Science and the limits of human knowledge [Archive I]

xoc

June 24, 2003, 01:55 AM

Science is distinguished best from religion in that it in many instances it involves a practicle rather than speculative kind of philosophy. Science must be shaped and judged by it's ability to evaluate/predict the observable phenomenon of the world, as measurable and physical. Religion presupposes a kind of metaphysics that is inherently unprovable objectively and speculative; one may "taste and see that the Lord is sweet" but this taste cannot be proven objectively to others, or passed around like a bottle of sweet wine.

Science may be at best a "useful fiction"(Nietzsche), but it is stilll a very useful fiction at least in it's endless unfoldments through technologies, medicine, etc. I used to consider that we should judge any philosophy/ideology by 2 factors, (metaphysical) "Truth" vs. usefulness(speculative vs. practicle). In the practicle sense, we cannot reach and know(or know we know) Metaphysical Truth as objective, so we are left with practicle application- the "usefulness" of the science:fiction, or the "usefulness" of religion as explanatory, beneficial to the inner being, etc. Science is wonderful for it's ability to translate directly into proof/disproof, we don't need to wait till we die to see the validity of a scientific theory(predictive and useful rather than relating absolute metaphysical "truth) unlike metaphysical dogmas, such proofs are found in the lab or in nature.

As we uncover more, we understand both more "what is" physically and also what we can't know- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is the best example I know of this, relating definite limitations to what is even possible to know of physics. The limitations of science in terms of offering moral foundations, or meaning to existence has already been well described, but it's use for us as a species and the endless discoveries ahead of us pertaining to the natural "sphere" is still in it's mere infancy. Both religion and science are branches of the "Philosophy" tree, so they share the same characteristics found in tree itself; ways of interpretting reality in ways testable empirically or logically.

Vorkosigan

June 24, 2003, 04:18 AM

Hmmm...tell you what I think. The most touching faith here is not in science, but in Kuhn. Abuse of Kuhn is perhaps the number one intellectual fault in modern thought.

Vorkosigan

DoubleDutchy

June 24, 2003, 09:32 AM

the analogy Originally posted by xoc

Science may be at best a "useful fiction"(Nietzsche), but it is stilll a very useful fiction at least in it's endless unfoldments through technologies, medicine, etc. I used to consider that we should judge any philosophy/ideology by 2 factors, (metaphysical) "Truth" vs. usefulness(speculative vs. practicle). In the practicle sense, we cannot reach and know(or know we know) Metaphysical Truth as objective, so we are left with practicle application- the "usefulness" of the science:fiction, or the "usefulness" of religion as explanatory, beneficial to the inner being, etc. Science is wonderful for it's ability to translate directly into proof/disproof, we don't need to wait till we die to see the validity of a scientific theory(predictive and useful rather than relating absolute metaphysical "truth) unlike metaphysical dogmas, such proofs are found in the lab or in nature.

Its 'usefulness' is questionable I guess. (In saying so I willingly take the risk to be stoned to death, I know..) Science based technology has been around now for about 200 years. It has ru�ned large parts of the biosphere at an ever increasing speed; it is relying on ever scarcer ressources that certainly are not going to last for another 200 years. Mankind has more then tenfolded and the explosion is still in full swing, biologically speaking we are a grasshopper swarm on the move, more then anything else. Technology, sure, has enhanced human power in an unprecedented way. Since we never could handle power anyway nobody should be surprised by the resulting mess. We exchanged our humble steadily lighting candle for a sky rocket and might very well , after a couple of ooohs and aaahs, end up completely in the dark. Limits of human knowledge need not bother us too much, there are other limits that need more urgently to be adressed.

exnihilo

June 24, 2003, 01:24 PM

Certainly, some very interesting and thought-provoking responses, thanks all.

Originally posted by fando
It's true that there's a certain amount of dogmatic adherence to established beliefs in science, but to claim that this makes science ultimately incapable of complete discovery is shortsighted and ignorant of the wider processes that overcome ingrained beliefs.

If one looks at the history of scientific inquiry one must accept the fact that scientific theory is an ever developing field of knowledge. The theories of the past are always being replaced by new ones. Thus, theories are constantly being proven wrong, sometimes completely, others just in part. What would make us think that the theories we have now won't also be proven wrong? for judging by the past we have reason to think it is very probable.

Hmmm...tell you what I think. The most touching faith here is not in science, but in Kuhn. Abuse of Kuhn is perhaps the number one intellectual fault in modern thought.

Perhaps, but surely not by me, I am only posing the question, I don't ever remember stating a claim for Kuhn as such. But it seems old MR. Kuhn's ideas make people uncomfortable, Feyerabend and Lakatos and even Popper are much for useful is questioning the pretentions of science anyway. Kuhn merely sheds light on the processes. Faith in, in the theory of relativity are different only by degrees. How many people can truly understand even the most basic ideas behind such a theory??? Very very few. But does it matter that people are accepting such theories as fact based on what amounts to blind faith. Certainly copernicus ran into to this problem once I believe. I am not attacking science, it is one of the best means of knowing that we have, but to believe that science can answer all of our questions and explain everything is quite another matter altogether.

Here is my question:

My question is how many accept the notion of unknowability and how many believe that Kuhn and co., are ultimately wrong and think that science can indeed provide all the answers that we seek sometime in the future?

Its 'usefulness' is questionable I guess. (In saying so I willingly take the risk to be stoned to death, I know..) Science based technology has been around now for about 200 years. It has ru�ned large parts of the biosphere at an ever increasing speed; it is relying on ever scarcer ressources that certainly are not going to last for another 200 years.

Good one, but I think speaking about the results of science and technology is another concern altogether. Whether or not scientific inquiry ultimately leads to destruction, which is certainly the case, has no bearing on the ability of science to answer our questions about the universe. Certainly, at least to this point, Religious zeal has caused far more suffering from the crusades and the inquisition to modern war. Besides, the advancement of technologies of death are most often employed in the service of religiously motivated dogma's and political beliefs anyway.

xoc

June 25, 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by DoubleDutchy
the analogy

Its 'usefulness' is questionable I guess. (In saying so I willingly take the risk to be stoned to death, I know..) Science based technology has been around now for about 200 years. It has ru�ned large parts of the biosphere at an ever increasing speed; it is relying on ever scarcer ressources that certainly are not going to last for another 200 years. Mankind has more then tenfolded and the explosion is still in full swing, biologically speaking we are a grasshopper swarm on the move, more then anything else. Technology, sure, has enhanced human power in an unprecedented way. Since we never could handle power anyway nobody should be surprised by the resulting mess. We exchanged our humble steadily lighting candle for a sky rocket and might very well , after a couple of ooohs and aaahs, end up completely in the dark. Limits of human knowledge need not bother us too much, there are other limits that need more urgently to be adressed.

Good point. Still I think you'll find that life in a country where technology and modern science fluorishes in abundance is generally more comfortable and pleasent then where it is still sorely lacking. So I am for technology and science. The reformation of the heart and society is also a good plan, yet nowhere near as realistic or plausible. So if our world can't know peace, at least let it know HDTV. IT's unlikely we are reaching any state of moral maturity as a whole so the admonishment to "wait till your older" before we take on new technologies is not going to work. We are mostly mature enough to handle it, we have had nuclear weapons for about 60 years and they have only been used in one war on two occasions still. Considering the level of pettiness and posturing to be found in world leaders and their rival, this is actually pretty impressive.

Deke

June 26, 2003, 07:00 PM

An interesting question, thanks for posting it. There doesn�t seem to be any reason to think that science is bounded in some universal way. That is, I cannot think of a reason why, given enough time, human beings couldn�t investigate and theorize about much/most/all of the natural phenomena we are capable of perceiving (either directly or indirectly). Put otherwise, there seems no reason that the method of science cannot be employed to generate an explanatory model for every natural occurrence, thing, etc. If we had superfast space ships and a massive budget, we could be doing this right now.

