1) Sensory experience cannot be true or false, these are characteristics of propositions which are formed by the intellect. The intellect must use a synthesis of a priori reasoning and a posteriori experience to form beliefs. Even the vague proposition that these experiences are does not follow exclusively from a posteriori experience, for it presupposes that we are qualified to judge whether or not experiences are, which can only be known a priori.
The methods of the intellect and its validity cannot be ascertained through experience, because any consideration of the implications of experience can only be achieved using the very faculties in question. Despite this, we know that these methods are valid with certainty, because these methods are presented to us as self-evident. To doubt the self-evident is senseless.
It follows from the above consideration that the methodology of empiricism, which seeks to attain knowledge from experience alone, and ignore or belittle the dictum's of thought, is impossible. It is of course true that the more we experience, the more data we can use to form accurate beliefs. But ultimately the beliefs we form are always based on rational principles known a priori.
Since empiricism is impossible, science cannot differ from philosophy in that science is empirical while philosophy is rational. Both are fields which establish beliefs, so both must be explained by appeal to a priori reasoning in conjunction with a posteriori data. So what truly is unique about science as a methodology, as opposed to philosophy?
2) It is often complained that philosophy does not advance in the sense of establishing indisputable beliefs. After centuries of philosophical work there is still precious little that all philosophers would agree on. It is forever open to revision and disagreement. If this is the case, it would seem futile to continue in this pursuit.
There are many errors in this claim, for the moment I wish only to point out that philosophy in fact has produced numerous established principles and theories. The reason this is sometimes not fully recognized is because the moment any such principle or theory is established it necessarily ceases to be considered philosophy and instead becomes its own field or subject matter.
Philosophy does not refer to a particular subject or group of subjects but to the method of studying any subject. Reflection, critical analysis, logical argumentation, this is the essence of philosophy; philosophy is best understood in terms of philosophizing. Whenever a principle or theory is sufficiently established it is no longer in the arena of philosophizing for it is already sufficiently established.
Thus we have seen mathematics, political science, and economics shift away from philosophy. Not because these are not born out of philosophies womb, but because they have been born healthy and strong. Given recent trends among scholars to think of ethics as scientifically demonstrable, we may soon see ethics too finally leave the province of philosophy.
Natural science, as well, has at first been considered philosophy, only after it has been sufficiently established field has it been deemed its own field. Hence it is foolish to search for a distinguishing factor between the methodology of science and philosophy, since science is the child of philosophy.
However, science does purport to be empirical, and this must be explained since empiricism is impossible. It must only be noted that we are not searching for an explanation of the methodology of science, but for an explanation of the methodology of empiricism which is manifest in science.
3) Rational inquiry reveals that experience itself is the result of unconscious interpretation. For example, there are many speculative proofs that the world is actually composed of particles interacting, yet the world we experience is utterly unlike this. Clearly then, the brain unconsciously interprets these phenomenon and represents it to us as things like solids etc.
This interpretation includes not only sensory experience but also beliefs associated with sensory experience. We refer to these as intuition. For example, we naturally understand some phenomenon to be causes/effects of other phenomenon, yet nothing in sensory experience informs us of this. Rather, these are beliefs which are presented to us as a part of the general interpretation we are given.
Beyond this, we are capable of consciously inquiring about the accuracy of unconscious interpretation and we can thereby correct the interpretation. These conscious reflections and reinterpretations are crucial if we are to have knowledge, because the unconscious interpretation is not necessarily reflective of truth, but is simply an inventive worldview apt for our survival.
For example, our unconscious interpretation represents the world as containing different objects, e.g. a car, a chair, etc. But through conscious reflection we know that these are not actually singular objects in any objective sense, but only in the sense that through the various parts of a car or a chair we gain a single utility. This unconscious interpretation seems to have been favored by natural selection because it is useful for our survival to see things in terms of their utility for us.
4) Science as empiricism is possible because it relies on the natural interpretations of our unconscious brain to rationalize a given experience. Science borrows from common sense and intuition as well as other unconscious mechanisms of interpreting phenomenon; it does not seek to rationalize experience consciously. It is not that empiricism is less rational than other methodologies, but that the only conscious aspect of this methodology is its empiricism, e.g. experimentation. In science, only simple intuitive thoughts are incorporated and accepted, more sophisticated thoughts are disregarded as ‘philosophy’. For this reason mathematics is fully embraced by science, notwithstanding its philosophical character and unempirical basis, because it is utterly intuitive.
Sciences requirement of experimentation seems absurd, for the beliefs we infer from experimentation are rational inferences, no different than rational inferences not experimented. Experimentation helps improve rational inferences, and for this end it is certainly commendable. But how can it be considered necessary without circularity? Science considers this necessary, because the inferences made from experimentation are more intuitive and unconsciously produced than inferences made by conscious reflection.
It may at first seem odd that science is based on intuition when science hardly acknowledges the significance of intuition. Indeed, much of what science has established through intuition goes against intuition. However, this is to be expected, because one who is hardly conscious of intuition and its implications will find themselves following different intuitions at different times. For example, when conducting an experiment the scientist will allow intuition to form conclusions from his experiment while ignoring other intuitions which do not follow from the experiment at hand.
5) Science in its current manner is slowly nearing the point where it will meet its demise, after years of pompousness empiricism will soon die. Science is becoming so advanced that common sense/unconscious interpretations are becoming useless to interpret experience. For instance, science accepted atomic-theory, despite no sensory experience confirming this, because much of what people have experienced leads naturally to such a theory. But now that this theory is accepted the unconscious mind has absolutely nothing to add or explain; atoms and the way they function are simply beyond common sense. Science has borne onto us a metaphysical worldview which it cannot in its present state decipher. Soon empiricism will collapse in frustration, and the new science which emerges will be reminiscent of ancient philosophy. In fact, this new science has already begun to arise in the form of theoretical physics.
Not only has science been ushered into grounds which are non-empirical, it has unconsciously embraced idealism. For instance, science has demonstrated the possibility of a void, of space uninhabited by matter. Yet a void consists of nothing but extension- what does it mean that extension exists as an independent reality? Evidently, this is an abstraction of form: the form extension is claimed by science to exist. This is actually an excellent interpretation of space because it resolves the old problem of the end of space. If space is not physically existent but is an idea of extension then space itself does not exist as a thing with physical dimensions so the very question is flawed.
Another example is the scientific claim that the universe is expanding. Expansion is generally held to be a relative phenomenon, but since space itself is claimed to be expanding there is nothing which the universe is expanding into. So what does it mean that the universe is expanding? Expansion qua expansion, it seems. Such a notion of expansion seems to grant expansion itself an existence. This can only be understood in terms of an idea.
Or take the bizarre findings of quantum mechanics, which has shown that various possibilities exist simultaneously until observation, at which point the probable possibility is instantiated. Such claims clearly assume existential ideas, like possibility and probability. The picture quantum mechanics suggests, of the universe being composed primarily of possibility, while at the level of observation things are physically manifested based on probability, is one which would have made Plato proud. Does it not sound eerily like Plato’s doctrine of the forms, where forms (existential possibility) are considered primary, the sensible world a manifestation of these forms?
No comments:
Post a Comment