Exemplary+Post+2

I think one important concept that is often glazed over is that scientific models are often just that, models. Many times, people regard them as truth, unwavering. As is easily seen in this day and age, where anything is “infinitely reasonable,” what is taken for fact in the morning, may be disproven or changed many times by the afternoon. In essence, the Catholic Church had the right idea at the council of Treant, treat it as a convenient fiction. The theory of how the planets orbited was itself just a theory. It was the closest version of truth at that time. The role of science is to find a universal model that will account for everything. If a model works, there is no need to fix it. So, therefore a model might not depict the true nature of reality, however if it provides a good enough picture, we use it. It’s amazing how much people forget this. For instance, every new theory in this section seems to change the entire world. As much as the understanding should change things, it should still be understood that these theories are imperfect and subject to change. Again, this “infinitely reasonable” attitude has only managed to catch on after many times where a single change in a theory thereby changed the world. It is at once an exaggeration on Burke’s part, how can our understanding of the world change how it works, but it can often be seen as changing the parts of the world directly affected by humans. It is one primary difference between the contemporary world and times past. Now, a change is accepted as commonplace where new theories are proposed and tested all the time without changing the actual dynamics of the world itself. Before, however, it seems that people overreacted to what is a “convenient fiction” that best describes the world as we know it at a specific time.

Burke also claims that “There seemed, for the first time, no place in the cosmos for a providential involvement of God in the affairs of mankind” (Burke 161). He claims that science proves this through showing that the heavens weren’t perfect. Well, all this proves is that there is no need for a God to govern the heavens. There is still no evidence saying that a god does not exist. It is easy to prove that a god may be unneeded to deal with the everyday living of people, but that does not mean that there can be no all-powerful entity that could change the universe. Just because we have not directly observed the presence of something does not prove that it is not there; it merely proves that we have no way of knowing if it is there. Burke’s way of thinking would have stated that the Americas did not exist until Columbus’ voyage ran into them. Instead, before the voyage, Europeans merely had no way of knowing of the existence of the Americas.

It is again noted by Burke that prosperity has a great effect on technology and scientific advancement. In this case, it is the improved prosperity from the colonies that allowed for the improvement of farming and therefore and improvement in the lives and prosperity of farmers. This, in turn, provides the foundation for the Industrial Revolution. In this, technology itself becomes a vicious cycle. As technology progresses, it is used to improve current conditions and to spur the pursuit of more technology. This then repeats itself with greater and greater effect. With minimal outside influence, the cycle continues until something runs out, usually the money. This is easily traced through Burke’s cases of scientific revolution. After all, is not technology a wealth in its own right with its ability to “purchase” better standards of living or better understandings?