A rational, sensible review of the foundational assumptions of philosophy of science
Why it is crucial
for philosophy of science to realise her very fragile foundations? The reason
is, it is science that rules the minds of the world today. This hegemony over
the minds of human beings has resulted in not only forming the world-view of
individuals, but also influencing the ethos of mankind’s political, economic,
education and other public institutions!
People keep blind
confidence, that science’s theories and world-view might be infallibly true.
Hence they build their moral values, world-view etcetera based on, or drawing
from the world- view of science! Her
authority is more than that of any political establishment because, whether
health, communication gadgets like smart phones, cars or air crafts, people
know, they are all in place because of the presence of science. Her values are
what educational institutions follow because education is a state subject.
The chief reason
behind more and more people leaving alliance to religion and God also can be
attributed to science. When science finds no God or any supernatural stuff up
above there, even the most intelligent man tend to believe her, and wishes to
be a follower of science! Her prestige is so high, so her moral authority over
minds too! Today’s wars are fought and won based of the advanced technologies
Nations possess and use.
This is not to say
anything against the miraculous technological innovations Science has achieved!
Whatever said above was against the base beliefs science keeps, ie, the
physical base of whatever that exists. World-view of people emerges from it,
not from her technological miracles. She can have technological innovations to
her heart’s full, but better she adopt a more open world-view with regard to the
metaphysical realm of life and existence.
It is philosophy of
science that defines the method of science. She is the patron of her
foundational principles and assumptions. New world had emerged first from the
achievements of science. It was from there during enlightenment, that our new
political, economic and educational social systems and traditions followed.
Following write-up
of Google blogger Abraham J.Palakudy explains what was the basic world-view of
science during her inception stage, as expressed by one of the father figures
of modern science, Francis Bacon: http://argumentsagainstscientificpositivism.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-initial-motivational-energies.html
We now are aware
that one’s entire world-view and all inferences derive from the foundational
principles, or logically speaking, from the ‘universal premise’ he keeps. An
age’s logic can simply be reduced to the net universal premise man, communities
and his institutions keep. Their further premises will be inferred from them,
or derived from them, in strict logical consistency. Without a base premise at
the bottom, man can not seek further knowledge.Those who are not yet aware of
this simple logical truth may refer to following paper by a Google blogger,
Abraham J. Palakudy, at his post link:
So
it is natural that the world-view of present day world and her major
institutions have been derived from the universal premises science keep.
It is only philosophy
of science that could open up more and more and probe following areas of her dogma
like foundational principles or assumptions from where her philosophy derived.
So, clearly there is high moral responsibility rests with the patrons of
‘philosophy of science’ to keep her foundational principles constantly checked,
and see if any important variable is ignored, missed or kept away form those
principles.
Introduction
Though not declared officially, science believes in a monism about the physical base of whole existence; she believes, she can explain every aspect of reality in a ‘matter centric’ paradigm.
Though not declared officially, science believes in a monism about the physical base of whole existence; she believes, she can explain every aspect of reality in a ‘matter centric’ paradigm.
This paper intents
to delve into why the above and other such unverified paradigms or presumptions
make Science equal in many ways similar to religions, and her theories similar
to popular myths of mankind, but of course the most dominant ones.
Besides taking up
all these major presumption for detailed discussion, the paper will also introduce
a ‘faculty of mind’ that science was using in all her inferences from her very
inception days but without giving it any due credit, or even acknowledging its
role in giving science her famed ‘certainty’ of findings. I am referring to the
‘sense-organ’ role of our faculty of Reason. Of course the role of our external
sense organs are well acclaimed by science in her empirical method, but her
acceptance is due for the role of the just mentioned role of faculty of reason
too, in a sense organ role. This will remain one of the chief areas of emphasis
in this paper.
If she is open
enough to accept the ‘sense organ’ role of Reason, it might compel her to
review her method, as she might be compelled to accept the existence of a ‘new
variable’ in her scheme of things. What this mystery sense organ reveals ( or
sense) is a novel category of existential ‘order’. It is the category of
‘order’ that helps Reason to detect and then pass all theories of science as
‘consistent’ with the evidences or arguments presented in support of the theory!
More details on this aspect will be discussed when we take up this particular
subject at a later portion of this paper.
Now let us start.
Though science in
its institutionalized form today was the net outcome of the scientific-spirit that blossomed in the 15th and 16th centuries, it appears that she has
abandoned this spirit altogether, and opted to sit proudly
upon the huge bundle of her technological achievements!
To cite a few
examples, let us first take up the question of the beginning of the universe
according to scientific explanation. It says the whole was a ‘quantum vacuum field’ in
the beginning, and it exploded in a Big
Bang some 16 billion years ago.
