What we are able to perceive, we can subject to empirical analysis and reasoning, which is best exemplified by the “scientific method.” That is, a sequence or collection of procedures that are considered characteristic of scientific investigation and the acquisition of new scientific knowledge based upon physical evidence. Observation and experiment through carefully controlled, reproducible and independently verifiable measurement, are fundamental components of empirical analysis.
“Only against the background of an objective world, and measured against criticizable claims to truth and efficacy, can beliefs appear as systematically false, actions intentions as systematically hopeless, and thoughts as fantasies, as mere imaginings.” Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol II p51
Inevitably any method of classical inquiry, which relies heavily on our experiential capacities, will result in what Bernard Lonergen refers to as an “empirical residue” which is an element which is beyond our perceptual judgement. This element is then in turn taken up and analysed at the Statistical level. Any residue remaining after this point, it could be argued become matters of faith or further investigation.
In today’s secular and technologically driven world we are led to believe that scientific discovery holds the key to our future survival and progress as a species. This idea is sold to us with the same dogmatic fervor as the Catholic Church sold us in the west, the idea of original sin, heaven, hell and salvation, a salvation which could only be achieved by reference and adherence to the churches doctrines. The Church by way of example stipulates, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” – There is no salvation outside the church.
Science and logic are not the ordinary human criteria for truth. In logic the only certain conclusions are deductions from self evident propositions. On the other hand, scientific hypotheses may have any degree of probability but cannot be certain, for absolute verification is logically impossible. So as Lonergan states in terms of describing the minds highest capacity for critical analysis, “ the alternative criterion is the mind itself’ far higher, wider, more subtle, than logical inference’ which can use all our knowledge, evaluate in the concrete, and remain in harmony with natural procedure, neither a priori doubting everything or accepting anything.” Bernard Lonergan - True Judgment and Science” p5
The scientific revolution of the 16 Century Renaissance period meant that Galileo, from observations made through his newly developed telescope, was able for the first time, to confirm the theories of Copernicus. This meant that the earth was replaced by the sun as the centre of the cosmos, which was now understood to operate principally under Natural Law, and not that of a Deity. This was considered to be a direct threat to the authority of the church. Any new findings which threatened the established viewpoint were often considered as heresy and subjected to a “baptism of fire,” which in the case of Giordano Bruno in 1600BCE, meant a literal interpretation, being sentenced by the papacy to be burned at the stake.
In the 18th Century Isaac Newton sought to restore the notion of a divinely inspired and mechanically (the blind watchmaker) driven universe, embodied in his “Laws of Motion.” According to these laws (known as classical mechanics), the motion of matter depends on a fixed space/time background (non-dynamical) structure. Space and time are unchangeable entities which define accelerated motion in absolute terms.
Any notion of a natural underlying cosmic source, as exemplified by the idea of the “ether,” was declared dead. In principle, you could work out the movement and position of every atom in the universe, and achieve a complete understanding of the nature of the universe and “Gods Laws.”
For the next 300 years this is how things stood in terms of scientific understanding, until Albert Einstein developed his theories of Special and General Relativity in 1905 and 1915 respectively.
Richard Dawkins has written that "there's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic, and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority or revelation."
This is a fundamental question regarding the level and quality of "proof" provided by scientific reasoning.
Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. Other philosophers of science have rejected the criterion of falsifiability or supplemented it with other criteria, such as verifiability (e.g., verificationism) or coherence (e.g., confirmation holism). The scientific method involves experimentation on the basis of hypotheses in order to answer questions and explore observations.
