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."
Chief Scientist, Planetary Science Lab (retired), Lockheed Martin
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Dr. Rizzi's book was an eye-opener for me. At last I have found someone who can help me to appreciate properly the insights of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. For so long I have heard that no real science preceded Galileo --- but that was difficult to believe because I know we moderns have a tendency to underestimate those who have come before us. Now I understand more fully the important of Buridan and others to the FUNDAMENTALS of science, which are not done with a microscope but are done with careful use of the intellect. More important than that though is the proper understanding of knowledge and how science works, and how modern physics has in a real sense lost track of its roots, and in so doing has lost its real power. Read this book!
The title is misleading. It is not a serious attempt at the philosophy of science as the title would indicate. The title should either be "Catholicism before Science" or "Science through the eyes of Aristotle/St.Thomas Aquinas". Dr. Rizzi' epistemology is merely a rehashing, or rather forcing, of the metaphysics of Aristotle and St.Thomas Aquinas onto modern science with the overarching goal of supporting a Catholic worldview. It wouldn't be so bad if Dr. Rizzi would be more forward about his attempt at apologetics rather than pass off his frivolous work as a serious attempt at the philosophy of science. About the only thing that resembles a serious attempt at the philosophy of science in this work is his contrasting of ontology vs empiriometric theory. However, the rest of this work is riddled with breathtakingly bad reasoning.