Duhem's Scientific Work Translated into English

Paul Needham has just produced the first full-length translation of one of Pierre Duhem's scientific works*: Commentary on the Principles of Thermodynamics by Pierre Duhem. From its preface:

Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem (1861–1916) held the chair of physics (changed to chair of theoretical physics in 1895) at Bordeaux from 1894 to his death. He established a reputation in both the history and philosophy of science as well as in science (physics and physical chemistry). His pioneering work in medieval science opened up the area as a new discipline in the history of science, and his La théorie physique (Duhem 1906) is a classic in the philosophy of science which is still read and discussed today. Although his work in these two fields is now well represented in English with a number of translations that have appeared in recent decades (Duhem 1892b, 1903, 1902, 1905–1906, 1906, 1908, 1915, 1985, 1996), there is little of his scientific work available in English. The original manuscript of Duhem (1898) was translated by J. E. Trevor, one of the editors of The Journal of Physical Chemistry, for its first issue. But his work almost invariably appeared in French. The present volume contains translations of some of his important early work in thermodynamics, which I hope will contribute to a more balanced picture in English of the breadth of Duhem’s publications and provide a further source of insight into his thought.

(*There is a textbook by Duhem translated into English called Thermodynamics and chemistry: A non-mathematical treatise for chemists and students of chemistry; but since it is a textbook, it is not a purely scientific contribution.)

The Wikipedia entry on Duhem has the most complete collection of links to online historical, scientific, and philosophical works of Duhem that I know of. Check them out! It makes me want to learn French.

Psychology

From the Catechism of the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fr. Thomas Pègues:

What is man?
Man is a composite of spirit and body, in whom the world of spirits and the world of bodies in some sort coalesce (LXXV.).

What is the spirit called that is in man?
It is called the soul (LXXV. 1-4).

Is man the only being in the world of bodies that has a soul?
No. Besides man plants and animals have souls.

What is the difference between the soul of man and the souls of plants and animals?
There is this difference, the soul of a plant has only vegetative life, the soul of an animal has both vegetative and sensitive life, whereas the soul of man has in addition an intellective life.

Is it then by intellective life that man is distinct from all other living beings in this world?
Yes

Is this intellective life of the soul of man, in itself, independent of his body?
Yes (LXXV. 2).

Can any reason be given to establish this truth?
Yes; and the reason is because the object of thought is something wholly immaterial.

But how does it follow from this that the human soul in its intellective life is, in itself, independent of body?
This follows because if the soul itself were not wholly immaterial it could not attain by thought to an object wholly immaterial (ibid.).

What follows from this truth?
It follows that the soul of man is immortal (LXXV. 6).

(B)

Can it be shown that the immortality of man's soul follows from this truth?
Yes. Because if in the soul there is an act wholly independent of bodily matter, it must itself be independent of bodily matter.

What follows from this truth that the soul is, in itself, independent of bodily matter?
It follows that if the body perishes by separation from the soul, the soul itself does not perish (ibid.).

Will the human soul live forever?
Yes.

Why then is the human soul united to a body?
The human soul is united to a body in order to make a substantial whole called man (LXXVI. 1).

Is it not then accidental that the soul is united to a body?
No, for the soul was made to be joined to a body (LXXVI. 1).

What are the effects of the soul upon the body to which it is united?
The soul gives to the body every perfection that the body has, that is it gives to it being, life, and sense; but thought it cannot give, for this is proper to the soul itself (LXXVI. 3, 4).

XIV. OF THE VEGETATIVE AND SENSITIVE POWERS

(A)

Are there in the soul divers powers corresponding to the divers acts it produces?
Yes, with the only exception of the first perfection which the soul gives to the body, namely, existence; but it gives this not through some power or faculty, but immediately, of itself (LXXVII.).

What powers of the soul give life to the body?
The vegetative powers.

What are these powers?
They are three in number, viz., the power of nutrition, of growth, and of reproduction (LXXVIII. 2).

(B)

What faculties of the soul give sense to the body?
The sensitive powers.

What are these powers?
They are twofold: the powers of knowing and the powers of loving.

What are the sensitive powers through which the body knows?
The five external senses (LXXVIII. 3).

What are these powers called?
They are called the powers of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching.

And the five external senses, what are they called?
They are called sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch (ibid.).

