William of Ockham and the Emergence of Critical Analysis and Empirical Thought in the Middle Ages

How Western thought did, seemingly, sprout out of nowhere in the 15^th century in Europe? What did cause the Enlightenment and the Renaissance in Europe?  

Frederick Copleston suggests that we look at the 13^th and 14^th centuries for an answer? It should be noted here that Copleston has written a monumental work of tracing the European philosophical thought from Ancient Greece to the 20th century.

A major achievement, in medieval philosophical thought, was reached when the Christian Scholars of the West discovered the works of Aristotle. This took place in the 12^th century and the early part of the 13^th century. The main view of Philosophy in the minds of 13^th century Christian Thinkers was a way of rationalizing Theology and the Christian Doctrines. They saw Philosophy as a subset of Theology and they went to great length to modify and synthesize with Christian Dogma through, what appeared to be, rational arguments. So we see St. Thomas “laboring” to integrate Aristotelian positions, like the “world was uncreated,” with the Christian view that the World was created by God.

The guiding principle for the theologians-philosophers of that time was that “the truth can be known only through revelation from God!” But as they started towards the path of rational thought and the ideas of philosophy, in their attempt to rationalize the Christian Doctrines, soon they started realizing the difficulties and the incompatibilities that existed between philosophy and theology. Furthermore, these incompatibilities and difficulties seeded doubts in many of the subsequent thinkers of the 14^th century in the belief of revelation as a source of truth and knowledge.

William of Ockham, a Franciscan priest born around 1280 to 1290 CE, challenged the prevailing thinking of the 13^th century Christian Thinkers, and he represents the modernists or nominalists as they came to be known. Ockham, utilizing critical analysis and Aristotelian logic, tore apart St. Thomas and Scotus’ metaphysical ideas and arguments on the existence of God. He maintained that

“…it cannot be demonstrated but only empirically established that one thing is the cause of another, would seem to rule out the causal argument in natural theology.”

While he didn’t reject all metaphysical arguments and ideas he posited that only probable arguments can be made about ideas such as the existence of God. Ockham thought that,

“….only probably arguments can be brought to show that this being is first or supreme in an absolute sense. For he did not think that it is possible to prove strictly the unicity of the world. The existence of other worlds is conceivable, even if improbable and so it is conceivable, even if not probable, that there is a plurality of first causes or conserves….as to the divine attributes, he maintained that it is impossible to demonstrate those attributes like omnipotence and omniscience which are peculiar to God, on the ground that there can be no middle term in the relevant syllogisms, if our philosophical knowledge of God must be based on experience of creatures.”

In other words, Ockham says that questions like the existence of God and any attributes we assign to him do not belong in philosophy and logic but in the realm of faith and theology. Theology and philosophy must be separated!

In essence, his position, “that no logical inference from the existence of one thing to the existence of another could amount to a demonstration of cogent proof,” tore apart the metaphysical system of the 13^th century.

We could argue that, William of Ockham (and his nominalist followers) represents the point in medieval history where philosophy begins to break apart from theology. The nominalists’ position is that “based on critical analysis we can’t prove or disprove the existence of God and these types of questions belong to the realm of faith and theology.” Ockham, in the absence of revelation, directly or indirectly, recognizes the importance of reason in reflecting on human nature, human society, and morality among others.

The other major influence of Ockham and the movement that followed him was the impact on the growth of the sciences. Ockham maintained that “real knowledge is ultimately founded in intuitive knowledge and causality should be based on empirical observation.” Arguably, there were many factors that planted the seeds for the growth of sciences in the Renaissance. But it is fair to say that scientists like Galileo were influenced by Ockham and his followers. For he,

“…insisted strongly on the primacy of intuition or the immediate perception of individual things. Nothing can be known naturally in itself unless it is known intuitively…..his insistence on the experiential foundation of knowledge about the world would naturally favors the growth of physical science, in the sense that its natural effect would be to concentrate attention on the observable facts.”

How to Determine the Objective Nature of Events – Herodotus’ Investigative Process of Causes and Effects

Herodotus, in his Histories, tells us, on many occasions, that he is here to tell a story of events; He is a storyteller. But what kind of storyteller is he?

Homer told us stories about the Trojan War; Hesiod told us stories about the Genesis of the Gods and the World, and the Human Race; Aeschylus and the other Tragedians told us a story with each of their plays and on several occasions, each one told the same story with his own interpretation.