In scientific and medical applications, the null hypothesis plays a major role in testing the significance of differences in treatment and control groups. The assumption at the outset of the experiment is that no difference exists between the two groups (for the variable being compared): this is the null hypothesis in this instance. This use, while widespread, is criticized on a number of grounds, some of which are as follows:
It is a matter of considerable controversy in the philosophy of science what to regard as evidence for or against the most fundamental laws of physics. Isaac Newton's laws of motion in their original form were falsified by experiments in the twentieth century (eg, the anomaly of the motion of Mercury, the behavior of light passing sufficiently close to a star, the behavior of particle being accelerated in a cyclotron, etc), and replaced by a theory which predicted those phenomena, General Relativity, though Newton's account of motion is still a good enough approximation for most human needs. Even the validity of the anomaly of the motion of Mercury as verification of Einstein’s General Relativity has been called into serious question, as all the experimental results were not taken into consideration, thereby creating bias. In the case of less fundamental laws, their falsifiability is much easier to understand. If, for example, a biologist hypothesizes that, as a matter of scientific law (though practising scientists will rarely actually state it as such), only one certain gland produces a certain hormone, when someone discovers an individual without the gland but with the hormone occurring naturally in their body, the hypothesis is falsified.
Thomas Kuhn’s influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that determines the way in which they view the world. Scientists will go to great length to defend their paradigm against falsification, by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories. Changing one's 'paradigm' is not easy, and only through some pain and angst does science (at the level of the individual scientist) change paradigms.
Imre Lakatos attempted to explain Kuhn’s work in falsificationist terms by arguing that science progresses by the falsification of research programs rather than the more specific universal statements of naïve falsification.
Paul Feyerabend examined the history of science with a more critical eye, and ultimately rejected any prescriptive methodology at all. He went beyond Lakatos’ argument for ad hoc hypothesis, to say that science would not have progressed without making use of any and all available methods to support new theories. He rejected any reliance on a scientific method, along with any special authority for science that might derive from such a method. Rather, he claimed, ironically, that if one is keen to have a universally valid methodological rule, anything goes would be the only candidate. For Feyerabend, any special status that science might have derives from the social and physical value of the results of science rather than its method.
Following from Feyerabend, the whole "Popper project" to define science around one particular methodology—which accepts nothing except itself—is a perverse example of what he supposedly decried: a closed circle argument. The Popperian criterion itself is not falsifiable. Moreover, it makes Popper effectively a philosophical nominalist, which has nothing to do with empirical sciences at all.
Many actual physicists, including Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg and Alan Sokal (Fashionable Nonsense), have criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. Take astrology, an example most would agree is not science. Astrology constantly makes falsifiable predictions -- a new set is printed every day in the newspapers, yet few would argue this makes it scientific.
One might respond that astrological claims are rather vague and can be excused or reinterpreted. But the same is true of actual science: a physical theory predicts that performing a certain operation will result in a number in a certain range. Nine times out of ten it does; the tenth the physicists blame on a problem with the machine -- perhaps someone slammed the door too hard or something else happened that shook the machine. Falsifiability does not help us decide between these two cases.
Mathematical and logical statements are typically regarded as unfalsifiable, since they are tautologies, not existential or universal statements. For example, "all bachelors are male" and "all green things are green" are necessarily true (or given) without any knowledge of the world; given the meaning of the terms used, they are tautologies. Proving mathematical theorems involves reducing them to tautologies, which can be mechanically proven as true given the axioms of the system or reducing the negative to a contradiction. Mathematical theorems are unfalsifiable, since this process, coupled with the notion of consistency, eliminates the possibility of counterexamples.
We attempt to apply the concept of measurement as defined by science and mathematics to the context dependent and complex behaviour of individual and social human systems which are dynamic, changeable and often, in logical terms, unreasonable. In my view, we can draw a reasonable distinction between what we can;
1. Perceive (directly experience)
2. Imagine (represent without the necessity of experience or understanding) and
3. Conceive (represent without the possibility of experience or full understanding (e.g. a line of infinite length, as per mathematical notation))
We can use mathematics as one of the mind tools which have been invented or discovered (depending on which school of thought you attest to) in order to represent and explain what we can conceive, but cannot experience, (e.g.infinity) yet which has relevance and practical implications. This is one of the great benefits and mysteries of mathematics. The problem arises when we fail to recognise the limits of the explanatory power of mathematics.