Are there also any internal sensitive powers of knowing that do not appear externally?
Yes, they are the common (or central) sense, the imagination, instinct (or estimative sense), and memory (LXXVIII. 4).

XV. OF THE MIND AND ITS ACT OF UNDERSTANDING

(A)

Are there any other powers of knowing in man?
Yes, there is another faculty of knowing, and it is man's chief power.

What is this chief power of knowing in man called?
It is called his reason or intellect (LXXIX. 1).

Is reason and intellect one and the same power of knowing in man?
Yes (LXXIX. 8).

Why are these two names given to the same power?
It is because in the act of knowing man sometimes understands at a glance as it were without reasoning, whereas at other times he must reason (ibid.).

Is reasoning an act proper to man?
Yes, because of all beings that are, man alone is able to reason, or has need of reasoning.

Is it a perfection in man to be able to reason?
Yes, but it is an imperfection to have need of reasoning.

Why is it a perfection in man to be able to reason?
Because in this wise man can attain to truth; whereas no creature inferior to man, such as animals which are without reason, can do this.

Why is it, on the other hand, an imperfection in man to have need of reasoning?
Because in this wise he attains to truth by slow degrees only, and he is thereby liable to err; whereas God and the angels who have no need of reasoning attain to truth straightway without fear of making a mistake.

(B)

What is it to know truth?
To know truth is to know things as they are.

What then is it not to know things as they are?
It is to be in ignorance or in error.

Is there any difference between being in ignorance and being in error?
Yes, there is a great difference; to be in ignorance is merely not to know things as they are; whereas to be in error is to affirm that a thing is, when it is not, or conversely.

Is it an evil for man to be in error?
Yes, it is a great evil, because man's proper good consists in knowledge of the truth which is the good of his intellect.

Has man a knowledge of the truth at birth?
No, at birth man has no knowledge of the truth; for though he then has an intellect it is in an entirely undeveloped state; its unfolding, necessary for the attainment of truth, awaits the development of the powers of sense which are its handmaids (LXXXIV. 5).

When then does man begin to know truth?
Man begins to know truth when he has attained the use of reason, that is at about the age of seven years.

(C)

Can man know all things by his reason?
No, man cannot know all by his reason adequately, that is if one considers his reason within the limits of its natural powers (XII. 4; LXXXVI. 2, 4).

What things can man know by the natural force of his reason?
By the natural power of his reason man can know all things attainable by his senses and all that these things manifest.

Can man know himself by the natural power of his reason?
Yes, because he himself is a thing attainable by the power of sense, and by the help of other things that fall within the scope of his senses, he is able, by reasoning, to come to a knowledge of himself (LXXXVI I.).

Mother Teresa on Abortion

Mother Teresa on Abortion:

I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child—a direct killing of the innocent child—murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

[...]

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

—Bl. Mother Teresa, National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C, February 5, 1994

Bioethics

The following is an excerpt from the textbook Ethical issues in modern medicine: contemporary readings in bioethics by Steinbock et al. which the UofA class on bioethics uses. It treats abortion, obligations to the unborn, and assisted reproduction like in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Section 1 : The morality of abortion --
The unspeakable crime of abortion [excerpt of Evangelium Vitæ] / Pope John Paul II --
Why abortion is immoral / Don Marquis --
Why most abortions are not wrong / Bonnie Steinbock --
The morality of abortion / Margaret Olivia Little --

Section 2 : Obligations to the not-yet-born --
The rights of "unborn children" and the value of pregnant women / Howard Minkoff and Lynn M. Paltrow --
Reproductive freedom and prevention of genetically transmitted harmful conditions / Allen Buchanan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler --
Cheap listening? Reflections on the concept of wrongful disability / Richard J. Hull --

Section 3 : Assisted reproduction --
The presumptive primacy of procreative liberty / John Robertson --
Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation [excerpt of Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation] / Vatican, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith --
What are families for? Getting to an ethics of reproductive technology / Thomas H. Murray --
Grade A : the market for a Yale woman's eggs / Jessica Cohen --
Payment for egg donation / Bonnie Steinbock --

Reproduction bioethics

Physicsts Must Also Be Philosophers.

Einstein, in his Physics & Reality, says that physicists must also be philosophers:

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.