Stephen Hawking describes this smart logic of science, by evading what is un-knowable, and then taking-up only that is within
the quantifiable realm:
‘This discovery (the big bang) finally brought the question of the
beginning of universe into the realm of science […] in the sense that earlier
times simply would not be defined’ (Hawking. Stephen. A brief history of time,1992,
12,Bantam Books, UK)
Science
simply ignores the fundamental of a pure logic, that when inferences are drawn
after discarding any factor of the superstructure of any organization, it cannot be
fully true about the infrastructure, because both aspects together make-up the
reality. Both cannot be independent of each other, stand-alone entities.
Take one more
example, the theory of biological evolution, the stand of science about the
origin of life and its gradual progress. According to science, it all caused
out of a pure accident some 3-4 billion years ago. By the falling of
sun rays, or a spark from a lightening falling upon a ‘primordial soup’ of
water minerals, life had suddenly emerged in the form of an organic protein
molecule. The rest of the story was constructed and told by Charles Darwin, and
it has become the scientific explanation of life and its gradual evolutionary
process. Science always depends on some or other superstitious story at its
superstructure level to explain the infrastructure level reality. Theory of
evolution is one of the most rigid scientific dogmas of the day that all other
theories of science attempts to correlate itself with it.
Some of the
grave philosophical and logical inconsistencies of the evolution theory have
been brought out by a Google blogger, Abraham J. Palakudy in one of his blogs:
http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/leading-dogmas-that-rule-contemporary.html
‘Man, animals and plants are aggregates of live cells. It is the cell
that mutate to bring forth evolutionary changes. Now the question is, what triggers the mutation? Is it a
pre-designed, pre-determined periodical routine of nature, or the sudden
changes in the habitat of living units that trigger the need for mutation for
better adaptation’?
What the author
argues is that the consciousness of living organisms, whether it is an ameba or
a human being, is never heard to have the foresight or will to mutate it self,
in order to adapt efficiently with its habitat. They are absolutely incapable
of imagining what mutated form would help it to cope with the new habitat. So,
we are compelled to believe that it was nature herself who had wished to mutate, in
order to adapt to her own periodical course of massive environmental changes!
The hero as well as villain in the story of evolution is nature herself?
In all practical sense, it has adopted rather a dogmatic stance on the
physical base of reality, abandoning the old spirit of openness, pure
objectivity, and absence of prejudices. At least its ordinary followers
(or believers?) get agitated at the very mention of anything other than a
physical explanation of the reality of existence and life. One of the chief
goals of this paper is to strongly argue, that it may not be the supernatural
realm of God in its religions given image that might be there up above and
beyond the physical dogma of science, but a more realistic realm of pure sense!
Can this pure faculty of ‘sense’ (faculty of Reason as a sense organ) ever
accept the story of science, that ‘existence has born from a tiny ‘quantum
vacuum field’? No, because there is no sensible explanation as to how such a
tiny ‘quantum vacuum field’ happened to be there as the beginning of the whole!
Science is unwilling to answer such questions, because she has built a thick
wall between what is observable and unobservable, or knowable and unknowable! Can
we live on forever with our ever agitating sense of reason, believing in such
make believe stories?
This paper intends to delve deeply into the blind presumptions behind
science’s having been adopted the above stand. The paper also will attempt to
expose the weak base behind such unverified presumptions.
What are the chief foundational
assumptions of Philosophy of science?
The following are the chief unverified presumptions of science that led
science to claim physical base for the whole reality: ( sourced from Wikipedia
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science)
1.
that there is an objective reality shared by all rational
observers.[47][48] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external
objective reality."[49] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are
to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very
existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an
assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants,
we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption
that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism.[50] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and
images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would
be no need of science, or anything else."[51]
More over, one of the chief findings of Quantum mechanics was
the ‘absence’ of any strict ‘objective reality’ in the world. Every reality
occurs in a unique synergy between the observing subject and the observed
object.
Now, even after clear indication and overt reference to this effect from
senior physicists, that the era of the above myth is over, ever since the
opposite evidences experienced from the high-energy physics field of
experiments, mainstream science is yet to implement this very important finding
in her day to day work and approach.
The following quotes from Fritjof Capra’s best seller book ‘The Tao of
Physics’, self-explains the above referred revolutionary shift:
‘as we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any
isolated ‘basic building blocks’, but rather appears as a complicated web of
relations between the various parts of the whole. These relations always
include the observer in an essential way’…
The properties of any atomic object can only be understood in terms of
the object’s interaction with the observer’
Niels Bohr, another veteran physicist supports it:
‘isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being
definable and observable only through their interactions with other systems’ (
book ‘ Tao of Physics, Fritjof Capra)
Heisenberg:
‘Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature;
it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves’ (ibid)
Carlo
Rovelli, a modern theoretical physicist, keeps a slightly different stand. He
believes, philosophy of science is all about accepting that no theory is
absolute and final. She should be open to accept paradigm shifts any time:
“I'm throwing down an open door if I say it here, but restricting our
vision of reality today on just the core content of science or the core content
of humanities is just being blind to the complexity of reality that we can
grasp from a number of points of view, which talk to one another enormously,
and which I believe can teach one another enormously”
But is it the reality about philosophy of science? Is she ever willing
to accept all points of views, especially about her core beliefs?
