What do you think?
Rate this book
The Science Before Science: A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century
What is the key to the truth and power of science? Would a theory of everything disprove the soul? Is matter all there is? Can I keep science and my common sense? Can we travel back in time? Is it evolution or creation or ...? Will scientists ever make a man? Will we ever create artificial intelligence? If so, what does that say about my worth? What is the ultimate source of our intellectual malaise? Anthony Rizzi, a distinguished physicist, answers these questions and more. "What a terrific book!!...The time is now. Philosophers, scientists, and the educated reader will profit enormously from this book." -Ralph McInerny, University of Notre Dame philosophy professor, Gifford Lecturer "There is a pressing need for Anthony Rizzi's book, which reveals the link between science and man's deepest questions in a bold, clear and truthful way. His book is full of insights that readers will relish and want to read again and again to plumb their depths." -Marcus Grodi, host of The Journey Home, EWTN "The Science Before Science ...provides much needed perspective." -Joseph Martin, Chief Scientist, Planetary Science Lab (retired), Lockheed Martin
412 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
13 people are currently reading
143 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 11, 2012
After having read William A. Wallace's excellent
The Modeling of Nature: Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis
and other solid philosophy of science and physics books, I thought I knew everything there is to know on this subject, but Dr. Anthony Rizzi's book has proven me wrong--very wrong! I love it! His style and his precision in identifying what he calls "intellectual malaise" is truly a breath of fresh air for me, a beginning graduate student in physics who has struggled with some of his same early questions and doubts about the whole scientific endeavor itself, like: Is science being conducted properly? What are its aims? What are its limitations? How does science accord with commonsense and reason? Why is science so seemingly disconnected with reality at times? Is subjectivism ingrained into modern science? Etc. etc.
If you have a science background and need an excellent cure to your "intellectual malaise," read Rizzi. He's good. I think it's even better than Dr. Stephen M. Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith , which is a good book, but its audience seems to be more the general public.
To address some misunderstandings and prejudices some reviewers seem to be bringing to Rizzi's book, please read the following that I've written to address them:
I am curious, disappointed SBS readers, what you think of the writings of the early 20th century French thermodynamicist, historian, and philosopher of physics Pierre Duhem, e.g., his The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory , The Evolution Of Mechanics , and Mixture and Chemical Combination (Le mixte) . Duhem argues that modern physics "saves the phenomena" rather than metaphysically explains matter. Physical theory asymptotically approaches over time a "natural classification" of empirical laws. Modern physics is prior to metaphysics (metascience) in the order of our knowing; the natural sciences are the foundation for metaphysics (cf. this).
Consequently, in Le mixte , Duhem wrote:
"Current physics tends to recover a certain form of peripateticism" [i.e., Aristotelianism]. (P. Duhem, Le mixte ).
Duhem also wrote in Le mixte :
Also, Rizzi certainly does not "undervalue and misjudge his own profession," as one reviewer has said. If he did, he certainly wouldn't have published his book. He in fact judges modern physics correctly because he identifies its methodological limits and realizes that modern physics is not metaphysics (cf. "Physics & Metaphysics," by Duhem). Rizzi's proposal is a return to the senses, from which all intellectual knowledge originates, as Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa 1.84.8c:
Lastly, this article explains more where Rizzi is coming from intellectually; see also this page of resources.
Vide also the ICU course.
If you have a science background and need an excellent cure to your "intellectual malaise," read Rizzi. He's good. I think it's even better than Dr. Stephen M. Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith , which is a good book, but its audience seems to be more the general public.
To address some misunderstandings and prejudices some reviewers seem to be bringing to Rizzi's book, please read the following that I've written to address them:
I am curious, disappointed SBS readers, what you think of the writings of the early 20th century French thermodynamicist, historian, and philosopher of physics Pierre Duhem, e.g., his The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory , The Evolution Of Mechanics , and Mixture and Chemical Combination (Le mixte) . Duhem argues that modern physics "saves the phenomena" rather than metaphysically explains matter. Physical theory asymptotically approaches over time a "natural classification" of empirical laws. Modern physics is prior to metaphysics (metascience) in the order of our knowing; the natural sciences are the foundation for metaphysics (cf. this).
