Gill’s Answer To Locke--Science Is About Method And Logical Structure—Not Facts

The Catholic Church condemned the heliocentric view of the universe as “false and contrary to Scripture” (1616) and Galileo, after publishing his most famous work, “Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems,” was found guilty of heresy and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.


Action And Knowledge Shared A Natural Unity
The Real World--The Subjective World

In order to see how scientific results were produced through the
application of method and analytical thought, "one only had to look at
how Kepler" according to Gill, "cast his solution to the problem of
Mars in geometric form, or how Galileo extended the methods of
Archimedes (his work in hydraulics and mechanics) to the dynamics
dealing with momentum and gravity." Newton's Principia was also
written like a geometry text, and that also was an instructive example
of how method and analytical thought worked together to produce
scientific results. According to Gill, knowledge meant structure;
"systematically ordered structures originating in social or
mathematical milieus." The formal sciences with their axiomatic
deductive arrangements demonstrated that idea. But, so too did human
behavior.

According to Gill, action and knowledge shared a natural unity.
Actions expressed knowledge, not as the "sum of accumulated facts,"
but more as a form of developed action. "Education," Gill was fond of
saying, "totally over estimated the importance of gathering facts."
The empirical disciplines were based on the mistaken assumption that
their methods were scientific. Because of that assumption, the "hard
sciences" became separated from the humanities by bottomless abyss. By
throwing out the worldview of "common sense," Dr. Gill was
reestablishing science and the humanities on same "playing field."
Once all was on equal footing, he was free to pursue his pet
project—applying analytical tools to ethical behavior. His mission,
academically speaking, was to take ethics and morality out of "the
circus sideshow antics of the moral relativists," and put them
squarely back where they belonged—in the rarefied air of logical
necessity.

Well I'm not going to settle that debate here. Whose morality are we
talking about anyhow-- the guy's with the "biggest stick," or the guy
promising eternal life? Most likely our ex-President, Mr. Nixon, would
say, "Hit first, and be ethical latter!" Dr. Gill would say that
doesn't make sense, and would jot down a few theorems to prove it. The
debate goes on!