F: I could accuse you of the same fault Terence, of sweeping generalizations and knee jerk aversions.
T: As is your prerogative of course. But do tell more.
F: Your constant tirade against modern science and rationalism, bears within it many contradictions you know. It seems like your demonization of science is solely calling for the glorification of the irrational. How can that not be anything but simply reactionary?
T: Granted. I do have a particular bent for the irrational and absurd. And I do seek out and revel in finding the edges of the impossible, the improbable, the unexplainable, and to some the indigestible. But, the way I see it, I am simply tooting for the underdog here. Don't you think the irrational deserves a mascot too, like science is for the rational?
F: But don't you find that to be quite myopic, un-ruminated?
T: Rationally, yes. Irrationally, well....
F: Now that is just aversion!
T: Okay. You got me there friend. But my reverence for the irrational does not permit callous conclusions. So I will say this: science is no singular monolith that one can define within the confines of a watertight paradigm. Science includes multiple aspects, among which I include rationality, reason, method, reductionism among others. And to say that I am rejecting science, is to not see the full picture you see.
F: Then what are you rejecting?
T: Now you are asking the right question. The first thing I reject is the notion of truth, embedded as the ultimate assumption within science - the claim that science shall be the one and only arbiter of what reality is to mean to us. And that is simply not the case. Science has a lot to say about the material aspect of reality - atoms, electrons, neu-masons, anti protons, what have you. But to claim that the universe is singularly explainable by interlocking laws that define the behavior of matter is not only absurd, but is the epitome of hubris.
F: Ok. Fine. The truth of the unseen, immeasurable, reality that exists within and without. I get you. But there is no denying the achievements of science in the modern world. There must be something right going on there?
T: Sure. No denying it. But let that not lead to the misapprehension that it has it all figured out, or that it ever will! A major qualm I have with the scientific method is the tendency to always move towards reductionism, and the underlying assumption that you can actually restore something to initial conditions. Any experiment that you do requires this, and depends on it. The way I see it, you can never restore initial conditions, because you never live the same moment twice. But the method does not work otherwise. The phenomenon of repeatability is a necessity.
However, don't get me wrong. I have the utmost agreement with the concept of logic and reason, which are essentially the bedrock of science. They are the highest achievements of human cognition that we have. So reason, I shall keep. And logic still remains my reality compass.
F: And throw away the rest?
T: Well, yes. Because, agree with me or not, there is twilight of reductionism happening as we speak. (Just take a look at quantum physics - I mean they're not even sure whether you and I exist at all!) And yet I am not ready to proclaim the twilight of reductionism to simultaneously be the funeral of reason. There are many others, more numerous than little old me, who are ready to bury reason along with reductionism. But I think even though reason may have been caught in bed with reductionism, it may have been set up!
F: Haha. Surely you're kidding?
T: Surely not. As they used to say in Watergate, "linked but not tainted". So, no point throwing the baby out with the bath water. I guess what I am saying is the major problem that I see with science now is its arrogance. And arrogance is not the fault of science itself. For that, we can congratulate the scientists - for you see, they are the high priests of the modern world, beholders of the secret meaning of life and the universe, yada yada yada. After a lifetime spent peeking into the other side, I just cannot take them seriously anymore.
F: So, reason is ok?
T: On the contrary, reason is indispensable.
T: As is your prerogative of course. But do tell more.
F: Your constant tirade against modern science and rationalism, bears within it many contradictions you know. It seems like your demonization of science is solely calling for the glorification of the irrational. How can that not be anything but simply reactionary?
T: Granted. I do have a particular bent for the irrational and absurd. And I do seek out and revel in finding the edges of the impossible, the improbable, the unexplainable, and to some the indigestible. But, the way I see it, I am simply tooting for the underdog here. Don't you think the irrational deserves a mascot too, like science is for the rational?
F: But don't you find that to be quite myopic, un-ruminated?
T: Rationally, yes. Irrationally, well....
F: Now that is just aversion!
T: Okay. You got me there friend. But my reverence for the irrational does not permit callous conclusions. So I will say this: science is no singular monolith that one can define within the confines of a watertight paradigm. Science includes multiple aspects, among which I include rationality, reason, method, reductionism among others. And to say that I am rejecting science, is to not see the full picture you see.
F: Then what are you rejecting?
T: Now you are asking the right question. The first thing I reject is the notion of truth, embedded as the ultimate assumption within science - the claim that science shall be the one and only arbiter of what reality is to mean to us. And that is simply not the case. Science has a lot to say about the material aspect of reality - atoms, electrons, neu-masons, anti protons, what have you. But to claim that the universe is singularly explainable by interlocking laws that define the behavior of matter is not only absurd, but is the epitome of hubris.
F: Ok. Fine. The truth of the unseen, immeasurable, reality that exists within and without. I get you. But there is no denying the achievements of science in the modern world. There must be something right going on there?
T: Sure. No denying it. But let that not lead to the misapprehension that it has it all figured out, or that it ever will! A major qualm I have with the scientific method is the tendency to always move towards reductionism, and the underlying assumption that you can actually restore something to initial conditions. Any experiment that you do requires this, and depends on it. The way I see it, you can never restore initial conditions, because you never live the same moment twice. But the method does not work otherwise. The phenomenon of repeatability is a necessity.
However, don't get me wrong. I have the utmost agreement with the concept of logic and reason, which are essentially the bedrock of science. They are the highest achievements of human cognition that we have. So reason, I shall keep. And logic still remains my reality compass.
F: And throw away the rest?
T: Well, yes. Because, agree with me or not, there is twilight of reductionism happening as we speak. (Just take a look at quantum physics - I mean they're not even sure whether you and I exist at all!) And yet I am not ready to proclaim the twilight of reductionism to simultaneously be the funeral of reason. There are many others, more numerous than little old me, who are ready to bury reason along with reductionism. But I think even though reason may have been caught in bed with reductionism, it may have been set up!
F: Haha. Surely you're kidding?
T: Surely not. As they used to say in Watergate, "linked but not tainted". So, no point throwing the baby out with the bath water. I guess what I am saying is the major problem that I see with science now is its arrogance. And arrogance is not the fault of science itself. For that, we can congratulate the scientists - for you see, they are the high priests of the modern world, beholders of the secret meaning of life and the universe, yada yada yada. After a lifetime spent peeking into the other side, I just cannot take them seriously anymore.
F: So, reason is ok?
T: On the contrary, reason is indispensable.
Comments
Post a Comment