We
should certainly include the stand of Thomas Kuhn also, on ‘objective’ world.
He got and exposed the crux of the issue. He pinpointed the role of the
scientific community of any given age for defining the ‘paradigm’ under which
‘puzzles of science’ are solved. What science solves has nothing to do with the
ultimate truth of existence as an undeniable phenomenon, but what confronts
this ‘community’ asking for solutions. Following link seems explaining Kuhn’s
stand on ‘objective reality’ very clearly:
How the
pathetically ‘subjective’ man created the myth of ‘objective’ reality? A
sensible answer is attempted by the previously referred Google blogger Abraham
J.Palakudy, in his following paper:
It should become clear to mankind
from now on that, our science is only our own species’ ‘collectively’
subjective knowledge system, perhaps akin to possible knowledge systems
prevalent among many animal species. We know how monkeys had developed a smart
system of using plant reeds for sipping honey from places not accessible by
their hands. Capuchin monkeys are famous for their keeping a flat stone and a
hammer stone for breaking hard-shelled nuts. They also have acquired a smart
system of rolling down heavy stones from mountaintops to scare away predator
leopards!
We should also remember the peculiar
mind-set of men who had developed science. Western society got suffocated under
the long centuries of Church hegemony. Mind was restless to get free, and fly
out into freedom! So scientific method had adopted whatever was directly
opposite to church’s dogmas; ie, stories associated with the fuzzy, divine, God
created world of Christianity. So, science adopted the stand, that world was a
measurable and empirically real place, leaving all divinity associated with
Church’s stories.
Telescope like high-tech instruments
that enhanced the range of eyes manifold had reiterated the confidence of man!
Galileo saw sun, planets and earth very close, using his telescope. A new
confidence, rather a new philosophy had naturally emerged with the base
assumption, that the entire cosmos could be one day turn out to be an
observable, measurable, objective, physical place!
The above-referred paper of Abraham
J. Palakudy might explain the rest of the story, how ‘objectivity’ had emerged
among humankind as the chief criterion and category of reality.
2.
that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[47][48] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys
to knowable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective
parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[49] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the
physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[52]
Natural laws were created by man and his science from the middle
of a story, without touching any sensible beginning or end. He might be often observing a ‘sequences’ in a
process where one event usually follows the other. For example, in the process
of having rains, its starts with heat of the sun evaporating seawater and then
forming clouds. These clouds when gets condensed and heavy in their long
journey, it falls down to earth due to own gravity, and we call it rain. So
here many natural laws are in operation, such as water turning into vapour by
heat, and then clouds moved by the wind, and then these clouds get heavier with
water droplets, and finally water droplets fall down to earth due to gravity.
This process happens for millions of centuries, and it was science that
explained this process. We know, having rain has a sequence of individual
causes.
Science often attributes cause of water droplets and moisture
accumulation in the atmosphere to heat of sun, and water falling from sky as
rain to gravity etc. Many of her laws are thus attribution of a previous event
in a natural sequences as ‘cause’, instead of providing final causes! We all
know, such final cause if she probes, will automatically land her at the door
of metaphysics!
But she never accompanies the story till its very beginning, the
ultimate cause realm! Man, animals and plants need water and rain to sustain
their lives. Then there is a sensible system of climate on earth. These series
of natural laws when pursued till their ultimate ‘cause’ realm, throws the
process outside the realm of Science! It immediately lands her at various ‘why’
questions of existence like why man, animals and plants are here, why are they
water dependent etc. She always avoids this ultimate realm of final causes for attempting
sensible answers. Or she answers them with speculative stories exactly like
stories of religions!
Here we straight away lands at the question of ‘universal
premise’, a logical necessity for every sensible inference. What are the
‘universal premise’ science keep? How can we explain the beginning of
everything? Can there be a ‘quantum vacuum field’ originated from nowhere?
So, here we will be forced to accept that, what science does is
only chosen ‘puzzle’ solving, as Kuhn had said. Dr. Arthur Eddington, veteran
scientist ( he was also acclaimed as a philosopher of science!) of yesteryears
had also sounded a similar opinion:
“ the external
world of physics has been formulated as an answer to a particular problem
encountered in human experience…as he might take up a cross-word problem
encountered in a newspaper. His sole business is to see that the problem is
correctly solved’
the scheme of physics is now formulated in such a way as to make it almost
self-evident that it is a partial aspect of something wider’
( Eddington. Sir Arthur. Nature of the physical world.