Now clearly, science is limited to the domain of nature � which is why scientific �proof� or �disproof� for supernatural notions, like God, is impossible. As well, it seems difficult is to imagine that science could ever provide meaningful answers for questions such as �How should I treat my neighbor?� or �How can I let my girlfriend down easy?� We may at some point be able to reduce, and therefore �explain�, all human emotions and interactions from a chemical and biologic perspective, but knowing the physics behind feeling ecstatic is not as pleasant as feeling ecstatic�so �feeling� ecstatic is a better model for ecstasy than is its scientific explanation.

MHO,

Deke

paul30

July 2, 2003, 03:14 PM

Kant believed that because we are bound by our perceptual apparatus, the external world (das Ding an sich) was ultimately unknowable. What we think we know, he said, is just our take on things, which may be miles off.

But he did believe there was an external world, and we weren't making it up.

I am not so sure there is an external world.

I think there is, but I really have grave doubts, expecially when things like George W. Bush happen.

And I tend to lean, at least occasionally, toward the notion that we do make it up--that is, that our take on the world is so limited and so conditioned by our needs and wants that in in essence we experience what we want or expect to experience, and the external world, if there is one, is hardly anything like what we see.

Vylo

July 2, 2003, 03:28 PM

My question is how many accept the notion of unknowability and how many believe that Kuhn and co., are ultimately wrong and think that science can indeed provide all the answers that we seek sometime in the future?

I accept ambiguity, but I believe much of it can be unraveled by science. By accepting unknowability (is that a real word?:p ), I am accepting that i do not know how much science will answer.

Clutch

July 2, 2003, 03:50 PM

The most touching faith here is not in science, but in Kuhn.LOL! Nailed it in one, Vork.

exnihilo

July 2, 2003, 11:26 PM

The most touching faith here is not in science, but in Kuhn.
Originally posted by Clutch
LOL! Nailed it in one, Vork. [/B]

The easiest answer is always denial, huh. But, still no answer to Kuhn's proposition, it's interesting to see that people are still unwilling or unable to deal with the serious issues that he, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos have raised and, instead, retreat to straw man arguments as a last resort.

--exnihilo

contracycle

July 3, 2003, 03:01 AM

I think its a slightly misplaced question. I don;t think adherence to dogma is particularly relevant.

It seems to me that people have a tendency, by and large, to believe whatever is most convenient, most beneficial, to believe. What individuals believe is clearly influenced by factors very much beyond the strict evidential data available, and huge amounts of personal identity may be invested in a particular position.

Why, then, would we expect the notion of science to do away with this observable human behaviour? It does not - it merely places it in a framework which mitigates the negative effects of that tendency. The necessity to produce indendently verifiable results qualifies the tendency to advocate self-supporting results. And while there exists no mechanism to compel someone to accept a proof they deny, even if millions of others accept it, that will have to do.

Is it possible that humanity might lose the scientific method? Its possible, I guess. But otherwise, no, I canot see any practical limits to what is humanly knowable, beyond what is there to know. The difference between science and theism IMO is not that the various adherents have a different qualitative emotional commitment to their posuitions - the difference is the mechanism by which those positions are derived.

exnihilo

July 5, 2003, 07:32 PM

Yeah, missplaced, the silence is deafening here, except for the occaisonal vacuous remark. Yes, I would say that I agree with much of what you are saying, I wonder why this uncertainty is so hard to admit???? Is it a fear of thinking for oneself or just the desire to latch onto an explanatory model that allows us to justify our own beliefs and sleep better at night.
--exnihilo

Clutch

July 6, 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by exnihilo
The easiest answer is always denial, huh. But, still no answer to Kuhn's proposition, it's interesting to see that people are still unwilling or unable to deal with the serious issues that he, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos have raised and, instead, retreat to straw man arguments as a last resort.

--exnihilo Don't get fussed, now. There's not much content to respond to in the OP, after all.

That the practice of science can in some measure be arational has nothing to do with the overwrought point about knowability. Indeed, it is strictly true that:if Kuhn and co., are correct, as well as postmodernists, there seems that there will always be a dark void of unknowing to which human capacities can never hope to understand.This is because, in fact, even if Kuhn and co., are NOT correct, it seems "that there will always be a dark void of unknowing to which human capacities can never hope to understand."

At least, on one reading of "unknowing". (I'm setting aside the purple prose about dark voids and so forth.)

It is eminently plausible that some truths will never in fact be known. Call such a truth S. Then any conjunctive truth of the form [S and it will never be known that S] is unknowable, since knowing its first conjunct is inconsistent with the truth of the second. This is called the Paradox of Knowability, and dates back to a paper by Frederic Fitch in the early 1960's.

But this seems to have little to do with your remarks about the specific limits of "human capacities"; nor do those remarks derive any support from the observation that science is not perfectly rational. That's just a non-sequitur. You give no reason to take your claims seriously.

If you want substantive responses to your worry, why not frame it in the form of an actual argument -- premises, conclusion, that sort of thing?

exnihilo

July 9, 2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Clutch

Apparently there is enough to ruffle the feathers of more than a few--I notice that the type of kneejerk responses are a common response to even the mention of Feyerabend, lakatos or Kuhn.

[QUOTE]That the practice of science can in some measure be arational has nothing to do with the overwrought point about knowability. Indeed, it is strictly true that:[/b]This is because, in fact, even if Kuhn and co., are NOT correct, it seems "that there will always be a dark void of unknowing to which human capacities can never hope to understand."

It seems that in the zeal to refute Kuhn, the question has been lost. All I ever asked was whether or not people followed Kuhn, but more vitally, Feyerabend and Lakatos' conclussions, as oppossed to adhering to the belief that it was possible that science to ultimately achieve a universal theory of explanation.

It is eminently plausible that some truths will never in fact be known. Call such a truth S. Then any conjunctive truth of the form [S and it will never be known that S] is unknowable, since knowing its first conjunct is inconsistent with the truth of the second. This is called the Paradox of Knowability, and dates back to a paper by Frederic Fitch in the early 1960's.

The issue of truth or even Truth is an issue that I never raised and has little to do with the discussion at hand. For someone to be inclined to science using such an ephemeral term seems a paradox. Be that as it may, human capacities have everything to do with the limits of science. Sorry to say but science and its method is not some objective force that exists outside the realm of human control, it is, instead, simply a human construct. Scientists and their cheerleaders seem to want us to believe the niave assumption that The Scientific is in a special catagory, somehow sealed off from or impervious to the corrupting influences common to every other form of human endeavor. Scientists can't even agree on problems like whether or not global warming even exists, but we are suppossed to believe that Science can explain the laws that govern the entire universe?

--exnihilo

Celsus

July 9, 2003, 03:53 AM

I am reading Feyerabend at the moment, and will be moving on to Lakatos when I get the time. Can someone explain to me what Feyerabend's "counterinduction" really means? As far as I can tell, it's simply counterintuition... exnihilo: Have you tried Larry Laudan, Philip Kitcher and Michael Ruse yet?

Joel

leyline

July 9, 2003, 06:24 AM

Hi exnihilo

I have to admit that I have never read Kuhn directly, but only picked up some second hand interpretations and comments. But to your question

"My question is how many accept the notion of unknowability and how many believe that Kuhn and co., are ultimately wrong and think that science can indeed provide all the answers that we seek sometime in the future?"

I am firmly with Kuhn and co. I recognise unknowability as fundamental to human culture and that includes science. Of course knowability is also fundamental, the two go hand in hand, and that includes science too.

For me knowledge is a cultural relationship with reality (whatever that is). Different relationships yield different knowledge. I agree with the likes of Nietzsche that science is a useful fiction, and this is true of all culture from politics to religion to literature to sport or philosophy or whatever.

Science has several rather obvious limitations that are part and parcel of its wonderful powers of explanation and prediction. The first is that only phenomena that can be reliably called upon to move the needle of an ammeter can be commented upon. Of course those of the faith believe this is true of all phenomena, but the rest of us quite naturally think that this is an arbitrary limitation that could easily miss a lot of what is going on.

