Aristotelian-Thomistic Philosophy and Scientific Evidence

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Jonathan_Burke

For example, see the article “Where is the Evidence for Thomistic Metaphysics?” by Klubertanz, which was published way back in 1958. The title is asking literally the same question I asked.

Except that’s actually not what you asked. You asked (I’m quoting here):

• On what demonstrable basis does AT make all these scientific claims?
• Where’s the actual evidence for all the claims about “prime matter”, and “accidents”, and “incidents”, and “substance”, and “form”, and “properties”, and God’s mysterious role in chemistry and physics?
• What experiments do AT theorists make to test these claims?
• How is AT science actually carried out?
• Where are all the AT scientific research institutes making groundbreaking discoveries with AT science?
• How is AT any different to astrology?

All of those questions are loaded, and none of them are “Where is the evidence for Thomistic metaphysics?” I’m going to deal with why these are all loaded questions below, but can you not see how these questions are making assumptions about your dialogue partner and putting them immediately on the defensive?

@Jonathan_Burke

Before the modern scientific era, A-T was science, and was billed as science. During the early modern scientific era, A-T was still regarded as science, and still billed as science. In the later modern scientific era, when it became clear A-T was falsified science, there were several responses. These are four of the most common, from what I can see.

1. Deny that A-T science have been falsified, and argue that it is modern science which is wrong. This view is still promoted by some A-T proponents.
2. Accept that some parts of A-T science have been falsified, but claim that other parts have not, and argue that modern science is incomplete without A-T science. This is a more common view.
3. Accept that A-T science have been falsified, but claim that A-T metaphysics is still valid. This is quite a common view.
4. Deny that A-T was ever about science, claim it was always only about metaphysics and never made statements about the natural world, and claim the metaphysics is still valid. From what I can see, this view is totally on the fringe.

This is well laid out and useful information, the problem is that I haven’t seen anywhere in the two current A-T threads where somebody has suggested that A-T was science. I’m pretty sure it was universally referred to as metaphysics and mostly in the present tense. You’re railing against a straw man: A-T was considered akin to science (natural philosophy) of the in pre-modern European thought. But no one has proposed in our discussion that A-T thought replaces science (it’s methods or results) that I can tell. That is why your questions seem loaded and out of place. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask “what kinda of evidence is there for A-T metaphysics?” but you are forcefully demanding people to answer questions about something they never claimed (that A-T is science) which causes people a lot of frustration.

@Jonathan_Burke

The title of the original thread was " A Thomistic Approach to Chemistry", not “Thomistic metaphysics orthogonal to chemistry”, or “How Thomistic metaphysics is relevant to chemistry”. The thread started with the fact that the Thomistic view of chemistry involves a specific approach to the natural world, which differs significantly from the approach taken by modern science.

I am fairly certain that it was assumed that “A Thomistic Approach” assumes metaphysics, and clearly everyone but you got that. You could have just said “hey, are we distinguishing between A-T as metaphysics and A-T as science?” but no, you had to just blast away. I am a chemist, I have a PhD in chemistry. I have not seen anything in these threads that suggest that they are trying to change science, only how to understand it metaphysically.

@Jonathan_Burke

The original thread started with a post which made scientific claims, and which used A-T statements about nature in order to address matters of scientific investigation.

None of those statements were scientific claims. You could have simply asked if they were trying to make a scientific claim, but you didn’t. For instance, it was made clear that they aren’t saying that atoms aren’t there. I still don’t know what “virtual” means, but I haven’t seen any suggestion that they are trying to contradict modern science. I think the science is inconsistent with their metaphysics, but that’s not the same thing as saying that they are making scientific claims.

@Jonathan_Burke

These are not metaphysical statements about “the philosophy of chemistry”, these are specific empirical claims about the physical properties of objects in the natural world.

No, they aren’t empirical claims as far as I can tell. If they had said “hydrogen gas and water have different properties because water is flammable and hydrogen is not”, that would have been a scientific claim that was wrong. Instead, they used the scientific facts to make a metaphysical interpretation. You need to engage with their metaphysical argument instead of what starts to look like a red herring or straw man fallacy.

@Jonathan_Burke

You may nor may not know that A-T is still being used by certain A-T proponents to try and resist the conclusions of modern science. For example, it is used to deny evolution , and modern science as “materialist” and “reductionist”.

And when somebody on PS makes those claims, then feel free to address them. In neither of the current A-T threads has any of that come up, so it’s pretty much irrelevant.

@Jonathan_Burke

In my view A-T is not only pre-modern science, but incredibly bad theology and extremely poor morality.

OK, so now you want to add slippery slope and guilt-by-association to the list of fallacies?

This is why we added " 3. Don’t assume motives" to the guidelines. I can understand, if you think the way you do about A-T, that you would be wary of it and passionate about addressing it. However, in a group as diverse as PS and it being an online forum where body language and tone aren’t there for us to judge other’s reactions, we need to be especially conscious to address only what people write. @dga471 went to a conference about how Thomist metaphysics interacts with chemistry, that’s it. It’s clear he’s trying to see if A-T can be useful. If you really feel like you have to say something, a simple “In my personal opinion, A-T thought can lead down some very negative roads, so I generally avoid it.” and then be ready to walk away from the discussion.