Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Uniformitarianism Versus Naturalism

VIEWS: 31 PAGES: 4

Summary: Uniformitarianism is a useful guiding principle and is applicable to all natural laws across time and space but naturalism prevails over uniformitarianism. It is not possible to lay down law defining nature and context of things and events.

More Info
									Uniformitarianism Versus Naturalism
Summary: Uniformitarianism is a useful guiding principle and is applicable to all
natural laws across time and space but naturalism prevails over
uniformitarianism. It is not possible to lay down law defining nature and context
of things and events.

The idea of uniformitarianism has inspired consciously or subconsciously
philosophers, scientist, societies and individuals at all times and at all places.
Uniformitarianism is the assumption that same laws and processes that operate
in universe now, have operated in the past and have universal applicability.

Doctrine of uniformitarianism was first explicitly suggested by James Hutton
(1785) as an axiom and was popularized by Charles Lyell (1830) through his book
‘Principles of Geology’. Lyell’s uniformitarianism was based on the assumptions
that seemed most plausible to him and included uniformity of law as well as
uniformity of things and events (Substantive uniformitarianism). Neither James
Hutton nor Charles Lyell ever attempted to define ‘law’. But from their work it
appears that by law they meant ‘methodology’.

As per Charles Lyell, the axiom of uniformity of law is essential in order for
scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the observable past. Charles Lyell
said that the constancy of natural laws must be assumed in our study of the past,
because if we do not, then we can’t make meaningful prediction about the past.

Stephen J Gould (1965) in his first scientific paper “Is Uniformitarianism
Necessary” upheld uniformity of natural laws across time and space but rightly
dismissed the idea of substantive uniformitarianism.

The author in his article “What Does Not Change” has held that natural laws and
fundamental nature of things and events do not change. Visit
http://sciencengod.com/blog/what-does-not-change/ . This is essential, for
existence of natural order and because otherwise there can’t be any
comprehensive, consistent, coherent natural explanation of natural phenomena
that allows us to understand the present and predict the past and the future.
Impact of uniformitarianism: Doctrine of uniformitarianism has impacted our
lives generally, in myriad of ways, many of which have still not come to the level
of conscious perception.

Idea of uniformity of laws finds substantial support in legal domain, despite lack
of precise understanding of nature of law. The author has defined law in his book
but that definition is strictly applicable only to natural laws and not to man-made
laws. Uniformitarianism has given rise to such notions as equality before law, case
law or law of precedent, uniformity of legal procedure, state/society governed by
law etc. All these notions are only partially correct.

    1. Equality before law is often granted as a fundamental right in many
       countries but is undermined by plethora of statutory laws and judicial
       interpretation. It was bound to happen because it ignores natural
       differences among things and events that preclude equality. It amounts to
       attempt to forcefully bridge natural differences among things and events
       by the agency of law. For example men and women are naturally
       different, so how can they be equalized by any law. No two things can be
       treated as equals if there are substantive differences between them.
       Therefore in real life situations substantive differences between nature
       and context of things and events have to be accounted for.
    2. Law of precedent, alternatively known as ‘case law’ wherein present
       issues are decided in conformity with past settlements. A precedent can
       only be an illustration of application of a particular law but does not
       become a law by itself. To be a law it has to satisfy the definition of law
       and therefore can’t be enforced as a law. In the event of being guided by
       a precedent, substantive differences in nature of things and events have
       to be kept in mind. Notion of case laws commits a society to dogmatism
       or traditionalism, i.e. whatever has been upheld in the past must hold
       good today
    3. Uniformity of Process or elevation of legal procedure to the level of law
       meaning thereby that issues can be decided, disputes can be resolved and
       rights adjudicated on the basis of compliance with legal procedure alone,
       irrespective of material facts and legal rights. So enjoyment of each and
       every legally conferred right is subject to fulfillment of large number of
   conditions, often leading to denial of right. This to the sufferer means
   breach of promise by the state.
4. State/Society governed by law: This is another popular misconception
   that any state or society can be managed on the basis of law alone. To
   govern a state/society one requires goals and objectives directed
   management. This in turn requires order, organization and system. So,
   law alone can never be sufficient to govern any society. In fact any society
   has to be governed by its goals and objectives but in accordance with law.
   Any law can be wrongly used if its enforcement is not disciplined by its
   goals and objectives.
5. Gradualism is another popular misconception derived from
   uniformitarianism. All the natural events do not happen gradually and
   linearly. Phenomenon of punctuated evolution is well known. Fossil
   records bear testimony to punctuated evolution. Nonlinearity in physical
   events is well known and is generally designated as ‘singularity’ by
   physicists. Any change of state or phase with concomitant change in
   applicable rules is again contrary to gradualism.

Limitations of Uniformitarianism: A law is nothing more than a mandatory
condition. Nature can meet this condition in myriad of ways. For example
there are more than 2 million known plant and animal species, all satisfying
definition of life but in ways characteristic of particular species.

Therefore, it is not possible to lay down law defining nature and context of
things and events. This can only be inferred from natural history of things
and events. Hence Stephan J Gould has rightly dismissed substantive
uniformitarianism.

Hence in real life situations, one can’t act on the basis of law alone; one also
has to factor in nature and context of things and events. Moreover, no law is
absolute. Nature’s ingenuity can always devise ways and means to meet its
goals and objectives in compliance with natural laws.

Summarizing, all above uniformitarianism is a useful guiding principle but its
limitations must be understood. There can’t be any entity such as society
   governed by law. A society has to be governed by its goals and objectives in
   accordance with laws.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the
book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins
with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains
cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life
and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary
concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only
book that deals with subject matter of origin of nature and universe beginning
from null (Zero or nothing). This article is inspired by author’s understanding of
`nature.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

     http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.htm

								
To top