The Manhattan Project, 400 BC

       The early atomists were onto something. They correctly stated that the world is composed of imperceptibly small, indivisible particles. Because of the indivisible portion of the theory, these particles were dubbed "a-tomos" or "uncuttable." The atomists understood that all matter was composed of atoms, and that matter is not capable of moving through other matter. In other words, when matter contacts other matter, it must displace it. As a result, for anything to be able to move, there has to exist something called "void." This void is empty space containing "what-is-not." They also observed that some matter, when mixed with other matter, would become inseparable. The early atomists referred to this as "entangling."

       It is amazing how much this resembles the modern scientific view of reality. Obviously, there are some imperfections to their theory, but with no way of testing it, they achieved truly remarkable accuracy. Now, some could argue that this similarity is merely coincidence, that the atomist theory was a response to the problems and logical insufficiency of the competing ideas of their contemporaries, and that no kind of modern scientific theorizing occurred. I would respond to this argument by critiquing the narrow perception of science and scientific methods.

       Why is it that a theory must begin with a hypothesis, then proceed to a period of investigation and then conclude with a communication of findings? The fact is, modern science is heavily biased toward deductive reasoning. The more I study of classical philosophy, the less I believe this bias is justified. Deductive reasoning is a luxury in which technology allows the modern world to indulge. The ease of data collection, data analysis, collaboration and dissemination of theories afforded by technology has certainly made the pursuit of "scientific" truth (for lack of a better term) more of a specific science than it ever has been before. That said, I repudiate the idea that this ease makes modern truth seeking superior to the efforts of the classical thinkers. Yes, the atomists had to take more of an inductive approach, and yes, inductive reasoning is vulnerable to different types of fallacies than deductive reasoning is, but, as we can clearly see, the atomists were able to use inductive reasoning with great accuracy.

      Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are both imperfect and incomplete. Inductive reasoning may be more of an art, while deductive reasoning may be more of a science, but neither one is more useful than the other. In fact, I would argue that the pursuit of the truth is at its best when these two types of reasoning are employed in concert.

       Our technologically granted advantages in deductive reasoning do not replace the art form of inductive reasoning. Knowing this, it should change the way we go about trying to explain the world, and should definitely challenge the "scientific arrogance" that pervades our society.