Secondly science cannot make any comment at all upon simultaneous relationship, other than it happens. The reason is that although such may be reliably called upon to move two ammeter needles, there is no possible rational explanation for two phenomena to change in relationship to each other simultaneously. (the best that science can do is offer a third �root� phenomena that causes both). This is because of the nature of rationality. Science is the search for the ultimate fixed rational text. This means that all terms in that text must be unambiguous. Or unpoetic. You cannot have two meanings going on at the same time in a rational explanation. It is linear and sequential. Song for example is no help to science in expressing itself. The cause effect chain is a one handed drummer. In fact science goes so far as to deny the existence of simultaneity in relativity and limits all interaction to the speed of light or less. Thus simultaneous relationship is impossible. But at present science is at odds with itself when it comes to Quantum Mechanics and there are serious moves to return to Einstein�s attitude that it is not a fundamental theory to get past simultaneity. For many of us however simultaneous relationship does not create such a negative reaction.

Thirdly randomness. Rationality believes in cause and effect and there is no room for randomness except as a stop gap to further explanation. Although some scientists are willing to believe that a cause may lead to a range of effects that are fully consistent with the laws of science, nevertheless such people are accepting a knowledge gap in science by doing so. Most scientists believe that that type of apparent phenomena is only an illusion. That randomness indicates a lack of scientific knowledge and nothing else. With further investigation a causal chain will predict exactly which effect will occur. In fact not to believe that would halt scientific investigation itself. But again such an extremist view feels restrictive to many outside the faith.

Science is driven by its search for the one to one relationship of a fixed text with the universe. For me knowledge is always a cultural relationship with reality.

Celsus

July 9, 2003, 07:31 AM

More Feyerabend:
Movements that view quantum mechanics as a turning-point in thought--and that include fly-by-night mystics, prophets of a New Age, and relativists of all sorts--get aroused by the cultural component and forget predictions and technology.

Feyerabend, "Atoms and Consciousness" in Common Knowledge 1, no. 1 (1992): 28-32
To which we can add precision as a feature of good predictions (as opposed to, say, the Bible prophecies). I first read this stunning example from quantum electrodynamics (QED) in J.R. Brown's Who Rules in Science?: Schwinger, Tomonaga, and Feynman's prediction of the value of the magnetic moments of electron spin in 1948.

Feynman et al's predicted value was:

2 x 1.00115965246 (�0.00000000020) magnetons

The measurement made by Willis Lamb gave the value:

2 x 1.00115965221 (�0.00000000004) magnetons

Needless to say, Nobel prizes all round for this lot. Feynman described the accuracy of this as such: "If you were to measure the distance from Los Angeles to New York to this accuracy, it would be exact to the thickness of a human hair." This isn't just tarot card hustling.

Joel

Clutch

July 9, 2003, 07:47 AM

It seems that in the zeal to refute Kuhn, the question has been lost.What are you talking about? Nobody here has attempted to "refute" Kuhn, never mind zealously. All I ever asked was whether or not people followed Kuhn, but more vitally, Feyerabend and Lakatos' conclussions, as oppossed to adhering to the belief that it was possible that science to ultimately achieve a universal theory of explanation.And I answered this, by pointing out its false presuppositions. One can take Kuhn's main thoughts on board -- and Lakatos's -- while holding out for a converging-on-truth sort of realism towards scientific explanation; and conversely, one can reject the prospect of "ultimate" or "universal" explanations while also rejecting Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend. Sorry to say but science and its method is not some objective force that exists outside the realm of human control, it is, instead, simply a human construct. Scientists and their cheerleaders seem to want us to believe the niave assumption that The Scientific is in a special catagory, somehow sealed off from or impervious to the corrupting influences common to every other form of human endeavor. Scientists can't even agree on problems like whether or not global warming even exists, but we are suppossed to believe that Science can explain the laws that govern the entire universe? To whom was this little screed supposed to be a response? Surely not me, since it addresses nothing I wrote, while ignoring the point I made about unknowability being a simple logical consequence of some things' being forever unknown.

"Scientists and their cheerleaders"? Why don't you give actual quotes from actual people actually saying things likeThe Scientific is in a special catagory, somehow sealed off from or impervious to the corrupting influences common to every other form of human endeavor.Until then, there is simply no reason to believe you're engaging anyone outside your own imagination.

exnihilo

July 10, 2003, 12:02 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most touching faith here is not in science, but in Kuhn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clutch says:
LOL! Nailed it in one, Vork.

Very wise and penetrating words indeed, I must admit.

And you say I have written addrtesses nothing!!!!!

scumble

July 10, 2003, 05:28 AM

I don't know Kuhn, but I think it highly probable that human understanding can only go so far. In a lot of scientific theory you can have very accurate result predictions, but anyone who has studied Quantum Mechanics in detail must realise there is something mysterious about the way it works.
We can make many models and use them for advancing our technology, but it doesn't mean we essentially understand much of what happens in the universe.

junkyardgod

July 10, 2003, 08:47 AM

exnihilo,

I think kuhn has been widely misunderstood. I remember reading an interview with him wherein he said something like: " I never said said we got it all wrong". Obviously, we have been getting somethings right.

As I also remember, there are 3 concepts that are important to Kuhn's work: the paradigm, normal science, and the anomoly.

With out going into detail, Kuhn says something like: Normal scinence works within the current paradigm until enough anomolies force a change in that pradigm.

As far as the limits of knowledge goes, of course there are limits.

Just adding my 2 cents.

JYG

Clutch

July 10, 2003, 10:47 AM

And you say I have written addrtesses nothing!!!!!Actually, I didn't say that, because that's unintelligible.

I did, however, say that the following screed:Sorry to say but science and its method is not some objective force that exists outside the realm of human control, it is, instead, simply a human construct. Scientists and their cheerleaders seem to want us to believe the niave assumption that The Scientific is in a special catagory, somehow sealed off from or impervious to the corrupting influences common to every other form of human endeavor. Scientists can't even agree on problems like whether or not global warming even exists, but we are suppossed to believe that Science can explain the laws that govern the entire universe? ...was utterly irrelevant to anything I had written, and indeed seems to engage no interlocutor whatever.

Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe you have in mind some actual person who really did say "The Scientific is in a special catagory, somehow sealed off from or impervious to the corrupting influences common to every other form of human endeavor," or something closely resembling it.

In that case, it should be easy for you to produce the actual words of someone who has defended that view. I invited you to do so, but you seem to prefer a retreat into transparent evasions. But if you'd rather let it go under the bridge, why not at least return to whatever you were thinking in your opening post, and reframe it in the form of an argument? To repeat myself: if you want a substantive reply, you need a substantive point in the first place. But what you've written so far is characterized by unclarity and false presupposition, as I've explained (though you've ignored this, again in favour of evasions.)

To take yet another example of unclarity: you allude repeatedly to unknowability without distinguishing between two utterly different meanings. You say: "there will always be a dark void of unknowing to which human capacities can never hope to understand." Or, as someone writing in English might say, It's impossible for humans to know everything.

But this is ambiguous between two interpretations:

* Necessarily, there are things we will not know.

** There are specific things such that, necessarily, we cannot know them.

The former may well be true, bu it is difficult to see why it should have anything to do with the limitations of science, since it only alludes to the contingencies of epistemic opportunity. That is, no matter what course our investigations take, there will some things or other that we never get round to figuring out. The latter interpretation is a vastly stronger claim, that there are specific things beyond our ability to know, irrespective of the time or effort or ingenuity we apply to them. This would indeed amount to a principled limitation on science, but it is very difficult to see what could constitute good evidence in its favour (though some have applied arguments from so-called Cognitive Closure here).

Now, which version did you have in mind? If the former, why call it a limitation on science? If the latter, why think that Kuhn or Lakatos argues for any such conclusion? Nothing in their writings, to my knowledge, supports (**).

