What Hath
Biology to Do
with Physics?
It’s the Scientific Method,
Right?

Well, Not Exactly

“The” Scientific Method is therefore Illusory…the
truth is that there is no such thing as “scientific
inference” —Sir Peter Medawar (nobel laureate)

Some problems with the ‘scientific method’ are
that it doesn’t do justice to the process of
inventing hypotheses nor to understanding natural
reality as a whole.

It habituates a reductionist mindset and an
algorithmic approach.
‘Felicitous Strokes of Inventive
Talent’
 “Hypotheses
are of course imaginative in origin. It
was not a scientist or a philosopher but a poet who
first classified this act of mind and found the word
for it…the imaginative exploit was regarded by
Shelley as cognate with poetic invention. He was
using the word “poetry” in the root sense poesis—
the act of making, of creation. Certainly
hypotheses are products of imaginative
thinking.”—Sir Peter Medawar
So How can we Teach in a
Nonreductionistic and
Imagination Shaping Way ?
Natural History, Natural Science, and Natural
Philosophy
The two Aristotles
 “There
is the first Aristotle, who wrote the
Historia Animalium. He was a keen
observer of actually existing beings,
deeply concerned in observing the
development of the chick in the egg, the
mode of reproduction among sharks and
rays, or the structure and the habits of
bees.”
—Etienne Gilson
The two Aristotles
 “But
there is a second Aristotle, much
nearer to Plato than the first one… ‘but
inasmuch as these individuals possess one
common specific form, it will suffice to
state the universal attributes of the
species…once for all.’…For centuries and
centuries men will know everything about
water , because they will know its
essence, that which water is…
—Etienne Gilson
The two Aristotles
 The
first is the Aristotle of Natural History
 The second is the Aristotle of the syllogism,
the deductive system, the Aristotle of
Natural Science
What is Natural History?
 ”The
method then that we must adopt is
to attempt to recognize the natural
groups [forms], following the indications
afforded by the instincts of mankind,
which led them to form the class of Birds
and the class of Fishes, each of which
groups combines a multitude of
differentiae, and is not defined by a single
one as in dichotomy.”
—Aristotle, Parts of Animals
What is Natural History?

”The apparent indefiniteness and
inconsistency of the classifications and
definitions of Natural History belongs, in a far
higher degree, to all other except
mathematical speculations.”
—William Whewell, Master of Trinity
College, Cambridge

Baconian Natural History had a place for
physical non-organic phenomena as well.
What is Natural Science?
 “Science
is a demonstrable knowledge of
causes.”
—Aristotle
 “Science
is organized
knowledge…Science is, or aspires to be,
deductively ordered.”
—Sir Peter Medawar
What is deductively ordered?
 AB
A
B
 A syllogistic system as in geometry flowing
from postulates and axioms to necessary
conclusions
 This is the way we usually teach science,
as if Newton’s Universal Law were simply a
mathematical or logical demonstration.
∴
The Third Aristotle?


Perhaps there is a third Aristotle who holds the
other two together?
“Since ‘nature’ has two senses, the form and
the matter, we must investigate its objects as
we would the essence of snubnose-ness. That
is, such things are neither independent of
matter nor can be defined in terms of matter
only…Since there are two natures, with which
is the natural [philosopher] concerned? Or
should he investigate a combination of the
two?”
—Aristotle Physics
The Third Aristotle?
 “If…art
imitates nature and it is part of the
same discipline to know the form and
matter up to a point…it would be part of
natural [philosophy] also to know nature
in both senses…Again, ‘that for the sake
of which,” or the end, belongs to the
same department of knowledge as the
means.”
—Aristotle Physics
What is Natural Philosophy?
•
“I was coming to the increasing conclusion that I
could make no further progress in modern
physics without a greater understanding of
Greek Natural Philosophy”
—W. Heisenberg
•
“I agree that the whole of natural philosophy will
never be perfectly a science for us.”
—Gottfried Leibniz and John Locke
So how does this impact our
pedagogy for Natural Science?
 “The
best course appears to be that we
should follow the method already
mentioned, and begin with the
phenomena presented by each group of
animals, and, when this is done, proceed
afterwards to state the causes of those
phenomena.”
—Aristotle
The ‘Methods’



The Method of Natural History is to
accumulate the phenomena and classify
them according to their like kinds (forms).
The Method of Natural Science is to reason
from the phenomena to the causes of the
phenomena [hypotheses], and set them in a
syllogistic causal system.
Natural Philosophy synthesizes these two into
a composite whole and asks questions of
invention, interpretation, purpose, and insight
How do we teach this?
 An
Evidence, Reasoning, and Narrative
Approach
 Natural History provides the evidence
 Natural Science demands clear reasoning
 Natural Philosophy weaves them together
to answer big questions
So What?
What’s the difference?
Reasoning from Phenomena
to Causes
 Physical
Models
 Biological Models
Natural History & Natural Science
The Phenomena of Motion
Physical Model
Kinematics
Uniform Motion
v0  v f
x  vt
x(t )  x0  v0t
d  rt
Naturally Accelerated Motion
1 2
at
2
k
x
m
a( x)  
d 2x
dt 2
m
k
 
x
Pendulum
 ( )  
d 
2
θ
dt
L
h
2
T 
T 
T  2
v f 2  v 0 2  2 ax
F friction  N
W 
1
f
2
For θ < 15º
Planets
Δs
Δθ
r
m1
m2
ac 
v2
  2r
r
Planets only
r1
r2
T 2  kR3
if   k then v 
if   k then :
 f   0  t
1
   0 t  t 2
2
1
  ( 0   f )t
2
 f 2   0 2  2
U
W
dU


 F v
t
t
dt
F 1  F 2
then KE f  PE 0 ]
F t   p  J
(
 F  dt)
 p1    p 2
ME  0
Li  L f
  k in circular but not elliptical orbits
F  G
Inelastic
ME  Wnc
d p d [mv ] md v
F


dt
dt
dt
L  r p
2r
T
1
k x2
2
KE f  KE0  ( PE f  PE 0 )
Fg
Frestore= Fgsinθ
If Circular
P 
[or if KE0  0 and PE f  0
 p system  0
s
or s  r
r

d

(
)
t
dt

d

(
)
t
dt
KE  Wnc
U g  PE g  mgh
KE   PE
Δθ
v10  v20  (v1 f  v2 f )
 
ME  Wnc
KE   PE
ME  0
T
F 1 t   F 2 t
For all Curves
if not gravity :
ME  0
Us 
Fgcosθ
L
g
m2v2f
if gravity :
KE  PE
T
Elastic
m1v1f
F  d x  KE
 Fs   k x

2
m2v2o
m1v1o


F d x
1
mv 2
2
ME  0
g

L
Collisions
Levers
Force  Energy
  2  0
T  2
KE 
1
x  (v0  v f )t
2
 x  0
2
p  mv
W  F  x
1
x  v0 t  at 2
2
Mass on a Spring
 ME  0
 F  ma
v(t )  v0  at
x(t )  x0  v0 t 
KE  0
F  0
dv v

a
dt t
v  at
a (t )  k
Δx
Energy Analysis
PE  0
dx x

v
dt
t
a(t )  0
Δx
dx
Force Analysis
M 1M 2
r2
U g  G
M 1M 2
r
KE r 
1
I 2
2
rˆ
  F  r  Fr s in 
L  I