According to Gregor Cantor you will always have higher levels of Infinity (Infinity of Infinities), as far as he could determine, without end (he drove himself insane trying to prove it!) That is because, there is in fact only one infinity, one which exists beyond our explanatory capacity. Such totality Cantor called Absolute Infinity; it is beyond all mathematical determination, and can be comprehended only in the “Mind of God.” “The Continuum Hypothesis”
"I could confine myself to a nutshell and declare myself king of infinity". Hamlet
The reason we speculate on multiple infinities is because of the limitations of mathematical reasoning. As Kurt Godel pointed out in his 1931 “Incompleteness Theorems”, any system based on mathematical reasoning cannot fully explain itself without reference to a higher order system. The Theorems are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics.
Allan Turing followed this up with the concept of “Computational Intractability,” the fact that you cannot even apply computational algorithms to the problem. He showed that there are computational algorithms, the outcome of which cannot ever be determined. All you can do is set them in motion, (space) watch (observe) and wait (time) for complexity to spontaneously emerge.
The universe we live in, is an open system, it is in a constant state of energetic flux. This entire physical manifestation is created instant by instant from an underlying source (which we will term the Manifold, often known as the Vacuum). Every particle of this creation is moving, it occupies a point in space for such an infinitesimal moment as almost never to have been there at all, multiple directions, multiple velocities, multiple rotations, everything is moving.
So our physical universe emerges moment to moment from the Manifold, an infinite ocean of virtual energy, or more precisely an infinite ocean of information so densely packed, it requires only a cubic centimetre to generate our universe.
However true it may be that science can assist our future survival and enhance our lives, it certainly does not mean that science has all the answers, or that it ever will. Even Einstein who became the scientific icon of the 20th century stated a serious level of uncertainty in relation to his life’s work, including his most revered and established theories. He said,
"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)
In order to understand the world from a scientific viewpoint we would do well to listen to Bertrand Russell who states “Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.”
Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy Introduction p 14.
Further, it also does not mean that science operates in a bubble which shields it from bias and outside forces and influences. The part politics, economics, sociology and religion play in influencing modern mainstream scientific academia and developments cannot be underestimated.
From a political standpoint, governments earn huge revenues from the taxes imposed on energy, drugs and the sale of know how. Economic interests play an important part in the form and presentation of many scientific results. Examples include the influence which the large pharmaceutical companies exert on the findings and methodologies of drug trials and research programs. Their propaganda regimes are designed to dress up their products, so that the medical profession and the public are sold on there health benefits. Doctors are treated to free “samples” and free attendance at seminars and presentations in far flung and exotic locations of the world.
Also any research or developments which challenge or threaten industries where established, expensive and highly profitable technologies are in use, such as in the fields of energy or computing, are often bought out, suppressed or discredited.
Beyond paying the ultimate price, many modern academics that veer to far from the “received wisdom,” or try to promote the idea of a new approach or methodology, are often subjected to anything ranging from irrational criticism and public castigation to deliberate falsification and manipulation of results and loss of academic standing, livelihood and research funding.
Our most refined knowledge of reality and existence is honed in the furnace of experience, which is not an isolated endeavor. The world of meaning mediated by understanding, judgment, discourse and common sense takes us beyond the field of immediate experience to a realm, much of which is only partly explored.
Modern worldviews no longer have the validity claims of mythical traditions, they have a relation to truth. They are comparable only in respect to their potency for conferring meaning – the degree of openness to ideas.
The problems of the human mind reflect back as questions to which we can provide only the provisional answer. Occasionally we pose a new question and gain a new insight. Even less often do we find a new way of looking at well established ideas and reinterpreting them in a more inventive, powerful or revealing way, which can, in a few circumstances, radically change the world forever.
Understanding requires a number of features which have to be realized, modeled and coordinated at the conscious and unconscious levels. Life is a network of relationships within environments which are continually interacting and evolving to higher and higher levels of complexity and sophistication. We require core aspects of stability at all levels, physical, psychological and social in order to be able to function within a continuously evolving complex environment. These core aspects in effect act as models which can be manipulated in relative safety in order to test real world scenarios. Models based on prior experience and understanding, provide a coherent and stable sense of self in physical, psychological and social terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment