eternal are ungenerated and imperishable. Again, every science is thought to be capable of being taught, and its object of being learnt." In science, what can be proven and known is accepted as the absolute. If we are not able to see or know it, then how can we be sure it exists? This is where science and religion differ, with the latter taking everything on faith and the former taking nothing of faith. Science is the part that says what we know is not capable of being otherwise. Science deals with the logical and what is reasonable, therefore it would be a stretch to take things on faith. That's not how science works, just as religion doesn't deal with what only can be seen and proven. They are able to acknowledge that just because something is outside our observation, does not mean it does not exist.

A few paragraphs later, Aristotle says, "Scientific knowledge is, then, a state of capacity to demonstrate." Science is directly connected with this idea of demonstrating, being able to teach and show others. It is no surprise then that how one thinks and talks about science would vastly differ from religion which deals with the unknowable.

Unfortunately, because their rhetoric is different on both sides, they fail to see any commonalities that might exist. There have been some reports (forgive me for shotty referencing here but I could not locate the article) that says that humans are more likely to have originated form Africa in one particular area and then fanned out to other parts of the globe, as opposed to previous assumptions that they evolved in various locations throughout the planet. You would think that the two sides would use this commonality to start a meaningful dialogue, but it hasn't.

Unlike Aristotle, they fail to find a balance. Intellectual pursuits deal with the practical, but, Aristotle did mention the soul, which I've noticed is featured prominently throughout the readings thus far. The soul is sometimes a nebulous concept for people. How does it fit in with talk of science? It seems intimately connected to ideas about truth. Is the soul the source of truth? Or must it achieve equilibrium is order to begin seeking the truth? Aristotle states that, "The origin of action is choice" When it comes to the pursuit of the intellectual, it is a choice that will ultimately guide how a person looks at the world and how they regard what they can know for certain, and what they cannot observe, but believe is there.