.’ Philosophers of Science’.Edit. Saxe Commins and Robert N.Linscot. Modern
Pocket Library. (?)424, New York)
Stephen Hawking,
the recently expired veteran scientist also sounded something similar:
‘if everything in the universe depends on everything else in a
fundamental way, it might be impossible to get close to a full solution by
investigating’ parts’ of the problem in isolation’
(Hawking. Stephen.
A brief history of time,1992, 12.Bantam Books, UK)
The above words of
the most senior men of science clearly revel the nature of the scientific
explanations of the world; they are explanations of localized realities, a few
among an infinite number of them. It cannot claim any knowledge of
whatever is the whole reality.
3.
that reality can be discovered by means of systematic
observation and experimentation.[47][48] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality
is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part,
science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[51] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal
and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[49]
Here the central point is how science chooses hypotheses?
Several scientists choose their subjects
of interests for research for reasons particular to their circumstances of
life. Then the process of experiment or research begins. What is this process
of research or experiment?
I think what another veteran scientist Dr. Alfred North Whitehead
had said would answer this question very aptly:
“ Discussions on the method of science wander
off onto the topic of experiment. But experiment is nothing else than a mode ok
cooking the facts for the sake of exemplifying the law”.
(Whitehead .Albert
North. Essay. Foresight.Chap.V1.part.1.’Essays
in Philosophy’. Edit. Houston Peterson.1974,367.New York. Pocket Books)
4.
that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in
nature must have at least a natural cause.[48] Biologist Stephen
Jay Gould referred to these two closely related
propositions as the constancy
of nature's laws and the operation of
known processes.[53] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an
un-provable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate
inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study
it.[54]
We already touched this point when we had discussed the common
error of mistaking an event that takes place prior in a ‘sequence’ as its
‘cause’, and often ignoring the ultimate cause of the events, considering them
as outside the realm of science. Love to share here a paper on this trend of
finding ‘causes’ in the many sequence phenomenon in the world, at link: http://anatomyofrealities.blogspot.com/2010/
( author Abraham
J.Palakudy, Google blogger.com)
5.
that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without
any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[48]
On this experimental process also, we have seen above what
veteran scientist Dr. Whitehead had said.
‘experiments are a ‘mode
of cooking evidences’ to exemplify the theory in hand’
We know,’ not to be biased’ etc are basically moral values. Can
we mix up moral values with pure science? How can a scientist remain unbiased
when his chief motto is to collect evidence to exemplify the theory in hand? If
he encounters an evidence or a variable that directly points to a different
conclusion, will he grab it and ignore his ‘suitable’ evidence collection
exercise? If he abandon his hypothesis in hand and grab the new piece of
evidence, it will hurt his career, as new ‘paradigm shifts’ are herculean task
today! We know even after many years of introducing Quantum principles,
classical physics is yet to come to terms with the ground-breaking paradigm
shift! ‘Shut up and count’ is now a famous satire on this dilemma among its men!
7.
that random sampling is representative of the
entire population.[48] A simple random sample (SRS)
is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a
population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose
a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid
conclusions.[55
This system of generalisation from observed samples is the backbone of
modern science. When all observed heavenly bodies have been found spherical, we
generalise that, all heavenly bodies must be spherical. But we know,
generalisation has its limitations and weaknesses. Science, if she claims to be
open, should admit it.
An additional foundational
presumptions of science also can be added and discussed here:
8. Sense organs of
man and smart observations using them are the whole and sole source of primary
human knowledge. Nothing in the mind is inherent,(?) but whatever man does are learned behavioural traits.
This is the moment this author would
like to introduce man’s faculty of Reason in its ‘sense organ’ role that
science always, in each of her inference, was using since her inception!
What exactly are our sense organs? This
is a very serious subject directly linked to epistemology, the question of how
do man knows.
Epistemology, and the base question it
handles, that is, ‘why is knowledge’ is mired in utter confusion and
controversies. There are scores of different schools, studies and theories that
it will be impossible to arrive at a final answer at the end. A good picture of these various theories,
schools and studies is available at link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
If a true seeker of knowledge, with a
genuine desire to know who he is, and why he is here in life seeking knowledge
can leave all the hundreds of these ‘true, justified beliefs’ (an old, accepted
definition of knowledge) and attempt to find answer to his above base questions
will find our ‘sense organs’ the primary source of all knowledge.