See what I mean? I'm doing all the work for you here, just because your expression of the alleged "problem" is so ill-defined and unargued. Snarkily blaming your interlocutors for "deafening silence" and "vacuous remarks" amounts to mere projection.

leyline

July 10, 2003, 11:30 AM

hmm.....

i don't want to get into a sniping match but unknowability can take many forms.

Personally i would say that knowledge necessarily comes from a relationship with reality. Therefore to speak of knowledge outside your own relationship, with anything other than pure imagination, doesn't really make sense. And further even one's imagination is conditioned by one's cultural relationship to reality! ie its a trick question. :) It tempts us into abstracting knowledge from culture as something 'out there' in the universe. In reality (cultural reality) knowledge is 'in here'.

However we can 'know' in here that our relationships are potentially biased. We do this by applying our cultural techniques to itself. ie by treating our culture as an aspect of reality itself.

Or to put it another way, we can only get the knowledge that our particular relationship with reality creates. It isn't 'out there' passively hanging around in cultural limbo.

Clutch

July 10, 2003, 12:51 PM

to speak of knowledge outside your own relationship, with anything other than pure imagination, doesn't really make sense.Leyline, I'm not sure why one would hold such a view. But whatever your reasons for believing this, it does not seem consistent with any sort of unknowability, never mind "many forms" of it.

Any sort of worry about knowability presupposes at least some degree of subject-independent truth or reality. After all, it's not very interesting to hold that we can't know truths or facts beyond our experience because there are no truths or facts beyond our experience. Nor is the worry that we can't know falsehoods, after all! To raise the prospect of unknowability in the first place is to raise the prospect of truths, or a way things are that we cannot know. And this entails "a way things are", independent of our conceiving them that way.

There are nevertheless more and less subjectively-inflected accounts one can give of reality, but these will all be more robust -- or, I would say, less simplistic -- than the idea that "knowledge outside your own relationship... doesn't make sense."

leyline

July 10, 2003, 04:38 PM

hi clutch

word of warning i am smokin a jay, but i couldn't resist replying....

"Leyline, I'm not sure why one would hold such a view. But whatever your reasons for believing this, it does not seem consistent with any sort of unknowability, never mind "many forms" of it."

ok let me explain further.

first off though i respect the scientific rationalist materialistic paradigm for knowledge and how it posits the existence of unknown knowledge.

But just as knowledge can only exist in a cultural context with reality, it follows that the unknowable is also in that cultural context. The unknowable requires imagination by definition. What i am saying is that just as a culture is biased in its relationship with reality, and its subsequent interpretation of knowledge. It is also similarly affected by its conception of the unknown.

Thus what science concieves and imagines is unknowable is affected by its method of knowing. It crucially affects how the unknowable is defined and described. For science it imagines the unknowable as existing in spacetime. This includes the future and so many scientists concieve of the future as already existing as in say the block universe models.

but what i believe is that knowledge results from a cultural relationship with reality. Moreover unlike say block universe models of reality not all cultures believe the future exists. If it doesn't exist then there is nowhere for unknown reality and knowlege other than in the present or the past. A prediction is thus not knowledge of the future as science can believe.

So a different paradigm could believe that only the present exists. Whereas science tells us that simultaneity is relative and so the present does not exist. Each thus has a different imagination as to what unknowability is and its context.

this can get very complex as we build up different elements of different cultures and compare their relationship to reality.

exnihilo

July 10, 2003, 08:51 PM

Clutch,
Despite what you claim, several people have answered the post quite well. You, on the other hand, seem to think that if everything isn't put in the form of a syllogism that it is indecipherable. Philosophy, yes the name of this board, is not always about logic, but instead about speculation. The problem is simply you cannot think outside the catagories that you keep trying to force the question into. It seems rather obvious that you have no concept of what philosophy entails, as logical induction has never been demonstated to provide tha answer to any of the major questions that philosophy seeks to answer concerning metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics or political/social issues.

The problem I have with your responses are obvious. Your first post was vacuous, as was the response you were lending support to, so don't blame me for pointing it out. And since you have problems understanding sarcasm I will tell you that my comments were directed at you. The responses I point to above reflect the epitome of evasion. One could infer that those who resond in such a manner are probably the selfsame people who adhere to a conception of science that I have criticized. Despite what you say, the tone and content of your responses reveals you to be exactly the type of person I am talking about. I think my position is fairly obvious, and I certainly don't try to hide it behind some structure of scientific methodology; the original question simply asked others what they thought.
Instaed of answering you chose to respond with childish remarks. Is that my fault? I do not believe that science can provide anything but useful approximations and to claim otherwise is misguided and to a certain degree arrogant. You complain that my question doesn't conform to your preconcieved notions
of what an argument ought to be when it is apparent that I do not subscribe to the belief that much a methodology is useful to answer the question I raised. To do so would contravene the basis of the question itself.
I have also noticed that Kuhn is the primary subject of these exchanges when he was simply one person of the many referred to in the original question. I simply put him forth to see what kind of reaction it would evoke, which is pretty much as I expected.
As far as I can tell, no one has addressed the postmodern critique put forth by Derrida and Lyotard, but I have seen Nietzsche mentioned.
Science as it is represented in textbooks conforms exactly to what Derrida has alluded to as a trancendent universal and Lyotard as the master narrative. The problem is that Science is founded upon a methodology that claims objectivity when such objectivity simply does not exist. Defined as such Science is projected into the position of the absent center, while at the same time, though the claims of objectivity and Truth, setting itself outiside of the system that it centers. Forexample, to claim that second and third level (re)representations viewed through the lens of an electron microscope or measured in a bubble chamber is observation is simply subterfuge. Instead it is an example of the procession of the simulacrum. Foucault has also argued that such systems of classification are nothing more than regimes of power that privilige one way of thinking to the detriment of another. Science is privileged--officially sanctioned as truth--while indigenous knowledge is excluded. Understood in this way Science is seen as a self-legitimating system of knoweldge that privileges Western forms of perception over alternate systems such as those of Asia, as well as all indigenous forms of understanding. Thus, the label non-scientific has come to connotate ignorance, superstition and such, despite the fact that people using these so-called "primitive" systems made discoveries in areas such as astronomy, botany, engineering, and chemistry long before the advent of the scientific method. Nonetheless, these systems are characterised as inferior since they do not conform with scientific methods of observation.

--exnihilo

Clutch

July 11, 2003, 09:08 AM

It seems rather obvious that you have no concept of what philosophy entails, as logical induction has never been demonstated to provide tha answer to any of the major questions that philosophy seeks to answerI apologize for attempting to force your writings into the narrow categories of cogency and intelligibility. Your last post represents a ne plus ultra of the denial of these repressive notions; I bow to your grasp of "logical induction", and surrender the field accordingly.

rainbow walking

July 11, 2003, 11:17 AM

exnihilo

July 15, 2003, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Clutch
I apologize for attempting to force your writings into the narrow categories of cogency and intelligibility. Your last post represents a ne plus ultra of the denial of these repressive notions; I bow to your grasp of "logical induction", and surrender the field accordingly. [/B]

LOL nailed it clutch, yeah awesome dude...
Nice to see you ended as vacuously as you began.

Obviously ou have no ability to see science in a way other than that of your own creation. Your remarks in regards to the reference to Kuhn is the same type of attacks that Christians use when confronted with Darwin and the myriad of other bits of scientific evidence that contradicts the bible.
The thing I am trying to point out, and I am not denying that science is far superior to religion as method of explanation, is that science also has many limits.
It is utterly pointless to argue this with those dogmatically dedicated to the veracity of scientific truth. The history of science shows that theories that were previously accepted as "truth" later were falsified--this is common. It seems, however, as Kuhn pointed out, that this fact is repeatedly glossed over in accounts of scientific progression in order to portray a smooth evolution of theories.
The very nature of science itself stands in contrast to what objectivity is suppossed to entail. Supporters of science contnually harp on the logic of the method while never paying mind to social social/ cultural contexts that produce scientific knowledge.
Robert Merton pointed out just how much scientific inquiry is influenced by economic and military preoccupations. Even the most superficial investigation into the fuding of science today shows this relationship to be even more entrenched today. When science is preoccupied to such an extent and powered by corporations and perfecting the art of murder it is ridiculous to say that science operates in an objective or logical manner. There are simply too many vested interests that prevent investigation into areas not condusive to corporate interests (global warming is one example) to legitimately claim science as a pursuit detached from these powerful influences. Of course, it is the Scientific ideal that is dogmatically posited instead because some people seem to NEED a replacement for religion that they can believe in. This need is precisely the problem and the cause of some of the reactionary responses posted here.

contracycle

July 15, 2003, 07:02 AM

No, the desperate need is felt by Theists, to assert that all beliefe is indisitnguishable. It is not.