Consequently, in Le mixte , Duhem wrote:
"Current physics tends to recover a certain form of peripateticism" [i.e., Aristotelianism]. (P. Duhem, Le mixte ).
Duhem also wrote in Le mixte :
Contemporary physics, too, puts an exact logical analysis of the notions furnished by experience at the foundations of all theory. It endeavours by such analysis not only to mark with precision the essential elements that compose each of these notions but also to meticulously eliminate all parasitic elements that mechanical hypotheses have gradually introduced."The Nobel Prize-winning quantum physics co-inventor Werner Heisenberg corroborates in his Physics and Philosophy (online for free here) what Duhem wrote. Heisenberg said that the probability wave concept in quantum mechanics "was a quantitative version of the concept of 'potentia' in Aristotelian philosophy" (p. 41) and that the "concept of the soul for instance in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas was more natural and less forced than the Cartesian concept of 'res cogitans,' even if we are convinced that the laws of physics and chemistry are strictly valid in living organisms." (p. 80).
"Little by little, however, by the very effect of this development, mechanical hypotheses came up against obstacles on all sides which were more and more numerous and difficult to surmount. The atomic, Cartesian, and Newtonian systems gradually lost favour with physicists and made way for methods analogous to those advocated by Aristotle. Present-day physics is tending to return to a peripatetic form. (P. Duhem, Le mixte).
Also, Rizzi certainly does not "undervalue and misjudge his own profession," as one reviewer has said. If he did, he certainly wouldn't have published his book. He in fact judges modern physics correctly because he identifies its methodological limits and realizes that modern physics is not metaphysics (cf. "Physics & Metaphysics," by Duhem). Rizzi's proposal is a return to the senses, from which all intellectual knowledge originates, as Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa 1.84.8c:
The aim of natural science is that which appears primarily in sense perception ... for the natural scientist does not seek to know the nature of a stone or of a horse except in order to know the reasons of those things which are perceived by sense. For it is clear that there cannot be a perfect judgment ... of natural science concerning natural things if sensible things are ignored.If String Theory ignores sensible things (is not experimentally verifiable), then how would that help us advance our knowledge of physical matter?
Lastly, this article explains more where Rizzi is coming from intellectually; see also this page of resources.
Vide also the ICU course.
March 3, 2017
A difficult book. My brother-in-law read and thought it profound. I thought it was going to be a history of science, instead it discussed the presuppositions needed before science can be done. What made it difficult was Rizzi's vocabulary. He used words, such as "accident" and took it out of its common use when he could have used the word substance just as easily. The book is based on the philosophy of St. Thomas and is used for a long argument for the existence of God.
October 23, 2022
I took this out again because Goodreads didn't show me my old review. The book looked familiar, and I was right. It's one of my very few one-star reviews.
May 29, 2011
This book is an epistemological nightmare. Rizzi asks the reader to take on radical and unfounded views, sometimes without even a loose explanation or logical construction beyond "That makes sense, right?"
Even though I disagree with nearly every tenet of Rizzi's philosophy, I still would give it a respectable two or three star rating if it weren't for:
* His obvious lack of a copyeditor;
* His entire disregard for even addressing other points of view;
* His attempt to tackle complex issues with a poorly developed philosophical toolbox; and, most importantly,
* His total lack of logical flow or structure beyond asking the reader to accept things on his authority.
Though no doubt a great physicist, Rizzi seems to have lost his notion of rigor in trying to invent a new realist approach to the philosophy of science. His biggest flaw, in my opinion, is in his confusion of the nature of language; he oftentimes seems to think that he can pull universal truth out of the English language.
Unfortunately for him, the English language is neither an authority on nature nor a system he's totally mastered himself.
All in all, avoid this book -- especially if you don't have the scientific grounding to understand why it's wrong on your own.
Even though I disagree with nearly every tenet of Rizzi's philosophy, I still would give it a respectable two or three star rating if it weren't for:
* His obvious lack of a copyeditor;
* His entire disregard for even addressing other points of view;
* His attempt to tackle complex issues with a poorly developed philosophical toolbox; and, most importantly,
* His total lack of logical flow or structure beyond asking the reader to accept things on his authority.