If we go on analysing ‘true,
justified believes non-stop, he will reach nowhere as John. I. Pollock has
rightly said:
‘... to
justify a belief one must appeal to a further justified belief. This means that
one of two things can be the case. Either there are some beliefs that we can be
justified for holding, without being able to justify them on the basis of any
other belief, or else for each justified belief there is an infinite regress of
(potential) justification [the nebula theory]. On this theory there is no rock
bottom of justification. Justification just meanders in and out through our
network of beliefs, stopping nowhere’.[34]
It is easy
to find that, above issue is basically an issue between categories of ‘subjective’
and ‘objective’ knowledge. ‘Justified true belief’ of a person when brought to
the public realm for analysing it as a theme of ‘objective’ study, the very
subject of study transforms into a different ‘category’, altering the nature of
the original subject itself! Quantum mechanics has distinctly and clearly
taught mankind, that man and mankind are not equipped by Nature for any
objective knowledge. Man is basically and fundamentally a subject and he can
have only subjective knowledge, the unique synergies between he and what he
observe. A link above referred was a
very specific study on this subject:
Next, If open
minds look at ‘a priori’ and
‘posteriori’ classical distinctions of knowledge, they will find that there is
no sensible base to that distinction. Raw sense data when perceived by newborn
babies, or first human beings in history, makes no sense at all as he/she will
be like a passive mirror! When he
becomes an aggregate of different sense data, and after his gaining a ‘sense of
self’, he becomes able to make sense of the ‘sense’ perceptions. Besides the
objects in external world, there are certain very real objects directly that of
the mind, as described in following post of Abraham J.Palakudy at Google
blogger.com: http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2012/09/certain-unrecognized-objects-of-mind.html
If he lives
in a community with a language, then his sense data gains sense and meaning. His
gaining a ‘sense of self’ is his first ever, real ‘experience’ in life! It is
this ‘self’ who go on gaining more experiences. So, ‘a priori’ distinction for
knowledge was conceived on very wrong footing!
There was no
serious study yet on how man gains his sense of self. Science always believed,
sense of self is the product of human brain. She kept this belief because, she
believed in the physical foundation of everything. A sensible explanation as to
how Nature might have schemed the origin of the ‘sense of self’ of man is attempted
in the following paper, by the already referred author, Abraham J.Palakudy: http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2018/09/self-and-identity-we-can-not-understand.html
Here the
crux of the hurdle that clouds philosophy of science as well as science her
self is, these great disciplines represent a mythical perceiving subject, man,
in a synthetic, non existing identity! It is the problem of a constituent
component of a ‘whole’ perceiving itself as the ‘whole’ it self! Or a boy tries
to identify himself as an adult. A boy has to wait for more physical and
emotional maturity to understand the ways of an adult! A component in a ‘whole’
has its own localised functions only. It can never adopt the role of the whole.
A leaf if attempts
to grasp how the tree (a leaf is one of the constituent components of the
whole, the tree) lives with its wholesome needs, will she succeed? Perhaps No.
Similarly, if a boy, how hard he tries to grasp the emotional and physical
needs of an adult, will he succeed? The boy is not physically and emotionally
an adult yet. So, he may have to wait for many years to turn an adult and grasp
his adult ways and needs! These are simple examples cited to understand man’s
hurdles in grasping epistemology wholesomely.
He is a constituent component, or a particular component like one of the
millions of cells in the human body. A person is a unique knowing unit in
existence. His self might be under unique relation with the whole, like each
cell in the body is uniquely related first to the particular organ it
constitute, and then the whole human body. So, if science believes herself representing
the whole humankind, it is factually wrong and fallacious as distinctly and
clearly explained in the above- referred paper on ‘self and identity’. When
science speaks as if she represents mankind, factually she represents only the
community of scientists. This was a central item in Thomas Kuhn’s views on
Science.
Of course
when Hitler asserted that he represents the whole German-people, it included
all those had fallen for his powerful rhetoric, perhaps a good percentage of
them! Similar is the story about present day America under Trump, or India under
Modi! These leaders were able to mesmerise their majority population with their
powerful rhetoric, and taking help of advanced mind-manipulation and propaganda
techniques! People are very susceptible to powerful suggestions, as the
discipline of Hypnosis vouch. No doubt, reason behind the similar influence of
Science among majority of educated world population is not different; her glory
and prestige is not less than that of above leaders. She has a ‘tribal’,
dangerous influence over modern human minds!
Sense organs and their unique role in epistemology
Science perhaps is
under the impression, that man’s sense organs are capable of grasping wholesome
objective reality about the entire universe, what ever it might be. But look
closely at our sense organs and that of other animals and plants and we will
realize, they are there to keep each species in a unique kind of life
experience. The category of ‘sight’ that eyes revels to us or that of smell
‘nose’ revels, can be seen as very carefully and particularly chosen experiences
that Nature provided. Observe their range. If eyes could see world of microbes
or distant stars, would normal life been possible? Or if ears picked up ultra sound signals and
sounds from distances, similarly normal life wouldn’t have been possible.
Evolution theorists
might argue, it was all work of the forces of survival. Answers to these
arguments have already been shared above from the very specific paper of
Abraham J.Palakudy.