I take on board a lot of your remarks about the propensity for sintitutions to mold the outputs given even by science. But that's the whole great thing about science - my acceptance of their argument is NO based merely on their say so and reputation. I will look for corroborating support from other scientists, and if able to will perform tests to verify it myself. Science is in no sense analogous to theism.

Leviathan

July 15, 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by exnihilo

My question is how many accept the notion of unknowability and how many believe that Kuhn and co., are ultimately wrong and think that science can indeed provide all the answers that we seek sometime in the future?

An excellent question, exnihilo. In my studies I have found, more and more, that science is simply another "faith," directly in contrast, (or so people wish it to seem), to that of religion.

I personally prescribe to the post-modernist, relativist view, and find science cannot give us any "answers," and thus, the scientist complaining about the "fallacies" of creationism is doing the same damn thing he is condemning the creationist for: he is operating on an assumption of faith.

leyline

July 16, 2003, 07:25 AM

leviathan

i too find postmodernism and relativism convincing.

i would use slightly different wording to yourself however, in that i include science and religion within the multicultural paradigm, and thus it does have answers to offer us, just like religion. But i assume that by 'answers' you mean such as 'redemptive truths' as written about by Rorty and the like, which i agree with. That and the rejection of absolute grand narratives generally.

exnihilo

July 19, 2003, 01:29 AM

Levithan and Leyline, thanks for the comments.

Although very unpopular and virulently attacked by positivists, the postmodern critique has yet to be confronted in philosophical terms. The tactic that is most common, by contrast, is the type of hollow and irrelevant responses employed here. The fact is that the positivists arguments, such those of John Searle, have already been thoroughly and systematically invalidated�see Limited Inc., by J. Derrida. Michel Foucault�s work has also been instrumental in pointing out the limits of medical science and the implicit ideologies that underlie its assumptions. That said the main problem is not with science, or scientific method, but with the ways that the product of research is utilized. Many would like us to think that the project of scientific research is a value-free enterprise and that the resulting theories produced are simply indifferent truths, independent of social, cultural or historical factors. To affirm these outside factors usually leads to similar knee-jerk reactions against socialism and such, still a popular method of red herring defense.
Another infidel tried to claim that such an argument was unintelligible and I am sure it is to someone who has an infinite and unquestioning faith in the products and aims of scientific inquiry. I would also agree�and stated such from the beginning--with the comment by Contracycle that there are very distinct differences between science and religion, not only of kind but also of quality, but what I am concerned with is the belief in science. However, I would also clarify that the primary problematic is not in the �molding� of �outputs� via institutionalization, but that the institutions of military and economics molds the very nature of scientific inquiry itself and is primarily a tool for the maintenance of the status quo than it is an objective means to �truth�.
Postmodernists often attribute the uncritical acceptance of scientific theory as indisputable �truth�is seen as a necessary symptom of the �death of god� first heralded by Nietzsche. Consequently, when examined more closely it soon becomes apparent that the traditional role of the priest has been replaced by that of the scientist, although both serve the same master on the whole. Nonetheless, this shift has resulted in unprecedented improvements in the human condition, but it has also brought unprecedented destruction and suffering. Be that as it may the products of science/technology are not what we are questioning here. Instead it is the nature of the belief in science as a means of access to �truth�. Dogmatism is dogmatism whether one is dogmatic in the belief of creationism or evolution. I have heard many atheists and other free-thinkers condemn creationism for the myth that it is, while at the same time invoking a theory of evolution that they obviously know little about, which is precisely the behavior that Leviathan seemed tio be referring to. Compared to quantum physics, however, the leap of faith required to accept the theory of evolution is slight by compare. And yet day in and day out I see people testifying to the veracity of theories that are so complex and multifaceted that only a hand full of scientists completely understand�I�ll leave the question of observation out for now. Given the propositions set forth by Kuhn and Feyerabend, regardless of any appeal to fact or falsification, the uncritical acceptance of such theories is analogous to the christian�s acceptance of church doctrine, the only difference is the methods of the priests involved.

leyline

July 19, 2003, 05:40 AM

exnihilo

while i recognise a great deal of what you say, and at times feel as a relativist frustration and incredulity at the single mindedness of religious and scientific adherents, i would not criticise generally their need for a grand narrative, or their intelligence for choosing one.

It is easy for us in the capitalist paradigm to feel that we have 'broken free' of such 'outmoded' ways of thinking and feeling about the world, but in actual fact we are no more or less culturally influenced than they are.

Capitalism and postmodernism are at least cousins, if not bed fellows. 'We' as postmodernist's are in bed with our culture as much as anyone else. Its just that capitalism is historically unique in its extreme use of multiculturalism. Every 'high priest' is a potential performer/producer, every congregation a potential target audience/consumer. Capitalism may have liberated us from the one track mind, but for many it looks like an orgy.

When it comes to the 'truth', who would criticise someone for valueing a purist paradigm and covering their ears to the clammer of conflicting voices?

In trying to meet those of the scientific paradigm half way, i point out that many fear relativism for its lack of consistency. But that didn't happen for time, so why should it happen for truth? Needless to say this doesn't always impress. :) Truth is a very emotional subject that goes right down to our personal identity.

methodologyx

July 22, 2003, 02:58 AM

Can science provide ALL the answers that we seek?

Of course, it cannot. Science cannot provide all the answers; it cannot even attempt to analyze all the data and approach all the questions. Nor does science have any hope of making sense of single-instance reality. If the goal of science is to make accurate, repeatable predictions of phenomena under like circumstances, we will never have any hope of fleshing out the deeper structures of reality (if deep reality has structure�and what practical benefits accrue from believing it does), since most phenomena grace us with their existence only once, and then flitter away as quickly as they come, in a wake of numinous awe.

In order to flesh out what I mean, allow to give an example involving what scholars of Attic Greek call the hopoxlegomenon (�only happening once�). A hopoxlegomenon is a word that only appears once in the entire corpus of Greek literature. Without context from which to gauge their meaning, such words have no known translation, no meaning. Therefore, coming across a hopoxlegomenon is like spotting an ontological black hole in print�it sucks away all meaning save that which might inferred from the context it mars.

Although we have no such word for, and often pay little attention to, the myriad mundane, non-repetitive experiences that mark the fabric of our daily lives; nevertheless we must admit that in the last analysis life is in fact full of such experiences. Like hopoxlegomenon, they appear only once and are heard no more. They are the flittering, unpredictable, unique moments that make any hope we might ever entertain of fully understanding reality hopeless.

And yet I am not ready to admit nothing can be known. Indeed, if I had the skill and time, I�d write a book arguing that many of the most perplexing problems, unexpected phenomena and insignificant events of modern life are directly caused and sustained by scientific endeavor in the first place. Mental health issues, toxic contamination, loss of spiritual connection with nature, degradation of the body have all been nurtured by the though that the universe is a Newtonian clock unwinding in some comic joke called entropy. Supporting our racism with scientific �facts� (scientific racism) is another example of how absolute faith in �truth� and �reason��the whole and final, objective truth�is a pernicious fallacy.