What is the process that Herodotus uses to tell us his story about the behavior of the Nile? How is that different from Homer’s and the Tragedians? He starts his story saying,

“About why the Nile behaves precisely as it does I could get no information from the priests or anyone else…..Nobody in Egypt could give me any explanation of this, in spite of my constant attempts to find out what was the peculiar property which made the Nile behave the opposite way to other rivers, and why – another point on which I hoped for information – it was the only river to cause no breezes.”

First, Herodotus identifies a phenomenon, that is, ‘Nile is behaving unlike any other river that he is aware of.’ Then he proceeds to state that it has to be some ‘peculiar property’ or a cause in other words that makes the Nile different. He also observes and identifies another property of the Nile; “Nile is the only river to cause no breezes.” The next step is to survey other opinions or explanations on the phenomenon. Using logic, facts, and observation to identify and separate the causes and the effects of the explanations he refutes all of them. Below he gives us the reasons why he refutes the first explanation of the phenomenon.

“Certain Greeks, hoping to advertise how clever they are, have tried to account for the flooding of the Nile in three different ways. Two of the explanations are not worth dwelling upon, beyond a bare mention of what they are: one is that the summer north winds cause the water to rise by checking the flow of the currents towards the sea. In fact, however, these winds on many occasions have failed to blow, yet the Nile has risen as usual; moreover, if these winds were responsible for the rise, the other rivers which happen to run against them would certainly be affected in the same way as the Nile …there are many rivers in Syria and Libya, but none of them are affected in the same way as the Nile.”

He refutes the second explanation as irrational,

“The second explanation is less rational, being somewhat, if I may put it, of a legendary character: it is that Nile exhibits its remarkable characteristics because it flows from the Ocean, the stream of which encircles the world……as for the writer who mentions the Ocean in this connection, his account is a mere a fairy-tale depending upon an unknown quantity and cannot be disproved by argument. I know myself of no river called Ocean, and can only suppose that Homer or some earlier poet invented the name and introduced it into poetry.”

Herodotus’ statement “…a fairy-tale depending upon an unknown quantity and cannot be disproved by argument….” is a very remarkable one. It applies equally today as it did when Herodotus made the connection and wrote that statement down.  In other words that ‘superstition can’t be disproved by argument and anything that can’t be proved or disproved by rationality and observation and analysis of the facts it belongs to the realm of metaphysics.’

Using cause and effect, Herodotus finds the third explanation as one that makes sense! But he proceeds to refute this claim too based on the facts from observation and reason.

“The third theory is much more plausible, but at the same time furthest from the truth; according to this, the water of the Nile comes from melting snow, but as it flows from Libya through Ethiopia into Egypt, that is, from a very hot into cooler climate, how could it possibly originate in snow?..anyone who can use his wits about such matters will find plenty of arguments to prove how unlikely it is that snow is the cause the cause…the strongest proof is provided by the winds, which blow hot from those regions; secondly rain and frost are unknown there…thirdly, the natives are black because of the hot climate. Again, hawks and swallows remain throughout the year, and cranes migrate thither in winter to escape the cold weather from Scythia. But if there were snow, however little….none of these things possibly be; for they are contrary to reason.”

So far Herodotus has described and disproved the existing theories of the phenomenon. He then proceeds and expresses his own hypothesis. He uses the same method to lay out his view and then he provides reasoning and facts to support his theory. Although his explanation of the phenomenon is incorrect, it is based on cause and effect and reasoning and observation to support it. He has no way of knowing that the Nile floods because of the heavy summer rains in the East plains of Africa where the river originates. As regards to the other peculiar property of the Nile he makes the following statement:

“I mentioned the fact that no breeze blows from the Nile; I would suggest, in….of this, that the usual thing is for winds to originate in a cold region, not in a hot one.”

The above statement is one of the major observations, the flow of heat, which led physicists to develop the second and third Laws of Thermodynamics. We see the same reasoned thinking as he tries to explain the story that the Nile’s source is a fathomless spring, and again as he tries to provide an estimate of the length of the Nile.

So what we observe hear is evidence of the leap in the Greek thinking that occurred in the 5^th century B.C. We have identification of phenomena; separation of causes and effects; observation and facts; Existing hypotheses/explanations are analyzed, observations are made, and they are rejected (or accepted) based on reason and evidence. Then a new hypothesis is proposed, assumptions are made, and the hypothesis is accepted (or rejected) as an explanation of a phenomenon/event based on observation, facts, and critical reasoning.

This is the research process and the birth of History as an investigative process of cause and effect to determine the objectivity of events. And History’s father is Herodotus!