Our sense organs
seem giving us only such chosen categories of existence, that gives us our
particular experience of life. She ( Nature) might have various other
dimensions and categories too, that she has not thought fit to share with man.
Now coming to the
role of a very important, not yet identified and recognised sense organ. Eyes,
ears, tongue, skin and nose gives us signals from the external world. These
sense signals have no inherent ‘sense’, as they are unrelated to each other.
Man was able to make languages out of these signals, linking them with certain
specific sounds and scripts. Still the much-required ‘sense’ factor, the unity
between different sense signals, was absent.
We know the reality
of life we experience is the result of certain relation, certain unity between
what these different sense organs gives us. The sound of a lion was linked with
the sight of this particular animal. The word lion also was linked to the
object. Our languages are the result of this smart unification of sense
signals.
We have a special
write up on these exclusive role of sense organs in giving man his experience
world by Google blogger Abraham J.Palakudy: http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html
Now take up the
much acclaimed role of intuition in epistemology. The way hypotheses reach
mind, the way we grasp mathematical relations ( 2 two times makes 4, hence 2
million plus 2 million will make 4 millions etc) are attributed to man’s
intuitive faculty.
Wikipedia article
quoted above on epistemology has following reference on intuition: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)
“The idea of a priori knowledge is that it is
based on ‘intuition’ or rational insights. Laurence Bon Jour says in his
article "The Structure of Empirical Knowledge",[31] that a "rational insight is an immediate,
non-inferential grasp, apprehension or 'seeing' that some proposition is
necessarily true."
This author had worked on how science fixes
certainty to her theories and found at the end of a three decade research and
contemplation, that faculty of Reason indeed acts in a ‘sense organ’ role not
only in every scientific inference and acts of arriving at theories, but also
it is the mystery seat of human intuition. In fact, every sense organ of man is
a particular door of nature, sharing her mystery categories. We don’t know what
all are her full range of categories. We don’t know what existence is in real
terms. We are passive carriers of her given categories, whether they are sight,
sound etc, and perhaps an all controlling another sense organ, giving us the
much essential category of plain ‘sense’. It is this plain ‘sense’ that we
earlier called ‘consistency’/unity/order between evidence/arguments and the
scientific theory.
In every event of an inference including a
scientific inference, evidences and arguments are presented to prove the
theory. Or an analogy is presented. But will the logical connection between the
presented evidence/arguments and the theory be proved naturally? If a man is
blind, taking him near a horse will help him grasp the object? The need of a ‘sense
organ’ to detect the logical connection, or the logical consistency/unity/order
here is essential! For a blind person, it is difficult to grasp the idea of
horse fully. Or, without tongue, it is difficult to differentiate between sweet
taste and bitter taste.
The logic here can be like this; if someone
perceives a tree, it proves the existence of the eyes. Here the need is to
identify logical connection or consistency/unity/order as a distinct category
in existence, similar to that of sight, smell or taste. Without the existence
of this mystery ‘sense organ’, man wouldn’t have been able to detect or
experience ‘sense’ of what he see, hear, smell, taste and touch. In short, it
is the category of plain ‘sense’ that faculty of Reason detects and provides to
man!
We can claim, man has mind, intelligence or
understanding etc to grasp the said the logical connection in inference needs.
But they are vague claims. The sense organ role of Reason is not any claim on
supernatural! It is only an improvement
on knowledge of man’s inherent faculties!
Yes, we fix the veracity of our scientific theories
taking help from one of our inherent faculties, the ‘sense organ’ faculty of
our Reason, that always senses the ‘consistency/unity/ or order’ factor that
exists between presented evidence, argument or analogy! We are very late in recognizing this vital
role of the faculty of reason, but it is natural in our very slow process
towards intellectual maturity!.
If we understand the role of our faculty of
reason at close angles, it will solve not only what is the intuition issue, but
also how science fixes certainty of her theories.
This sense organ role of our faculty of reason
has following links for its complete explanation: https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2013/09/is-reason-internal-sense-organ-super.html
The theme has a book also to offer full
explanation at Amazone.com, both digital and printed versions:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=book+%27is+reason+a+sense+organ%2F
(authored by the same thinker referred above, Google-Blogger,
Abraham J.Palakudy)
This insight into the way science fixes
certainty to her theories could and should alter the way philosophy of science
works. She should consider it as an inadvertently ignored ‘variable’ in the
process of scientific method, now accepted!
She can order physical probes also if she so
desires to prove the ‘sense organ’ role of the faculty of Reason, by modern
brain radiography methods.
Faculty of Reason perhaps has TWO distinct
properties;
1)
Reason’s faculty that we have just identified and discussed, ie,
its role of detecting the ‘sense factor’ in all logical ‘induction’ and
‘deduction’ acts. It does the same function in ‘analogies’ too.
2)
Second is its ‘prismatic’ function. We must have noticed,
whenever a new ray of thought disturbs us, whether a scientific issue or
personal, when our intention is to find a solution, we get a ‘spectrum’ of all
options, possibilities and sub-ideas instantly, or gradually when we sleep over
the issue. We often feel that, it is our analysing prowess that has given us
the results. But if we humble enough to see through the process, we will find
that the analysed picture has simply dropped into our mind from nowhere! Our
part was simply being persistent. For scientists, this function of Reason often
breaks their old conclusions into their further sub-ideas and possibilities.
This often destroys old theories, by the arrival of new evidence and insights!
Scientists will be here pressurised to conduct new tests and form new theories.
If he goes ahead with live persistence, all his old view-points and theories
will go on bursting one after other!
This was what exactly happened when Church had
fallen and minds of Western man suddenly were able to fly its own. But sadly,
this ever- open process of the ‘spectrum’ function of Reason often gets stopped
when man sits over any one of his theories thinking, he has found the truth.
This is how science turns dogmatic and stagnant. Mind is capable of arriving at
the ultimate truth about existence provided he goes on searching non-stop.
It requires only a little open contemplation
for the scientific discipline to detect this special faculty of reason. But as
said earlier, individual scientists often unfortunately consider his
achievements a result of his own intellectual prowess!.
Here, this author would like to share with
readers, answer to a lingering question science always raise; is there any
inherent energies or ‘drives’ that directs human behaviour? It is an important
question because it even explains why man seeks truth, sense and reality
always. Answer to the question is integral to ‘why he acquires his ‘sense of
self’? Abraham J.Palakudy, Google blogger, seems giving an answer at link:
http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2013/07/existential-drives-of-man.html
Additional evidence to prove, faculty of Reason indeed has a
sense organ role
Following are additional explanations, why
this mystery faculty indeed is a sense organ, and it is perhaps a direct door
towards not yet known secrets of existence! There is no logic in believing that
existence has kept her doors closed towards man, and he is unable to understand
her ever. Can we only go on making speculative theories ever? I specially
invite readers’ keen attention towards the answers to the ‘why’ question
referred above in the paper of Abraham J.Palakudy.
Once we are ready to accept this sense organ
role of our faculty of Reason, its other roles and potentials also will
naturally surface.
Now let us observe other similarities of our
known sense organs with reason.
Like our eyes and ears exhibit certain ‘like’
preferences or ‘predilections’, Reason also exhibit similar vital
predilections, like Kant had hinted. Eyes’ preference for ‘aesthetic’ ambience
is popular, as the similar predilection of ears for melodies as opposed to
nagging, disturbing sounds. Tongue’s almost universal predilection for sweet
taste is also famous. It’s dislikes are also universal, too bitter and too sour
tastes!
Similarly, man universally experience an inherent
‘compulsion’ (or urge) for justice, order, knowledge and truth. Science and
religions originated in the world due to this inherent ‘compulsion’ or
predilections born out of some inner force that now we recognize as from our
‘inner-sense organ’ of Reason!
These predilections are similar to the predilections
of our external sense organs. So they are offered here as a proof, that Reason
is a sense organ.
Why the current pluralistic tradition kills the urge
for a singular, wholesome truth, whether science or philosophy?
We all know, today the trend is showcasing every
stream of thought and idea, in the pluralistic tradition. We have a general
conviction that something called ultimate truth is absent, or it is
un-accessible by man and his intelligence. So, the only practical way is to live
peacefully with the tradition of plurality or multiculturalism, ie, giving
opportunity to all viewpoints to sustain equally, with same relevance.
We have a specific contemporary paper on the subject
from the same thinker, Abraham J.Palakudy, at link:http://dangersofpluralisticworldview.blogspot.com/2012/07/intellectual-dangers-of-pluralistic.html
But can philosophy of science too adopt the same trend?
Looking at the current scenario, it seems she too follows the same trend. We
have today many different theories about the ultimate physical reality proposed
by many specialist men of physics, such as given in the following link: (a
paper by Rudolf Haag)
Structure and substance paradigm:
We have discussed above that our sense organs seems
to be specially devised openings to external world, meant to give us a
‘predetermined’ experience realm. They are not devises to provide us ultimate
objective reality about the phenomenon of existence.
But what gives us some hope is only our yet to be
fully understood ‘sense organ’ of Reason!
It may not be meant for giving us knowledge of ultimate physical reality
as knowledge of physical reality might NOT at all required by man. Perhaps what
is central to existence is not the physical reality. ‘Physical’ element could
perhaps only its ‘structural’ or architectural realm. The ‘substance’ of
existence might be something much beyond and independent of its structure.