As per Kuhn, Exnihil has touched upon the nub of a problem that, far from setting aside as unessential due to the fact that science is self-correcting procedure, must be explored further�perhaps perennially�and never forgotten. And although I personally have not read The Structures of Scientific Revolution, we all know exactly what that problem is: namely, the problem of having the basis of our entire understand ripped right out from underneath our feet like the proverbial rug. This fundamental epistemological flaw has been spotted, documented, and lamented by poets, philosophers and the most common of folk long before Kuhn attempted to give it systematic expression in The Structures, but we often forget. As soon we attempt to rest on the laurels of reason, habitual patterns of thought and accumulated �facts,� this problem surfaces again as folly--the folly of believing one knows something about reality.

This is exactly the fallacy Socrates (via Plato) attempted to warn Western Civilization about. Unfortunately, Western Civilization has never been good at heading warnings, from old gadflies or calm, objective historians of scientists.

andy_d

July 22, 2003, 04:25 AM

Personally, I think that one of the big limitations of science is with data.

Scientists must take discrete samples in order to conduct their analysis. Reality, however, is continuous.

Jimmy Davies

July 22, 2003, 01:48 PM

Philosophy gets no respect from many of the science friendly, which is irritating considering it is the ONLY tool critical thinking people have to address certain matters of thought.

Let's say men advance beyond the point where the cage of words limits their ability to deal freely with philosophical concepts. Even pure thought has a source. That source is a biochemical prompting in the brain. The problem always becomes what part of me is me and what part of me is a biochemical program selected for in the ancestral environment to get the phenotype to interact in his environment---to get my genes into another generation. Is there really a me, or a biochemical ruse that services as me, and is there an additional biochemical prompting to prevent me from dwelling overly on this possible fact?

And if this is the case, what does this say about science and human perception? Will reality always be just what humans, limited by this biochemical prompted thinking process, can perceive, or is it possible to step beyond these organic gulags and experience reality cleanly?

Every thought ever reasoned by any human mind that ever was cannot escape the biochemical origin of human consciousness. This ain't no theism board, so we won't argue spiritual consciousness or any other fairy tale speculation.

The day will come, when we can recreate human personality through biochemical manipulation, and the aversion to such a possibility, will be one of the biochemical promptings we manipulate.

exnihilo

July 27, 2003, 05:23 PM

Thanks Methodologyx, andy_d and Jimmie Davies, for you have raised many points that most scientists would much rather ignore. Earlier I was ridiculed for calling logic and scientific method into question in regards to these issues, but there has yet to be a post explaining how the main issues that philosophy seeks to answer can be confronted using these infallible means. Logic and the scientific method are both linguistic creations that can only confirm data already in evidence. The fact that logic can never uncover new ideas illustrates its extreme limitations to the major issues facing philosophy, which i pointed out earlier. I don't deny that both are not useful tools, just that their utility is highly exaggerated far beyond their means of explanation.
The reason is that they clearly cannot. The only thing that logic can do is respond to neat and clean hypotheticals, all the while being unable even to confirm the veracity of its own premises. As methodologyx ppoints out the same goes for the scientific method.
Those inclined to science freely admot that yes, there are always going to be some things that can never be explained--implying that these are largely obscure and insignificant. In reality it seems probable that what cannot be explained by science is much more than they are alluding to. The famous example of the Butterfly effect is just one fairly common occurrence which illustrates just how little these methods can really uncover. Anomaly, far from being exceedingly rare instances, is one of the hallmarks of life on this planet. The sheer numbers of different factors that contribute to any event testifies to the exponential difficulties facing science in trying to answer the questions we all seek. The fact that history has resisted all such efforts of explanation should serve as an example in other areas where such systematic assertions are being made. The history of science itself illustrates this fact, but self-reflection has always been the main problem for those who install themselves as the self-appointed prophets of a new god.
As the great philosopher E. M. Cioran said:
"The source of our actions resides in an unconscious propensity to regard ourselves as the center, the cause, and the conclussion of time. Our reflexes and our pride transform into a planet the parcel of flesh and consciousness we are. If we had the right sense of our position in the world, if to compare were inseperable from to live, the revelation of our infinitesimal presence would crush us. But to live is to blind ourselves to our own dimensions"

exnihilo

August 3, 2003, 03:38 PM

One more thing:

As Popper and Feyerabend have made clear, perhaps, the ultimate limitation on science is that the strength and veracity of any scientific theory relies upon correspondance of facts to predict future occurances. Thus everytime a given event results in a specific predicted effect it can be said that the theory was affirmed. However, these events do not possess the function of accumulated imperium, each event is simply the independent affirmation of the theory to which it applies. Methodologically this results in an ever-present tension whereby the manifestation of a single contradiction, of proper relevance to the fundamental working of the theory itself, can thereby falsify the theory itself. At this point the theory must be either revised or rejected altogether. Such an idea takes the form of:

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.
The prediction is not true.
Therefore, the theory is not true.

Scientists sometimes refer to such falsifiable phenomenon as anomalies, which, as methodologyx pointed out may or may not be correct. For to claim something is an anomaly implies that there is a complete understanding of the processes involved in a given phenomenon. This, in itself contradicts the very nature of scientific inquiry itself, which is precisely where the demeanor of dogmatism begins to seep in as scientists refuse to adhere to their own essential tenets.
Falsification in this manner is precisely what has led to the rejection of the vast majority of all scientific theory previously put forth. Thus, taking a position that the science of today is somehow beyond the possibility of falsification seems unfounded in the extreme and fails to take heed of the history of scientific endeavor itself--precisely the point Kuhn revealed.

Jimmy Davies

August 3, 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by exnihilo
One more thing:

As Popper and Feyerabend have made clear, perhaps, the ultimate limitation on science is that the strength and veracity of any scientific theory relies upon correspondance of facts to predict future occurances. Thus everytime a given event results in a specific predicted effect it can be said that the theory was affirmed. However, these events do not possess the function of accumulated imperium, each event is simply the independent affirmation of the theory to which it applies. Methodologically this results in an ever-present tension whereby the manifestation of a single contradiction, of proper relevance to the fundamental working of the theory itself, can thereby falsify the theory itself. At this point the theory must be either revised or rejected altogether. Such an idea takes the form of:

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.
The prediction is not true.
Therefore, the theory is not true.

Scientists sometimes refer to such falsifiable phenomenon as anomalies, which, as methodologyx pointed out may or may not be correct. For to claim something is an anomaly implies that there is a complete understanding of the processes involved in a given phenomenon. This, in itself contradicts the very nature of scientific inquiry itself, which is precisely where the demeanor of dogmatism begins to seep in as scientists refuse to adhere to their own essential tenets.
Falsification in this manner is precisely what has led to the rejection of the vast majority of all scientific theory previously put forth. Thus, taking a position that the science of today is somehow beyond the possibility of falsification seems unfounded in the extreme and fails to take heed of the history of scientific endeavor itself--precisely the point Kuhn revealed.

Science is power in our modern world. So science must be the new seculaly endorsed God, and gods don't work through faulty processes. Bellyachers like you and me aren't going to change this mindset---the problem with science is human arrogance hides in the reverence we have for science---we simply transfer our love for God to a love for a method, a method rife with mystery humbling power. We think it gives us a bigger better boner than the theists have. We approach the unknown with a weaponized zeal. Science only matters when you love what it HASN'T revealed as much as what it has.

Diabolical Vengeance

August 4, 2003, 08:20 AM

Science is at this present point in our evolution, our most reliable form of knowledge and of learning. However, since human beings are imperfect there is a limit to our knowledge. I don't believe we can truly comprehened the universe at it exists, all our theories (be they religious or scientific) of knowledge are based on premises which have their limits and may (or in the case of religion are) be flawed. Essentially, since the human race is imperfect, its logical to assume that our 'knowledge' base is imperfect as well. I put more trust in science because, unlike religion, science is able to admit that it does not have all the answers.

Jimmy Davies

August 4, 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Diabolical Vengeance
Science is at this present point in our evolution, our most reliable form of knowledge and of learning. However, since human beings are imperfect there is a limit to our knowledge. I don't believe we can truly comprehened the universe at it exists, all our theories (be they religious or scientific) of knowledge are based on premises which have their limits and may (or in the case of religion are) be flawed. Essentially, since the human race is imperfect, its logical to assume that our 'knowledge' base is imperfect as well. I put more trust in science because, unlike religion, science is able to admit that it does not have all the answers.

I put my trust in people, and the quality of a given thought or mind. Lables like "science" and "religion" are not meant to vindicate one type of thinking and discredit another. Where science reveals what I consider truth, I embrace science. Where philosophy reveals what I consider truth, I embrace philosophy. I refuse to serve any regimented thought master.

freeth1nker

August 4, 2003, 04:03 PM

Hey Ex Nihilo, this was originally a reply to the PM you sent me, but there was apparently a character limit to PMs, so I just decided to post this publicly because it most of it deals specifically with this topic. (I hope you don't mind.)

----------------
Re: professions of atheists

exnihilo wrote on July 9, 2003 09:42 PM:
freeth1nker,
I am relatively new here too and have noticed the same thing. I have a degree in philosophy and eng lit, so I see where you are coming from. I don't think that most atheists are into the hard sciences per se, its just that most of the ones who are and frequent this board seem to hang out in the philosophy forum. I noticed this immediately after joining when someone posted a message asking for recommendations for a philosophy reading list. Yes, as you might guess, 90% were from the philosophy of science or science proper and nary a mention of philosopher such as Hume, Schopenhauer, or Sartre as well as displaying a total ignorance of Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard or any other postmodernist which is the leading edge of philosophy today. That is primarily the reason I posted "Science and the limits of human knowledge," the reaction to which was just as i had expected.
The emma goldman debate is another good example of what goes on there, which can scarcely be called philosophical and has been largely ignored by the people who post there most often. As you may agree, it has always been philosophers that have most often been the greatest champions of free-thought and the rejection of god, and there are many examples that predate the age of the enlightenment. They didn't need science to free them of religion and neither should we.
keep up the good work,
--exnihilo
Hi exnihilo, (btw, I love your moniker, it's also the username for one of my own email accounts)

I was away from the boards for quite awhile and I rarely check my PM, so sorry it took me this long to reply. First off, I'd like to thank you for your kind words and encouragement. But I will honestly tell you that I am a philosophy *student*, which means I still struggle to understand a great of portion of philosophical opuses, like Derrida's Grammatology. However, I did have a good read of your thread; you and several others well-versed in postmodernist literature clarified quite a few points for me. I had only heard about postmodernism fairly recently from my philosophy teacher (who also has a degree in philosophy and english lit).

The funny thing was that I was exactly the prototypical logical positivist that society has spurred before taking philosophy. In fact, when I first started philosophy, I was extremely scientific-minded, and I debated endlessly with my teacher whenever a smidgeon of his lecture didn't fit nicely into a logical category (much like that guy Clutch was doing in your thread). Of course, this was due by and large to the age that we live in, where science and scientism, constitutes the overall intellecutal zeitgeist. It also doesn't help that both my parents are scientists... I think their socks literally flew off when I told them that I wanted to dedicate my life to philosophy.

Back when I was an advocate of science, I'd confidently announced the theory of gravity as an unshakable universal "law" and in reply, my philosophy teacher asked, "How do we determine this scientific law?" He held up a piece of chalk and said, "If I drop this piece of chalk a million, zillion, septillion times, and each time it falls, does that guarantee that the chalk will always certainly fall under these given conditions?" I said no, obviously, there was no certainty in science, only high degrees of probability. Of course, I brushed it off as any good scientist would... 99.99% was good enough for me, and in the vernacular sense, that *is* certainty (according to Stephen Jay Gould at least), because there is nothing else in the physical universe that we can be more certain about than what science gives us.

Then I read Hume's billard ball example that illustrated the faith we put in notions such as cause and effect, and that's when I really started thinking. I can pinpoint the birth of my awe for philosophy at that specific moment. Of course, the same argument of high probablity also applied for this scenario but it goaded me to be a more cautious of science, since cause and effect was one of its fundamental presuppositions, and it seems to have a metaphysical foundation. Why believe in cause and effect at all? It is just a conceptual model that allows us to get our mind around the workings of the natural phenomena that surrounds us. In fact there is no reason to believe in cause and effect aside from being a mere provisional perspective. Prior to this relevation, I was like any other scientist, in believing that metaphysics was just the pseudo-intelligent speculations and philosophy was a waste of time.

I used love the certainty and feeling of the absolute that mathematics allowed. In my heart, it served well as a replacement of God, although it was not something I liked to admit. Despite the enormous disparities between logic and theism, what happened, in effect, was that science/logical thinking has replaced the position that theism/religious thinking had occupied in the psyche. This was however something that the academically objective scientists admantly refuse to accept. I used to think that my philosphy teacher was gravely mistaken when he said, "Science is the religion of the 20th century." Now, that phrase has taken on a new meaning for me. Science was not *literally* a religion, but it was the metaphorical meaning that I missed. It's interesting how I never had the taste for figurative language until I began to appreciate Continental philosophy.

And so Derrida set out to Deconstruct the Aristotlean laws of logic... as an amateur philosopher, I still have difficulty fathoming the full profundity of postmodernist language games. But it is something to the effect that he creates neologisms like "pharma-con," which means both poison and antidote, and in doing so, he undermines the Law of Identity. It's an excellent example of Western egocentrism when I think about it. Due to the Westerner's obssession with logical binaries, the idea that something can both be the poison and the cure was logically inconceivable. But I know that such a notion existed in Eastern culture, that a "pharma-con" was indeed an acceptable form of medicine mentioned in traditional Chinese folklore (I know this because I'd spent a considerable amount of my childhood in China). But having lived in the West for long enough to be indocrinated by its faith in logic, my initial reaction to the idea of the "pharma-con" was identical to that of an Analytic philosopher. It was logically contradictory and therefore absurd, thus it should be discarded as nonsense, and not to be taken seriously as no "right-minded" person would believe in such gibberish. Had I been born and raised in the West I may very well have come to that conclusion. But when the memory of my Eastern upbringing was triggered, I realized that even logic was not absolute, but instead, conditioned by society and its paradigms.

Because reading Hume had had such a profound affect on me, I thought it would be the same for others who had a similar faith in science. So when my teacher began his lecture on Hume, I thought I would get the same reaction from those logical positivists in the room. And boy, was I mistaken! Apparently the idea that causal chains was not absolute was so repugnant and unsettling that they had resorted to ad hominems like "Hume was an idiot!" Likewise, I heard similar attacks towards Nietzsche and Derrida. As a result, I was more than a little shocked by how close-minded these "knights of science" can get.

I spent a lot of time trying to explain Nietzsche to a few scientific thinkers, and it appears that they just don't get it. One of them keeps feeding off the assumption that Nietzsche was a Nazi and we shouldn't take seriously the ideas of anyone with psychological problems (this included Kierkegaard as well). It has come to my attention it will be uphill battle for the intellectual critics of science, as they will be knocked from every side by this ever popular prejudice.

Anyway, I had not intended for this to be a lengthy autobiography, but parts of it seems to have turned out that way. I hope to hear to more from you in the future.