And by being its philosophers, he does not mean being its undertakers; for, as Étienne Gilson observed, philosophy "always buries its undertakers." Hence the necessity for a Thomistic revival in modern mathematical physics, Thomism being the philosophical foundation of modern science.

TruthInspire » Blog Archive » REASON AND FAITH

TruthInspire » Blog Archive » REASON AND FAITH

Is Thomism Secular?

Considering St. Thomas Aquinas came in 9th in this poll of "Who are the most important philosophers of all time?", I was curious which of the universities in the Philosophical Gourmet Report's 2009 "ranking of the top facilities in the English-speaking world" is most Thomist. Here is how they performed, based on the number of Google results for "Aquinas" (cf. this, too) at each university's entire website:

Sorted by Google Hits (1st # shown)

1. University of Toronto 24400 6777.8
2. Yale University 6790 1741.0
3. University of Pennsylvania 5150 1775.9
4. University of Notre Dame 3650 1013.9
5. University of Colorado, Boulder 3590 1196.7
6. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 2810 685.4
7. Cambridge University 2780 817.6
8. University of Chicago 2000 606.1
9. Stanford University 1920 505.3
10. University of Texas, Austin 1710 502.9
11. Oxford University 1040 221.3
12. City University of New York Graduate Center 981 272.5
13. Princeton University 942 219.1
14. Harvard University 860 215.0
15. Cornell University 801 228.9
16. Rutgers University, New Brunswick 782 170.0
17. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 734 183.5
18. University of Wisconsin, Madison 677 211.6
19. University of Massachusetts, Amherst 629 209.7
20. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 589 155.0
21. Columbia University 583 157.6
22. University of California, Los Angeles 493 129.7
23. Duke University 493 164.3
24. New York University 440 89.8
25. University of Pittsburgh 423 100.7
26. University of Western Ontario 385 142.6
27. Indiana University, Bloomington 383 119.7
28. University of Maryland, College Park 380 131.0
29. London School of Economics 380 135.7
30. University of California, Berkeley 339 89.2
31. University of California, Riverside 326 112.4
32. Australian National University 296 80.0
33. University of Southern California 295 84.3
34. University of California, San Diego 246 74.5
35. University College London 229 71.6
36. University of Miami 190 67.9
37. King's College, London 183 59.0
38. Syracuse University 181 64.6
39. University of Arizona 179 48.4
40. Washington University, St. Louis 173 59.7
41. Ohio State University 170 56.7
42. Brown University 155 44.3
43. University of Warwick 148 54.8
44. University of California, Irvine 143 44.7
45. University of Nottingham 121 44.8
46. University of Sheffield 66 22.8
47. University of Sydney 52 17.3
48. Birkbeck College, University of London 33 11.0
49. University of Reading 5 1.9

Sorted by Ratio (2nd # shown) of Hits to Mean Ranking

1. University of Toronto 24400 6777.8
2. University of Pennsylvania 5150 1775.9
3. Yale University 6790 1741.0
4. University of Colorado, Boulder 3590 1196.7
5. University of Notre Dame 3650 1013.9
6. Cambridge University 2780 817.6
7. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 2810 685.4
8. University of Chicago 2000 606.1
9. Stanford University 1920 505.3
10. University of Texas, Austin 1710 502.9
11. City University of New York Graduate Center 981 272.5
12. Cornell University 801 228.9
13. Oxford University 1040 221.3
14. Princeton University 942 219.1
15. Harvard University 860 215.0
16. University of Wisconsin, Madison 677 211.6
17. University of Massachusetts, Amherst 629 209.7
18. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 734 183.5
19. Rutgers University, New Brunswick 782 170.0
20. Duke University 493 164.3
21. Columbia University 583 157.6
22. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 589 155.0
23. University of Western Ontario 385 142.6
24. London School of Economics 380 135.7
25. University of Maryland, College Park 380 131.0
26. University of California, Los Angeles 493 129.7
27. Indiana University, Bloomington 383 119.7
28. University of California, Riverside 326 112.4
29. University of Pittsburgh 423 100.7
30. New York University 440 89.8
31. University of California, Berkeley 339 89.2
32. University of Southern California 295 84.3
33. Australian National University 296 80.0
34. University of California, San Diego 246 74.5
35. University College London 229 71.6
36. University of Miami 190 67.9
37. Syracuse University 181 64.6
38. Washington University, St. Louis 173 59.7
39. King's College, London 183 59.0
40. Ohio State University 170 56.7
41. University of Warwick 148 54.8
42. University of Arizona 179 48.4
43. University of Nottingham 121 44.8
44. University of California, Irvine 143 44.7
45. Brown University 155 44.3
46. University of Sheffield 66 22.8
47. University of Sydney 52 17.3
48. Birkbeck College, University of London 33 11.0
49. University of Reading 5 1.9

The second sorted list gives one a good idea what are the best secular Thomist universities.

