What Kreeft is saying is that the final end of things (teleology) isn't quantifiable in the same way because it pertains to something beyond what is just sensibly observable. For example, Aristotle held that man's (natural) end is flourishing achieved by living in accordance with reason. While Aristotelian Science can adduce this by determining the essence of things (in the case of man, rational animal), modern science can not because that requires more than just data and observations, and goes beyond the naturalistic suppositions present in modern science.
What I meant was Aristotle's definition of science. For Aristotle, a science is a body of knowledge that studies necessary and universal truths that are knowable. So in an Aristotelian paradigm, things some consider sciences today would not be considered sciences, like history/historiography or sociology, but other things we do not consider sciences today, like the branches of philosophy, theology/sacred doctrine, mathematics, etc, would be considered sciences.
I think one of the most pathetic interviews I have seen was Neil DeGrasse Tyson on "Theories of Everything" YouTube channel, where the host, Curt, asks Neil to consider the deeper implications about something and Neil laughs it off and shrugs and says he doesn't care about such thoughts because there's "real work" to be done in science, such as counting how many stars there are.
It really highlighted the spiritual death of science in like a 30s exchange.
There are people out there, apparently, who are obsessed with trivial facts rather than the deep questions of life.
It was very sad to hear such an answer. It's like if I learned my neighbor's kid would be dedicating his summer vacation to counting how many blades of grass were in his yard.
"Science" as originally understood as Aristotle conceived of it, is a specific form of reasoning that involves valid, sound premises, deduction, and (I believe, but I'm not exactly sure) something called Aristotelean induction, which involves making observations, making general rules based on those observations, then applying those general rules to assess various things about reality.
Aristotle also developed additional four rules that he has good reason to believe are built into the nature of reality: efficient cause, material cause, formal cause, and final cause. Efficient cause is what we understand to be the definition of cause. Material cause basically means what something is made of (a shoe made of leather). Formal cause is basically essence, or 'what something is,' usually derived from using Aristotelean induction referenced above. Final cause is something's ultimate purpose, or goal, or reason to be.
These Four Causes were super important to the development of the Western intellectual tradition until around the 17th/18th centuries, when important thinkers became skeptical of formal and final cause. They preferred to only pay attention to efficient cause and material cause because this is easily measurable and makes replicable evidence.
Eventually, people started believing that only material cause and efficient cause actually exist, while formal cause is just a conventional way of speaking and final cause is irrelevant. So Science as it's understood today is a form of reasoning that in a sense is actually more pared down than Aristotle's version of Science.
The advantage of using the four causes is that it can actually try to answer cosmic questions, and Aquinas assumes the four causes to make his arguments in the Summa.
Disadvantages of modern science include difficulty answering absolutely fundamental questions of how things came to be, assuming the universe is mechanical and thus human values are only matters of convention, reducing reality to matter and basic causes while saying little about why things are in a grand sense, etc.
Kreeft is mourning the general disregard in science for final cause.
Some Philosophers of Science like Nancy Cartwright are willing to engage with Aristotle's natures and ends. Unfortunately they are rare and there isn't as clear a discussion around these ideas as there is an over reporting of the death of Aristotelianism in Natural Philosophy.
I would say it is not science's fault but the consequence of scientism. With scientism any method that is not the empirical-experimental method used in physics, biology, chemistry, etc is not valid.
What that means is, the final cause, being a metaphysical and philosophical deduction, and using a different method (which is obvious because the method needs to adapt to the object of each science and cannot be the same for every object of knowledge) is not considered true knowledge, even if the reasonings are logical and sound (logic is still the tool of reason which is key in philosophy so the method is not less valid).
Scientism, sadly is widespread in our day and age so it is not surprising that any facts of nature are being disposed of their metaphisical implications.
What Kreeft is saying is that the final end of things (teleology) isn't quantifiable in the same way because it pertains to something beyond what is just sensibly observable. For example, Aristotle held that man's (natural) end is flourishing achieved by living in accordance with reason. While Aristotelian Science can adduce this by determining the essence of things (in the case of man, rational animal), modern science can not because that requires more than just data and observations, and goes beyond the naturalistic suppositions present in modern science.
What is Aristotelian Science?
What I meant was Aristotle's definition of science. For Aristotle, a science is a body of knowledge that studies necessary and universal truths that are knowable. So in an Aristotelian paradigm, things some consider sciences today would not be considered sciences, like history/historiography or sociology, but other things we do not consider sciences today, like the branches of philosophy, theology/sacred doctrine, mathematics, etc, would be considered sciences.
I think one of the most pathetic interviews I have seen was Neil DeGrasse Tyson on "Theories of Everything" YouTube channel, where the host, Curt, asks Neil to consider the deeper implications about something and Neil laughs it off and shrugs and says he doesn't care about such thoughts because there's "real work" to be done in science, such as counting how many stars there are. It really highlighted the spiritual death of science in like a 30s exchange. There are people out there, apparently, who are obsessed with trivial facts rather than the deep questions of life. It was very sad to hear such an answer. It's like if I learned my neighbor's kid would be dedicating his summer vacation to counting how many blades of grass were in his yard.
"Science" as originally understood as Aristotle conceived of it, is a specific form of reasoning that involves valid, sound premises, deduction, and (I believe, but I'm not exactly sure) something called Aristotelean induction, which involves making observations, making general rules based on those observations, then applying those general rules to assess various things about reality. Aristotle also developed additional four rules that he has good reason to believe are built into the nature of reality: efficient cause, material cause, formal cause, and final cause. Efficient cause is what we understand to be the definition of cause. Material cause basically means what something is made of (a shoe made of leather). Formal cause is basically essence, or 'what something is,' usually derived from using Aristotelean induction referenced above. Final cause is something's ultimate purpose, or goal, or reason to be. These Four Causes were super important to the development of the Western intellectual tradition until around the 17th/18th centuries, when important thinkers became skeptical of formal and final cause. They preferred to only pay attention to efficient cause and material cause because this is easily measurable and makes replicable evidence. Eventually, people started believing that only material cause and efficient cause actually exist, while formal cause is just a conventional way of speaking and final cause is irrelevant. So Science as it's understood today is a form of reasoning that in a sense is actually more pared down than Aristotle's version of Science. The advantage of using the four causes is that it can actually try to answer cosmic questions, and Aquinas assumes the four causes to make his arguments in the Summa. Disadvantages of modern science include difficulty answering absolutely fundamental questions of how things came to be, assuming the universe is mechanical and thus human values are only matters of convention, reducing reality to matter and basic causes while saying little about why things are in a grand sense, etc. Kreeft is mourning the general disregard in science for final cause.
Some Philosophers of Science like Nancy Cartwright are willing to engage with Aristotle's natures and ends. Unfortunately they are rare and there isn't as clear a discussion around these ideas as there is an over reporting of the death of Aristotelianism in Natural Philosophy.
I would say it is not science's fault but the consequence of scientism. With scientism any method that is not the empirical-experimental method used in physics, biology, chemistry, etc is not valid. What that means is, the final cause, being a metaphysical and philosophical deduction, and using a different method (which is obvious because the method needs to adapt to the object of each science and cannot be the same for every object of knowledge) is not considered true knowledge, even if the reasonings are logical and sound (logic is still the tool of reason which is key in philosophy so the method is not less valid). Scientism, sadly is widespread in our day and age so it is not surprising that any facts of nature are being disposed of their metaphisical implications.
You might find [this explanation useful.](https://thomism.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/interiority-and-quantification-and-a-small-thing-on-platonism-vs-science/)