- freeth1nker

"[W]e must await the arrival of a new breed of philosophers...philosophers of the dangerous Perhaps in every sense. - And in all seriousness: I see these new philosophers approaching." -- Beyond Good and Evil

exnihilo

August 4, 2003, 04:39 PM

Freethinker1,

Yes, yes, yes. You seem to have hit the nail on the head with your comments, especially those relating to a positive critique of postmodernism. If you are familar with the so-called "Cambridge Affair" in which a group of analytical philosophers tried to block teh presentation of an honorary degree to J. Derrida, you see the utter ridiculousness of their position. In fact their public pronouncements were the epitome of anti-logical thinking. Instead of citing even one example from Derrida's work--which it is obvious that they had never even read (like so many of the highminded critics that cruise these boards)-- these public pronouncements were filled with ad hominems and strawman arguments.
The real problem with Derrida, at leats in this case, resultedfrom a rather public exchange between Derrida and John Searle---the self-appointed interprtor of JL Austin and the idea of performative language. By using neologism and ideas of iterability and differance Derrida preceded to take apart each of Searle's flimsy points via a simple reductio de adsurdum in the work Limited Inc. Of course, instead of responding with counter arguments and they started a campaign of disinformation and attempted supression.
It is funny that you bring up the example of Nietzsche as such behavior simply illustrates the ongoing lack of commitment to scientific methodology so recently illustrated by the above case. Obviously such double-standards are a built-in facet of science itself, which is only applied piecemeal and only when it meshes with the mythological history of science that Kuhn exposed.
The fact that anyone would argue such a belief reveals their ignorance of Nietzsche and lack of faith/belief in the efficacy of scientific methods. And I might remind them that it is precisely the scientists that armed Nazi germany, participated in human testing of concentration camp prisoners, invented the atomic bomb and everyother tool of horror created in the 20th century, so if they want to insist on using such flimsy arguments they should be aware of their inherent hypocrisy on such issues.
That fact is 99.99 percent is not certainty, just as 3.14.....cannot produce certainty. The real problem is that logic and method are only used when convienent and in agreemant to scientific theory, bring philosophy into the discussion and watch these same "knight of science" abandon their worshipped tool and resort to arguments with all the vigor of Pliny the Elder. If anything many of the responses does nothing more than illustrate this point precisely.
"What are these churches now, but the tombs and sepulchers of god"--Nietzsche

exnihilo

August 12, 2003, 05:42 PM

Posted by Cloche:
In that case, it should be easy for you to produce the actual words of someone who has defended that view.
A common theme, it appears. Do you happen to know what inference is?

Posted by Cloche:

Nothing in their writings, to my knowledge, supports (**).
Who cares what you have read, this is merely (and there is nothing mere about it) a statement concerning your individual knowledge, which obviously has no bearing on the nature of philosophy whatsoever.

Posted by Cloche:
LOL! Nailed it in one, Vork.

You have yet to explain how this isn't vacuous. Perhaps, there is some deeper meaning to it, but not being versed in the inscutable methods of logic, its sophisticated meaning escapes me. To me it merely looks like mindless cheerleading, I could be wrong though.

The Helmetmaker

August 17, 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by exnihilo
After reading over many of the posts here I am wondering what you all think of the limits of scientific investigation.
Thomas Kuhn in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions illustrated just how subjective and even "superstitious" science can be. The history of science seems to bear this out and shares many similarities with religion when it comes to the dogmatic adherence to certain established or traditional ideas expressed by followers of each. Of course, in many, if not most, other respects Scientific inquiry provides a superior means of constructing explanatory models.
But, if Kuhn and co., are correct, as well as postmodernists, there seems that there will always be a dark void of unknowing to which human capacities can never hope to understand.

My question is how many accept the notion of unknowability and how many believe that Kuhn and co., are ultimately wrong and think that science can indeed provide all the answers that we seek sometime in the future?

Nothing like coming late to the party.:)

Of course there is an unknowably vast area of unknowability.:) I haven't read Kuhn and co., but there are a few simple and obvious ways to show that all the answers will never be provided. Methodologyx has provided one; here are a couple of others. Don't laugh, I deal mainly in the simple and obvious.:)

All discussion of the merits of scientific knowledge aside, this is an epistemological question. For the sake of argument, we will assume the sciences and/or other methodologies are capable of answering questions and providing true knowledge; and we can even also assume that all things are knowable regardless of human capabilites. If so, we are now more ignorant than we were yesterday. This is to say that with each new point of knowledge we gain, we are capable of forming an entire new array of questions. As more and more knowledge is accumulated, these new arrays become larger and larger. Even allowing for the facts that out of each new array of questions some will be false and some will be invalid, enough new true questions will be created that knowledge will never have a chance to keep up, so to speak.:)

Another point has to do with theories. Theories are theoretically capable :) of encompassing a large number of knowable things in a compact metaphor, thus indirectly providing knowledge of whatever falls under its rubric. The ideal theory provides a one-to-one correspondence between the theory and the reality it describes. It is essentially a map. It is never possible to establish a one-to-one correspondence between the map and the territory. -- I know; that's a sweeping statement. But the whole point of a map is compactness. It necessarily sacrifices accuracy for compactness and makes single points in the map correspond to multiple points in the territory. Thus, theories (maps) serve two masters: compactness and accuracy. If one wins out, the other suffers, and knowledge forever remains incomplete. Theories provide all three: knowledge, prediction, and hypotheticals, but never complete knowledge alone.

Combine these two points with the observations that all events are unique, that all events have not happened yet, and that some events are past and unobservable by any means, then the certainty of uncertain knowledge :) is confirmed. On top of that, even science seems to say that it cannot make all things knowable: it fully acknowledges the measurement problem.

I hope this exegesis has not been too simplistic -- helmetmaking is almost a lost art, don't ya know. :)

The Helmetmaker

Clutch

August 18, 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by The Helmetmaker
Even allowing for the facts that out of each new array of questions some will be false and some will be invalid, enough new true questions will be created that knowledge will never have a chance to keep up, so to speak.:)Right. As I mentioned earlier, That is, no matter what course our investigations take, there will some things or other that we never get round to figuring out.But this is a philosophically quite modest sense of unknowability, since it does not entail that any particular thing cannot be known -- only that, whatever we focus our studies on, we're always going to miss (a whole lot of) something.

The difference between not being able to count all the numbers, and there being some particular number to which one simply could not count, is probably useful here. Of course one couldn't count all the natural numbers. But we still call them countable, since there's none to which one could not count.
Another point has to do with theories. Theories are theoretically capable :) of encompassing a large number of knowable things in a compact metaphor, thus indirectly providing knowledge of whatever falls under its rubric. The ideal theory provides a one-to-one correspondence between the theory and the reality it describes. It is essentially a map. It is never possible to establish a one-to-one correspondence between the map and the territory. -- I know; that's a sweeping statement. But the whole point of a map is compactness. It necessarily sacrifices accuracy for compactness and makes single points in the map correspond to multiple points in the territory. Thus, theories (maps) serve two masters: compactness and accuracy. If one wins out, the other suffers, and knowledge forever remains incomplete. Theories provide all three: knowledge, prediction, and hypotheticals, but never complete knowledge alone.Is the only way to know something through a theory? We could torture the notion of a theory in order to make this come out true, but intuitively there's not much theoretical about knowledge like, If I fall down, it usually hurts, and so forth.
Combine these two points with the observations that all events are unique, that all events have not happened yet, and that some events are past and unobservable by any means, then the certainty of uncertain knowledge :) is confirmed. On top of that, even science seems to say that it cannot make all things knowable: it fully acknowledges the measurement problem. An excellent point, and very important in this context, since it emphasizes the problem of the missing interlocutor in this thread. What caricature of scientists attributes to them the belief that it is possible to be in the position of knowing everything? (Ie, including all subatomic positions and momentums!)

We've been told thatScientists and their cheerleaders seem to want us to believe the niave assumption that The Scientific is in a special catagory, somehow sealed off from or impervious to the corrupting influences common to every other form of human endeavor.
After twice asking for even a single quote from a scientist who defends this idea -- "the actual words of someone who has defended that view" -- I was told that merely asking for such evidence made me an example!
One could infer that those who resond in such a manner are probably the selfsame people who adhere to a conception of science that I have criticized. Despite what you say, the tone and content of your responses reveals you to be exactly the type of person I am talking about.In short, a great deal of this thread seems devoted to attacking a convenient stereotype, without the foggiest idea of whether it applies to a non-trivial number of scientists.

The issues surrounding knowability are philosophically very interesting, to be sure, and have been much discussed in metaphysics, epistemology and philosophical logic. A locus classicus, for all its recency, is the chapter on structural unknowability in Timothy Williamson's Knowledge and its Limits (OUP 2000), which also contains an extensive bibliography.