Law is a Teacher

The law is a teacher. Here is an example of why civil laws should outlaw abortion:

1. Women are generally ignorant about reproductive issues.
2. Abortion is a reproductive issue; therefore,
   
   1. women are generally ignorant about abortion.
   2. Women are less ignorant about the law; therefore,
      
      1. women know more about the law than abortion.
      2. The law tells one what is right or wrong; therefore,
         1. women know abortion's rightness or wrongness based on the law.
         2. The law currently makes it legal; therefore,
            1. the law teaches women that abortion is right.
            2. People more often than not do what they think is right; therefore,
               1. women more often than not choose abortion because they think it is right.
               2. Women choosing abortions more often than not is contrary to keeping abortions rare; therefore,
                  1. Abortion should be illegal.
                     

With what premise or conclusion do you disagree?

Learning Order

St. Thomas Aquinas, founder of Thomism (vide 24 Thomistic Theses and Pope St. Pius X's Doctoris Angelici), describes in his Sententia Ethic., lib. 6 l. 7 n. 17 [1211.] which subjects and in what order boys must learn (my emphases):

[T]he proper order of learning is that boys first be instructed in things pertaining to logic because logic teaches the method of the whole of philosophy. Next, they should be instructed in mathematics, which does not need experience and does not exceed the imagination. Third, in natural sciences, which, even though not exceeding sense and imagination, nevertheless require experience. Fourth, in the moral sciences, which require experience and a soul free from passions [...]. Fifth, in the sapiential and divine sciences, which exceed imagination and require a sharp mind.

Can you believe this? If St. Thomas thinks boys (pueri in the Latin of Sententia Ethic., lib. 6 l. 7 n. 17) should learn these, a fortiori college students must.

Master Advice

St. Thomas Aquinas said in De modo studendi: "non respicias a quo audias, sed quidquid boni dicatur" ("Do not heed by whom a thing is said, but rather what good is said").

Similarly, Fr. Sertillanges, O.P., said in his The Intellectual Life (p. 163-164):

    St. Thomas, whose idea I base myself on here, concludes from these observations that we owe gratitude even to those who have thus tested us, if because of them and their action we have made any kind of progress. Directly, we owe everything to truth alone, but indirectly we owe to those who are in error the mental development that, thanks to them, Providence provides for us. [In II. Metaphys. lect. I.]
    Think what the Church owes to heresies and philosophy to its great conflicts of opinion. If it had not been for Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius, Pelagius, Luther, Catholic dogma would not have been constituted. If Kant had not shaken the foundations of human knowledge, criteriology would still be in its childhood; and if Renan had not written on Christian origins, the Catholic clergy would be far from having the historical and exegetical formation they now possess.
    What is true collectively is true individually. We must learn right thinking principally by contact with the wise; but folly itself contains a lesson; he who escapes its contagion draws strength from it. "He who stumbles without falling makes a bigger step forward."

Hume vs. Aquinas on Transubstantiation

Benedict Ashley, O.P., in his book The Way toward Wisdom (p. 511 n. 53), cites Hume's claim, which he borrowed from Dr. Tillotson, that the transubstantiation, "since it denies the evidence of the senses on which all certitude rests," "leads to skepticism:"

I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument of a like nature, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.

[...]

Suppose, for instance, that the fact, which the testimony endeavours to establish, partakes of the extraordinary and the marvellous; in that case, the evidence, resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual. The reason why we place any credit in witnesses and historians, is not derived from any connexion, which we perceive a priori, between testimony and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity between them. But when the fact attested is such a one as has seldom fallen under our observation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences; of which the one destroys the other, as far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the force, which remains.