 
 I
dL
dt
or

 0
Elastic
ME  0
Poetic
ANE
Heavens declare the Glory of God
Man is made in the image of God
Rational
Empirical
Sexagesimal system—Babylonians
Arithmetic
Astronomical Charts—Egypt/Babylon
Crude approximations of pi and
pythagorean theorem
Pythagoras—All is number
Pythagoras—Geometry, Astronomy,
Music, (and Arithmetic)
Hipparchus—Trigonometry (Chords)
Thales—predicted eclipse
Earth is spherical and size is as a point to
the heavens
Aristarchus—relative sizes and distances
of sun, moon, and earth
Eratosthenes—actual size of the earth
Man called to name things
Man called to use reason
Man with dominion
Creation is God’s handiwork
GR
Thales—unified physical reality
Plato—unified metaphysical reality
Democritus—atomism
Med
Aristotle—The four causes
Archimedes—method of exhaustion (early
calculus)
Ptolemy—Astronomical system unifying many rational and empirical truths
Faith and Reason combined
Indic (Arabic) numerals and decimal
system
Indic (Arabic) Trigonometry
Neoplatonism
Aristotelian revival
Ockham’s razor
Concept of momentum
Mod
Galileo—Mathematics is the
language with which God created the
universe
Mechanistic universe
Democritean atomistic revival
Galileo/Newton—concept of relative
and absolute space and time
Copernicus—heliocentric system
Kepler—celestial laws from Brahe’s data
Galileo—acceleration can be represented in
mathematical proportionalities (kinematics
equations)
Galileo—two dimensional motion can be
represented with vectors
Tycho Brahe—excellent Prague
observatory which increased accuracy of
celestial data
Galileo—bodies fall with the same
acceleration both one and two
dimensionally
Galileo—uses telescope to discover the
moons of Jupiter and imperfection of the
moon’s surface
Pascal—Great experiment shows that
outer space is a vacuum (and they exist)
Newton—concept of mass
Leibniz and Newton—Caculus of infinities
Hooke spring experiments
and infinitesimals
Newton—concept of force
Newton—Three Laws
Huygens collision experiments
Leibniz—concept of energy
Newton—Analysis of circular motion and
centripetal force
Newton’s Metaphysics, Three Laws, and Law of Universal Gravitation
Unite all significant data from celestial and terrestrial physics into an integrated “System of the World [Universe]”
Leibniz delivers a compelling critique of Newton’s system and offers an alternative unification of natural philosophy, moral
philosophy and metaphysics. Leibniz thereby influences the ensuing generations of mathematicians, natural scientists and
philosophers on the continent who lay broad foundations for their disciplines.
Natural Philosophy:
The Physics Narrative
From the Ancients to Newton’s
Law of Universal Gravitation
Natural History & Natural Science
The Phenomena of Life
Phenomena
Aristotle [c. 300 BC]
Linnaeus [by 1740]
Lamarck [by 1820]
Darwin [by 1860]
Present NeoDarwinian Synthesis
HUMANS
Reason
Sensation
Locomotion
Life
ANIMALS
‘Savages’
Image of God
Reason
Sensation
Locomotion
Life Processes:
Respiration,
Digestion, etc.
ANIMAL KINGDOM:
Feeling
Life
Growth
Life:
Self-Nutrition,
Growth,
Reproduction
VEGETABLE KINGDOM:
Life, Growth
Species/form distinguished by
reproductive parts
(‘emergent’ intellectual)
Descent of Man
[voyages of discovery]
increased diversity
(‘emergent’ psycho-social)
PLANTS
Continuous chain of being
and plenitude from Leibniz
‘Accidental natures’ of species
make them competitive
OTHER LIFE
Monstrosities
Deficient Kinds
Animalcules
[Leuwenhoek]microorganisms
Protists
[fossils]’MINERAL
KINGDOM’: Growth
STRUCTURES
NATURE
Heterogenous Parts:
Features, Organs
Homogenous Parts:
Tissues, Blood, etc.
[Harvey: circulation of the
blood]systems
4 Causes
Formal=Species=Soul:
Essence as
recognized by the
instincts of man
PurposePropagation
Kingdom, Family, Genus, Species
system
HEREDITY
Male and female seed vie for
dominance, complex variable
form is passed on
[Hooke]cells
Fixity of species
Plant Kinds descended from one
hermaphrodite
Eubacteria
Archaebacteria
Fungi
Viruses?
Organelles
(Spontaneously generated
form moves up the scale of
