Exploring the Viability of Science: A Philosophical Inquiry
Written on
Chapter 1: Is Science Achievable?
Is it absurd to question the feasibility of science while utilizing a laptop and sharing thoughts online? This inquiry is rarely posed by those engaged in scientific endeavors. While researchers may occasionally express frustration over unsuccessful projects, they seldom ponder the fundamental possibility of their work. Active scientists generally do not indulge in metaphysical doubts.
The scientific process is inherently chaotic and collaborative, involving numerous individuals, each with distinct interpretations of empirical data and theoretical frameworks. This diversity of opinion exists within a broader structural framework that facilitates the comparison of perspectives, the assessment of positions, and the evaluation of arguments. It operates under the belief that answers can be discovered, that the universe is not subject to whimsical deities, and that, through diligent effort, a theoretical framework can emerge that accurately reflects reality.
As scientists age, they may begin to contemplate the nature of their lifelong work. Older physicists, having delved deeply into their fields, may find themselves venturing into metaphysical discussions, often met with amusement from professional philosophers.
Section 1.1: The Nature of Knowledge
The inquiry into whether science genuinely offers us knowledge about reality is significant. Does science provide us with true insights, or is it merely an approximation that attempts to make sense of appearances with our current understanding? Alternatively, could it simply be a narrative of the Enlightenment that suppresses other valid perspectives? How well can our conceptual frameworks map onto actual reality, and to what extent do these frameworks shape that reality? Shakespeare suggested that “there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” Do Hamlet's reflections impact the external world?
Subsection 1.1.1: The Relativist Perspective
A prevalent notion in postmodern and social constructivist circles is that altering our thoughts can transform our reality. Sociologist Vivien Burr asserts that “the idea that there is one version of events that is true (making all others false) is… in direct opposition to the central idea of social constructivism, i.e., that there exists no ‘truth’ but only numerous constructions of the world, and which one receives the stamp of ‘truth’ depends upon culturally and historically specific factors.” Since truth is elusive, all viewpoints gain equal validity.
Section 1.2: The Implications of Relativism
Such relativistic views often align with a humanistic political agenda. If truth is nonexistent and all perspectives are equally legitimate, then the aim of social science shifts away from uncovering the truth about individuals or society. Instead, it becomes a pragmatic endeavor focused on effecting change for those who require it.
However, this argument falters as it fails to provide a basis for determining who genuinely requires change. If facts are absent, why should social equity be prioritized over authoritarian regimes? Is raw political power the only determining factor? Some may argue for a moral obligation to assist others, yet without “facts of the matter,” such claims rest solely on emotional responses. Good intentions are insufficient; effective actions must align with the reality of the situation.
Chapter 2: The Relationship Between Morality and Knowledge
The renowned scientist and humanist Jacob Bronowski once stated: “There are two things that make up morality. One is the sense that other people matter... The other is a clear judgment of what is at stake: a cold knowledge, without a trace of deception, of precisely what will happen to oneself and to others if one plays either the hero or the coward.” Thus, intellect and compassion must work in tandem.
Extreme postmodern and constructivist viewpoints advocate for a return to magical thinking, suggesting that reality can be manipulated through our interpretations, regardless of their truth. Anthropologist Robin Horton highlights this dilemma, presenting two intellectual paths: one perpetuates a magical worldview where ideas shape reality, leading to a multitude of realities based on varying beliefs, while the other posits the existence of a stable reality independent of human whims.
Ironically, the postmodern rejection of science by some progressives does not pave the way for an egalitarian society but rather reverts to authoritarianism, reminiscent of ancient magical belief systems. In the Bronze Age, truth was intertwined with powerful authority figures — poets, kings, and prophets — who shaped and maintained societal narratives. In this relativistic framework, the only available truths depend on these authoritative voices.
Section 2.1: The Consequences of Authoritarian Relativism
This extreme relativism and authoritarianism are interconnected. Those willing to assert truth absolve their followers from critical thought. For instance, I recently dreamt of a presidential candidate, reminiscent of Donald Trump, asserting that “Once I win, there will be no more elections. No one will endure lengthy campaigns or negative advertisements again.”
Questioning the feasibility of science harks back to the roots of philosophical inquiry. In the late fourth century BCE, the sophist Gorgias posited that (1) nothing exists; (2) even if something existed, no one could know it; and (3) even if something existed and someone could know it, they could not convey that knowledge. If Gorgias’ views hold, science becomes impossible, leaving only opinions devoid of a means to differentiate between them beyond their pragmatic utility.
In contrast, the potential for science hinges on three fundamental assumptions: (1) Ontological — a natural order exists; (2) Epistemological — the human mind can comprehend this order; and (3) Rhetorical — clear communication of this understanding is achievable. These principles guide the philosophy of science, prompting inquiries into the status of theoretical entities, methods for acquiring scientific knowledge, and valid forms of scientific communication.
Despite science's inability to claim absolute truth, it can yield technologies that function remarkably well, sometimes becoming so entrenched in accepted thought that they go unquestioned. However, scientific theories should never be regarded as absolute truths. The term "theory" stems from the Greek theoria, meaning a perspective or viewpoint, suggesting that while scientific theories offer insights into reality, they remain distinct from the reality they aim to portray.
If this distinction holds, why should scientific knowledge be privileged? What sets it apart from other interpretations of reality are the rigorous criteria it must meet for acceptance. These criteria ensure that any theory adhering to them represents our best approximation of reality, making it a reliable basis for decision-making. Nevertheless, it is essential to remain vigilant about the nature of this fit to reality, as it allows social and corporate entities to challenge theories perceived as threats to their interests. In a non-magical realm, reliance on authority figures, even in science, is insufficient. Personal responsibility is vital. While truth may liberate us, we must scrutinize what kind of freedom is promised and whether that truth is genuinely accurate.