—David Hume's Enquiry of Human Understanding, sec. 10 "On Miracles" part 1

Benedict Ashley, O.P., responds:

Yet we experience that very unusual events do in fact occur! Why must we, then, always doubt the testimony of others about such events? Sense experiences are signs to be intellectually interpreted always in their contexts. The proper accidents of bread and wine naturally signify these substances, but for the Catholic faith the context of the Eucharist established by God permits the appearance of bread and wine to signify without deception [Summa Theologiæ, IIIª q. 75 a. 5 arg. 2 et ad 2] Christ's body and blood. Although this is not strictly a "miracle" (since the change is not evident to our senses and hence is extremely improbable as regard natural reason), as Aquinas shows [Summa Theologiæ, IIIª q. 75 a. 5 arg. 3 et ad 3], it is not impossible; and if the Catholic faith is credible, as apologetic seeks to show, reason demands that it be believed on the testimony of the Church. Similarly, the context of the Bible as read in the tradition of the Church (which one would suppose Tillotson accepted) permits it to signify the mind of God, not merely the intent of its human authors. Hume's argument amount to declaring that he is determined to interpret his experiences a way that will not disturb his "common sense" habits; but life is full of uncomfortable events.

The above-mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiæ quotes are:

Objection 2. Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then, that human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is unbecoming to this sacrament.

Objection 3. Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still it is not contrary to reason, but above it, as was said in the beginning of this work (Summa Theologiæ, Iª q. 1 a. 6 ad 2 et a. 8). But our reason has its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be contrary to the senses, as it is when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore it is not befitting this sacrament for the accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to remain.

[...]

Reply to Objection 2 and 3. There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception. And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.

The Truth of Science for Justice and Peace

Monsignor Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, who graduated from the Angelicum magna cum laude and is chancellor of both the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences, gave the keynote speech for Arizona State University (ASU)'s Consortium of Science, Policy, & Outcomes entitled "The Truth of Science for Justice and Peace" on May 18, 2010. It included many references to St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is an excerpt of the interview afterwards:

The transcript and full presentation slides:

And a commentary by the ASU philosopher Farzad Mahootian:

Other enlightening reactions to the Monsignor's speech include those of Heather Douglas, Associate Professor, Philosophy, University of Tennessee and Carl Mitcham, Professor, Liberal Arts and International Studies, Colorado School of Mines.

Heather Douglas's article quotes this by St. Bernard of Clairvoux, which the Monsignor quoted in his speech:

“There are people who only wish to know for the sake of knowing: this is base curiosity. Others wish to know in order that they themselves may be known: this is shameful vanity, and such people cannot escape the mockery of the satirical poet who said about their likes: ‘For you, knowing is nothing unless someone else knows that you know.’ Then there are those who acquire knowledge in order to re-sell it, and for example to make money or gain honours from it: their motive is distasteful. But some wish to know in order to edify: this is charity. Others in order to be edified: this is wisdom. Only those who belong to these last two categories do not misuse knowledge, since they only seek to understand in order to do good.” (Quoted on pp. 5-6, from St. Bernardus, Sermo XXXVI in Cantica, PL, CLXXXIII, 968.)

Japan Earthquake ≈ Tsar Bomba's Energy

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS)'s energy and broadband solution of the recent earthquake near the coast of Honshu, Japan, it has radiated an estimated 3.0×10¹⁷ Joules of energy. Fat Man, the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki during World War II, was 88 TJ (88 terajoules = 8.8×10¹³ Joules). So this earthquake was about 2,000 times more energetic. The largest nuclear bomb ever detonated was the Tsar Bomba, detonated on October 30, 1961, in Russia. It released 210 petajoules = 2.1×10¹⁷ Joules of energy, roughly 70% what this Japan earthquake released.

Does one need any more proof for original sin?

Despite the vision and farseeing wisdom of our wartime heads of state, the physicists have felt the peculiarly intimate responsibility for suggesting, for supporting, and in the end, in large measure, for achieving the realization of atomic weapons. Nor can we forget that these weapons as they were in fact used dramatized so mercilessly the inhumanity and evil of modern war. In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.

—J. Robert Oppenheimer, Physics in the Contemporary World (1948) pg. 66

OnlineSchools.org presents Japan One Year Later

St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas