Read the two key quotes (Descartes/Bacon): what point is being argued? What is meant by mathematically reducible motion?

(cf. String theory etc)

The real world is the world of bodies in mathematically reducible motions, and this means that the real world is a world of bodies moving in space and time. Mathematics is the door and the key to the sciencesFor the things of this world cannot be made known without a knowledge of mathematics. (Bacon)
The point being argued is that the external world is essentially mathematical, and that humans are restricted, or limited by their perceptual apparatus in terms of how they view what is the real world. The real world runs on mathematics, and everyday objects have quite complex mathematical properties. However, the point being made argues that we cant SEE that world of mathematics, which is a somewhat problematic, fundamental flaw in humans. A mathematically reducible motion is a motion or occurrence that can be taken apart and understood mathematically.

a) What was Descartes trying to achieve?

Descartes was trying to create a method in which to attain truth that reflected his understanding of the practices employed in science.

b) What, in this view, is the purpose of science?

To carefully collect observational data.

c) Why can science NOT merely be an amassing of observational data?

Because in science you can test/experiment to validate an idea/theory/observation

d) Why are scientific generalisations never logically justified?

Because they are reliant on observations of patterns of the past remaining the same in the future.

e) What principle regarding nature can be grasped a priori?

Uniformity of nature, Mathematics, Logic, God, Infinity, causation,

f) How does Hume criticise the a priori principle?

He says, effectively, that just because we are used to seeing a pattern(experience/something in our mind), doesnt mean that that experience/pattern is true in the external world. How can we say that what exists outside of our mind exists in our mind

g) What point does Spinoza make?

Spinoza makes the point that we only see patterns because of a defect in our knowledge. He says that we can affirm nothing certainly about the necessity or impossibility of this existence of a pattern. God however can see a link. Apparantly.

h) Why are deductive arguments hollow for empiricists?

Because they are vague. Example given in book: you know that if an thwack is a zak and all zaks are daks, then this thwack is a dak. This thwack is a dak must be true. This truth is grasped just by thinking about the structure of this deductive argument. But its seemingly a hollow truth, because you still have no idea what a thwack, or a zak or a dak is. Empiricisms stress on the need to refer ideas to experience seems right here, as long as we avoid treating the terms as names standing for exclusive sense impressions

Q18: Why is Hume against metaphysical speculation? What is part of that, according to

Hume? Is hye right in committing [it] to the flames?

Hume is against metaphysical speculation because empiricism claims that we know nothing outside of what we experience and observe. Metaphysical speculation is thought of as sophistry and illusion. Metaphysical arguments are impossible to prove and therefore I think Hume is right in committing it to the flames, because we will never learn anything from metaphysics as it will always be mere speculation.