Though no doubt a great physicist, Rizzi seems to have lost his notion of rigor in trying to invent a new realist approach to the philosophy of science. His biggest flaw, in my opinion, is in his confusion of the nature of language; he oftentimes seems to think that he can pull universal truth out of the English language.
Unfortunately for him, the English language is neither an authority on nature nor a system he's totally mastered himself.
All in all, avoid this book -- especially if you don't have the scientific grounding to understand why it's wrong on your own.
June 7, 2016
I love what Dr. Rizzi tried to do in this book by fitting classic thinkers into the context of modern physics. He could benefit from a more conversational tone or more down to earth examples though. Also, he may have stayed too true to his sources, because I think he could have modernized some of the classical terms used without dumbing down the material. But aside from tone and terms, the content is outstanding, and Dr. Rizzi's credentials are impressive and lend him credibility when he deflates some common puffed up claims by other physicists. The key take away for me is to always acknowledge the distinction between a mathematical explanation of reality (empirometric, i.e., symbols and equations that approximate nature by making reductive simplifications) and an actual explanation of reality (ontological, i.e., this is what is actually happening). Dr. Rizzi warns against the nonsensical claims people and some scientists can make when confusing one for the other. Good book.
November 3, 2012
Fun little book. At first I thought Rizzi just liked the sound of his own voice (in his head as he wrote this book?). Towards the end I came to realize just how passionate he is about incorporating philsophy into modern day science. Bravo.
May 26, 2009
Thinking for beginners and students.
Want to read
January 11, 2011About the need for philosophy, to root science in truth
November 14, 2023
Edit: 2023. I will be taking time to re-read this book since it has been 11 years since my last reading of it. As such I am removing the old review.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 21, 2018
I read this in a book club and I learned a lot and I thought it was pretty interesting. I think it's a very important book especially for the times we live in, but it was a pretty tough read and some concepts were difficult to grasp. I don't think I would have chose to read this on my own outside of a book club, and I think the guidance and input from the book club was necessary to understanding a lot of the material.
August 30, 2017
Be sure to read the preface/forward/note before starting Chapter 1.
November 26, 2015
I thought this book would be about epistemology or the philosophy of science. In some ways I was right, in others I was terribly wrong.
Stuff I liked about this book:
The font is nice.
His ideas are consistent throughout the book.
Stuff I did not like:
Anthony Rizzi needs a better editor. There were a number of glaring spelling errors throughout the book, and he called THGTTG The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe. This is still not enough to give someone a one though, so I shall continue.
He uses his philosophy to foist the existence of God and angels upon reality. This guy is a physicist, so I figured it would be some kind of book about the limits of scientific knowledge, not some kind of Apologist letter championing the ideas of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.
I thought physics was a science. This is what I was told back when I was a little kid. Now, isn't a science something where you use empirical data to prove things? Sure there are theoretical physicists, but they still learn all the math and stuff to find ideas that mesh with reality. Rizzi builds castles in the air by postulating the existence of supernatural things and then uses science against itself. Or so I believe.
So...that's pretty much it. I got to the point where he was talking about time dilation and special relativity.
I learned some things, but mostly that the Middle Ages weren't as backwards as I always thought they were.
Stuff I liked about this book:
The font is nice.
His ideas are consistent throughout the book.
Stuff I did not like:
Anthony Rizzi needs a better editor. There were a number of glaring spelling errors throughout the book, and he called THGTTG The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe. This is still not enough to give someone a one though, so I shall continue.
He uses his philosophy to foist the existence of God and angels upon reality. This guy is a physicist, so I figured it would be some kind of book about the limits of scientific knowledge, not some kind of Apologist letter championing the ideas of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.
I thought physics was a science. This is what I was told back when I was a little kid. Now, isn't a science something where you use empirical data to prove things? Sure there are theoretical physicists, but they still learn all the math and stuff to find ideas that mesh with reality. Rizzi builds castles in the air by postulating the existence of supernatural things and then uses science against itself. Or so I believe.
So...that's pretty much it. I got to the point where he was talking about time dilation and special relativity.
I learned some things, but mostly that the Middle Ages weren't as backwards as I always thought they were.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews