“We must obey the forces we want to command” Francis Bacon

Aristotle
Aristotle

In this post I present two arguments relevant to Bacon’s thesis. With each argument I offer a quotation and an example.

This was originally written as an essay to a course I have taken on the relationship between management and philosophy.

I do not claim to exhaust the subject, I merely touch upon it.

But it is a fascinating subject, especially in view of the fact that Bacon was one of the great fathers of the technological approach that today is a key pillar of our economy, culture and life.

Francis Bacon
Francis Bacon

Argument 1: I claim that Bacon is putting forward an argument to support his inductive approach to human knowledge and power. What he is saying in effect is that before we master nature (and take advantage of it by commanding it) we must understand it. Therefore knowledge begins from the observation of nature, not the other way around.

In substantiating my point of view, I will refer to “Novum Organum”, from which the quotation-theme of this essay originates (Book One, III).

Quotation 1: “Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much and so much only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature. Beyond this he neither knows anything nor can do anything.” (1)

Bacon is saying that man should approach nature with humility, because there are so many things that our senses cannot sense and our minds do not understand. Instead of wasting time on pointless meditations, speculations and glosses, we should be studying nature.

All of this makes sense in the context of the time Bacon wrote “Novum Organum”. It was time when Aristotelian thought was still strong. Bacon wanted to break away from Aristotle, and march on towards command of nature. In this sense he can be considered as one of the fathers of engineering.

Francis Bacon, Royal Academy of Arts, London
Francis Bacon, Royal Academy of Arts, London

While deduction is the anticipation of nature, and deductive theories may refer to nonobservable entities, induction is driven by empirical observation and study.

I do not suggest that Bacon was alotgether against deduction. But at the time of his writing, he wanted to push forward the notion that man can command nature, provided he understands it well. Bacon saw knowledge and power as interconnected.

Example 1: “There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable, proceeds to judgment and to the discovery of middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.” (2)

Bacon’s true way is induction.

Karl Popper
Karl Popper

Argument 2: Karl Popper introduced his theory of a hypothetico-deductive system in the philosophy of sciences. Popper argued that most of the scientific theories are deductive and they can be falsified, or refuted, but not confirmed.In this he appears to be on the opposite side of Bacon’s argument. However, I claim that in a sense Popper provides the mirror image of Bacon’s thesis. Bacon seeks to derive most of theories from experience, while Popper seeks to falsify theories from experience. Thus experience (as senses, observations from nature) is essential in both philosophers’ theories.

Quotation 2: “In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.” (3)

The example I want to offer comes from Einstein’s theory of reletivity.

Albert Einstein and Sir Arthur Eddington at Cambridge University
Albert Einstein and Sir Arthur Eddington at Cambridge University

Example 2: “Einstein’s theory made one or two predictions which distinguished it from Newton’s theory, and, if true, these predictions would show that Einstein’s model was closer to reality. For example, Einstein predicted that a gravitational field should bend rays of light much more than was expected by Newton’s theory of gravity. Although the effect was too small to be observed in the laboratory, Einstein calculated that the immense gravity of the massive sun would deflect a ray of light by 1.75 seconds of arc – less that one thousandth of a degree, but twice as large as the deflection according to Newton, and significant enough to be measured. During a lunar eclipse in 1919, Eddington compared his eclipse photos with images taken when the sun was not present, and announced that the sun had caused a deflection of roughly 1.61 seconds of arc, a result that was in agreement with Einstein’s prediction, thereby validating the theory of general relativity.” (4)

Here experience comes to NOT falsify a hypothesis. Until a hypothesis is falsified, it remains valid. But when a theory is falsified once, it is falsified for good.

References

(1). Francis Bacon. Novum Organum.Book One. I.

(2) Francis Bacon. Novum Organum.Book One. XIX.

(3) Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959.

(4) 1919. Eclipse and General Relativity. Times Literary Supplement.

Gravity

Today’s post subject is gravity.  It all begun yesterday morning, when I wanted to see a pictue of David Hockney’s, and run by accident into Garrowby Hill, the picture you see below.

I immediately felt the instinctive need to jump on the winding road and let gravity do the rest of the work, propelling me down the twisted path without regard for time and speed. It was after this delirium that lasted for a few seconds that I started thinking about gravity.

This took me back to Newton’s theory of gravity: gravity is a force, that is directly proportional to the mass of the objects involved.

Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

The second theory is Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Einstein realized that Newton’s theory of gravity had problems. He knew, for example, that Mercury’s orbit showed unexplained deviations from that predicted by Newton’s laws. However, he was worried about a much more serious problem. As the force between two objects depends on the distance between them, if one object moves closer, the other object will feel a change in the gravitational force. According to Newton, this change would be immediate, or instantaneous, even if the objects were millions of miles apart. Einstein saw this as a serious flaw in Newtonian gravity. Einstein assumed that nothing could travel instantaneously, not even a change in force. Specifically, nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum, which has a speed of approximately 186,000 mi/s (300,000 km/s). In order to fix this problem, Einstein had not only to revise Newtonian gravity, but to change the way we think about space, time, and the structure of the Universe. He stated this new way of thinking mathematically in his general theory of relativity.

In a nutshell, Einstein set forward the hypothesis that “Gravity” is a curve in space-time.   

Many of the predictions of general relativity, such as the bending of starlight by gravity and a tiny shift in the orbit of the planet Mercury, have been quantitatively confirmed by experiment.

Einstein said that a mass bends space, like a heavy ball making a dent on a rubber sheet. Further, Einstein contended that space and time are intimately related to each other, and that we do not live in three spatial dimensions and time (all four quite independent of each other), but rather in a four-dimensional space-time continuum, a seamless blending of the four. It is thus not “space,” naively conceived, but space-time that warps in reaction to a mass. This, in turn, explains why objects attract each other. Consider the Sun sitting in space-time, imagined as a ball sitting on a rubber sheet. It curves the spacetime around it into a bowl shape. The planets orbit around the Sun because they are rolling across through this distorted space-time, which curves their motions like those of a ball rolling around inside a shallow bowl. (These images are intended as analogies, not as precise explanations.) Gravity, from this point of view, is the way objects affect the motions of other objects by affecting the shape of space-time.

Without matter, space-time is flat (left), but it curves when matter is present (right).

Einstein’s general relativity makes predictions that Newton’s theory of gravitation does not. Since particles of light (photons) have no mass, Newtonian theory predicts that they will not be affected by gravity. However, if gravity is due to the curvature of space-time, then light should be affected in the same way as matter. This proposition was tested as follows: During the day, the Sun is too bright to see any stars. However, during a total solar eclipse the Sun’s disk is blocked by the Moon, and it is possible to see stars that appear in the sky near to the Sun. During the total solar eclipse of 1919, astronomers measured the positions of several stars that were close to the Sun in the sky. It was determined that the measured positions were altered as predicted by general relativity; the Sun’s gravity bent the starlight so that the stars appeared to shift their locations when they were near the Sun in the sky. The detection of the bending of starlight by the Sun was one of the great early experimental verifications of general relativity; many others have been conducted since.

One can imagine how many measurements have ben carried out in order to validate and/or refute einstein’s theory and its components, one of which is “frame-dragging”.

I quote one of the reports on such measurements (BBC NEWS):

“Frame-dragging” is the effect wherein a massive body like Earth drags space-time around with it as it spins.”Frame-dragging” is the effect wherein a massive body like Earth drags space-time around with it as it spins.

Ignazio Ciufolini and Erricos Pavlis measured frame-dragging by studying the movements of two satellites in Earth orbit over a period of 11 years.

Ciufolini, from the University of Lecce, Italy, and Erricos Pavlis from the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology in Baltimore, US, analysed millions of laser range-finding signals that are reflected by the satellites Lageos and Lageos 2.

These reflected signals are normally used to map variations in the Earth’s gravitational field.

But the researchers analysed them for evidence that the satellites’ orbits were altered by frame-dragging, also known as the Lense-Thirring effect after the Austrian physicists who predicted it in 1918.

Ciufolini and Pavlis say their result is 99% of the value predicted by Einstein’s theory, plus or minus 5%. This result has an uncertainty of about 10% say the scientists.

Commenting on the research, Neil Ashby of the University of Colorado, US, said the result was “the first reasonably accurate measurement of frame dragging.”

He added: “Further analysis is anticipated as additional geodesy missions are undertaken to improve our knowledge of Earth’s gravity field.”

The same researchers reported preliminary findings in 1998, which were roundly criticised. But reaction to the latest measurements has been broadly positive. The new work is based on a new gravity map released last year.

And so the story goes. the good news for Newton’s theory is that it is still good for most cases, as it starts having problems when the mass involved is huge. So we can continue having Newton in our everyday lifes, while Einstein is waving at us from a distant star, riding a light beam.

P.S. I am not going to join Albert this time. I return to Garrowby Hill to visit David Hockney and have a beer at the local inn. And now that we talk about it, I have a small contribution to make to the theories of gravity. I have noticed that after the third pint of ale, my feet are heavier. I have therefore prepared an amendment to the Newtonian theory: the force of gravity is also directly proportional ot the alcohol content of the masses involved. Cheers!!!

Gravity booster