nature)
No real species (form)
Vitalism/ Nature Active
Reductive criteria for form
Animal Kinds descended from
one pair
(‘emergent’ organic)
‘Species’ by transformationism
moving up the chain of being
Biochemical cell processes:
Photosynthesis
Microbiology
Natural Selection
Mechanism/ Nature Passive
Uniformitarian
Ecological Systems
PurposeSurvival
Natural Selection on Genetic
Variation by Random Mutation
‘Speciation’ by isolation and
natural selection
MendelGene
Watson+Crick DNA
Descent from a common
ancestor
Collins et allHuman Genome
EncodeGene Coding
Emergence+Complex
Systems=’false forms’
ANE
GR
Poetic
Rational
Empirical
Heavens declare the Glory of God
Man is made in the image of God
Man called to name things
Man called to use reason
Man with dominion
Creation is God’s handiwork
God speaks his word in creation
days
Thales—physical reality
Plato—metaphysical reality
Democritus—atomism
Words recognize kinds=species
Wide vocabulary for plants and animals
Animal Husbandry
Cultivation of crops
Aristotle—The four causes
Scale of Nature
One and many
Discrete and continuous
Aristotle--Species and Genus
Dichotomous differentiae
Logic
Aristotle widely documents species
Aristotle describes parts of animals
Pliny documents species
Galen on anatomy
Heredity involves both parents
Med
Mod
Faith and Reason combined
Neoplatonism
Aristotelian revival—texts
recovered
Ockham’s razor
Realism/Nominalism
Tempier—God can do as he
pleases (multiple worlds, etc.)
Leibniz-continuity and plenitude in
scale of nature
Mechanistic universe
Democritean atomistic revival
Crop rotation
Fossils
Voyages of discovery
Continuous chain of species
Leibniz: species a point on a curve
Fixity of discrete species (Linnaeus)
Microscope—cells, microorganisms
Harvey—circulation of blood
Vitalism
Darwin—dichotomous differentiae (tree
Viruses
of life)
All living things connected by
Lamarck—species climbing the
Mendel and Genes
descent from a common ancestor
continuous chain over time
Transformationism
Shannon Information
Organelles, Cell Structure
Evolution--Spencer
Godel’s conservation of information
Ecological Systems
Emergence
Gould--Punctuated Equilibrium (discrete
Watson and Crick--DNA
and continuous)
Neo-Darwinian synthesis
Complex Systems/Chaos TheoryHuman Genome project and Encode
Randomness? Causality?
Dominant Paradigm: Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, and DNA sequencing and interpretation offer a mechanistic
explanation of the causes of biological phenomena
vs.
Contending paradigms note: Life from non-life, the origin of consciousness, the origin of order, and the foundation
of meaning and value are topics of debate. The adequacy of the species concept and current cladistics are still under
debate as well.
Natural Philosophy:
The Biology Narrative
From the Ancients to the
present Neo-Darwinian Synthesis
We need all three Aristotles




In order to avoid the reductionistic tendency
in contemporary science we should recover
the first and third Aristotles, those of Natural
History and Natural Philosophy.
Begin with the phenomena and let the
students reason to conclusions. Let us not just
teach syllogisms.
Let us remind students that the real world of
God’s creation is bigger and grander than
our representations of it.
We may know reality truly through natural
philosophy, but that truth will always retain
mystery.
So do we chuck the Scientific
Method?





Well, not exactly
As it turns out, the method itself is often
ascribed to big fans of Aristotle.
William Whewell and C.S. Peirce are
considered as major contributors to the
development of scientific method and they
both thought highly of Aristotle.
But an algorithmic approach to the scientific
method should be deemphasized.
And the reductionistic mindset that it often
habituates must be addressed.
How do we teach this?
 An
Evidence, Reasoning, and Narrative
Approach
 Natural History provides the evidence
 Natural Science demands clear reasoning
 Natural Philosophy weaves them together
to answer big questions
Questions?