Download as a .pdf file - Brown University

than about any other matter, religious or otherwise: there is no danger of
his saying, “Justice is so-and-so because Apollo told me so.”
Pakaluk: Oh, but he does. Do you not recall, in the Apology, Socrates’
account of his life’s work
Andrew: Yes, an edict from the oracle and all that.
Pakaluk: Is this not religious Is this apathy
Andrew: Again, I would hesitate to call it religious—superstitious might
be more like it. But in either case, let us also remember what Socrates does
after hearing the “word of god,” as it were: he attempts to falsify it.
Pakaluk: As a way of proving it right!
Andrew: Yes, by his (apologetic) account, he had faith that the oracle would
turn out to have some deep meaning. But I would not compare this faith
to that of a Pentacostalist, or of Abraham at the alter. Rather, I would call
it a kind of practical trust—similar to, for example, a scientist’s faith that
the universe is governed by universal laws.
Pakaluk: “A scientist’s faith” Listen to yourself!
Pakaluk
Andrew: All our systems of belief rest on axioms. In some ways, the
scientific method is a prime example of this. Without agreeing on certain
deep, unquestioned tenets, scientists could not communicate; in fact, they
could not do anything that anyone would recognize as “science.”
Pakaluk: And what, exactly, does a scientist believe that allows her to do
science
Andrew: The list is too long to name, but I have already mentioned
universality. This will serve as an example. The scientist must believe that
a law of physics discovered in her lab—assuming it is replicable, falsifiable
49