Sunday, January 24, 2021

Natural philosophy vs. science

Isaac Newton called himself a "natural philosopher". It was only in the 19th century (ie, the 1800s, or at least a hundred years after Newton) when the words "science" and "scientist" came into its modern, common usage rather than the Latin root meaning, knowledge or study.

My understanding of a "natural philosopher" just happens to be defined most readily in Wikipedia (bad, bad, baddie):

Natural philosophy was distinguished from the other precursor of modern science, natural history, in that natural philosophy involved reasoning and explanations about nature (and after Galileo, quantitative reasoning), whereas natural history was essentially qualitative and descriptive. 

and

Natural philosophy has been categorized as a theoretical rather than a practical branch of philosophy (like ethics). (Natural philosophy - Wikipedia)

It is in my usual practice of studying up on particular bodies of knowledge (as broadly as possible) and using reason and reflection on its respective principles and internal logic that I also call myself a natural philosopher, of the more theoretical kind.

I was listening to CBC North radio online when an Inuktitut language call-in show came on and it was about the new vaccine against Covid-19 that was coming to Nunavut. Knowing where most of the callers would be coming from, I shouldn't have been really surprised by what I'd hear but I was stunned and disturbed by what was said by some of the callers.

They came in three different flavours: the religious, the intolerantly fearful, and the reasonable.

Of the "religious" kind, many of the callers invoked the second coming of the Christ; some claimed that they had had dreams and visions inspired by the Holy Spirit of this specific Covid-19 virus which they took as a sign that the end of the world was near with the result being one of fatalism and smugness in being one of the Chosen.

Of the "intolerantly fearful" kind, some of the callers were outright racist and were all about placing blame on the Chinese and the fly-in non-Inuit skilled workers as sources of this contamination, this disease that transmitted itself by way of miasma - I guess they didn't get the bulletin that mandatory face-covering was more about minimizing infecting others than self-protection. Many of this kind also brought up that Inuit were used as guinea pigs in medical experiments in the 195s and -60s, and the this was just the most recent example of the heartlessness of the Qallunaat (those of European descent).

Of the "reasonable" kind, some of the callers were more thoughtful and diplomatic in saying that the vaccine was our best chance against the virus, and that though they didn't fully understand how and why it would work against the virus, they were willing to give it a chance going by what they know of the ways of science. I'm a "natural philosopher" of this persuasion.

The first two flavours are very familiar to me in that, growing up, I developed mistrust and suspicion of others as the default setting having been bullied and mistreated badly by those who didn't understand what the heck I was talking about. In fact, one of my triggers (I found out recently) is the Star Trek: Discovery episode called Su'Kal (season 3:11th episode). It is about a Kelpian who grows up completely alone in a computer program that is designed to teach, socialize and keep him alive 'til help comes. Of course, having grown up alone he's a bit screwed up and socially maladjusted when he finally meets real people - like me in some ways.

Since I learned to read I've been a voracious reader - especially books on science fact/fiction, religion, and social justice (hey, I was raised by a G*d-fearing mensch who absolutely believed in the good of the Gospels). I have a curiosity of a cat that would've died all of its nine lives and more. It's what protected me as a lonely child, and, subsequently, became my means of advancement in life.

Pretty not bad, I'd say, for accidently discovering but deliberately cultivating the natural philosopher in me. Science really is for the intellectually ambitious and the ego-driven; me, I'm just curious about and celebrate the arts and sciences that is all around us.

Jay

No comments:

Post a Comment