A close, open look at the preliminary working of
atoms etcetera will give us necessary clue of this fact. Besides its physical
functioning, it certainly carries certain ‘software’ commands, that controls
the former. The issue with our science of physics is that she ignores this
software element! She doesn’t want to recognize such a realm, perhaps because
it might land her and her discipline into alien, unfamiliar fields! She appears
reluctant for such a ground breaking ‘paradigm shift’!
What she can do is to discard the fear of
entertaining any ‘faith’ realm that she had discarded with the rejection of
Church hegemony centuries ago. Here, it might be a realm even beyond that of
religions and their almighty God! Existence could be very well a realm not
alien to science if she agrees to discard her obstinacy that ultimate reality
of world should not be anything other than ‘physical’ or inorganic! It is quite
possible that the ultimate reality of life and existence could be inclusive of
an emotional content also! Means, existence need not be a worship and virtue
seeking, almighty God’s realm, but a realm that perhaps our ‘sense organ faculty’
of Reason could easily be connected with in its range of understanding!
In order to introduce the subject of the above said
‘structure and substance’ paradigm to truly open minded readers, would like to
share the following link, once again that of the Google blogger, Abraham
J.Palakudy:
It is not that such thoughts are alien to academic
men of philosophy. Recently this author came across a study by Prof. John Schellenberg (Mount Saint Vincent University,
Canada) that he called ‘Ultimism’. Though he tries to present the concept as an
idea in between theism, atheism and skeptical religion, the end result is the
introduction of an ultimate realm of reality on the lines described above, a
realm unrelated to any almighty God, but a plainly sensible realm that could be
entertained even by science if she truly opens up.
There are two articles of Abraham J.Palakudy on the
need of a ‘science of spirituality’ sans the almighty image of God, at links:
An introduction to the ‘world’ concept we create with
our all and sundry ideas, that in-turn helps us to constitute our own ‘sense of
self’
Why we are very badly entangled in between all and
sundry ideas we create, without a clear way out to determine what is the
ultimate truth? We have seen at a paper by Abraham J. Palakudy referred above
on ‘self and identity’, that it (sense of self) was the result of a smart ploy
of nature. We get our ‘sense of self’ from other people around us, or its
collective, the ‘world’. Whatever our
public institutions like media, politics, philosophy, science etc create and
fill our public realm constitutes the product of the ‘world’. Though we tend to believe that it is an
objective realm, in reality, it is not! We simply draw from it ‘subjectively’,
and live around with our particularly drawn concept or the bubble of the world!
It is a ‘live’ conceptual third person (a spirit) living with us, giving us the
much required sense of momentum and vibrancy in life. It helps us to have the much-required
‘material’ for spending our tenure of life.
Mainstream knowledge world is yet to know and accept
the role of this concept of the ‘world’.
A link that explains this realm is here: http://selfandworldblogs.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-world-absolute-object-or-relative.html
Perhaps we, human
beings are not existentially required to lead any ideal life, within an ideal
society. Our lives are perhaps unique, personal deals with existence, with no
element of ‘objectivity’ anywhere. Each of us might be expected to develop our
own sense of reality for ourselves and spend our tenure. As hinted above, logic
is all about having a sensible ‘mother premise’,(universal premise) and
deriving our world view from it naturally, consistent with it. It means, answer
to a vital ‘why’ question is much needed for all of us to work as our
‘universal premise’, ie, a universal premise for one and all human beings. In
such a case, we might all develop a singular sense of reality and live with it,
discarding the need for any, perhaps non-existing, physical theory of the
whole.
Quantum physics
has repeatedly shown, that ‘objective’ physical world is not a viable notion.
Perhaps the real model of the ‘whole’ may be similar to the ‘sense or reality
of self’ experienced by two genuine, romantic love partners; their new ‘sense
of self’ is mutually given, not independent of the other person.
If science opens
up to recognize this new paradigm of structure and substance, she might be able
to lead this great ‘paradigm shift’.
Following is an
attempt for a sensible answer to the vital why question: http://newphilosophyoflife.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-life-why-existence.html
Why only science
can lead the world towards such a paradigm shift? http://taskofpreservingbestofheritages.blogspot.com/2017/05/note-this-paper-was-submitted-at.html
Important References :
Palakudy J.
Abraham, his blog site at Google blogger.com https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293
Whitehead .Albert North.1974..’Essays in Philosophy’.
Edit.Houston Peterson.,367.New York.
Pocket Books
Russell.Bertrand. 1974. ‘Essays in Philosophy’ Edit. Houston Petrseon.,297, 293.New York. Pocket Books
Capra.Fritjof.
1979, The Tao of Physics. Chaucer Press, 71,141,144,Bungay, Suffolk
Hawking. Stephen.1992,
A brief history of time,12.Bantam Books. UK
Eddington. Sir
Arthur( ?) Nature of the
physical world. .’ Philosophers of Science’.Edit. Saxe Commins and Robert
N.Linscot. Modern Pocket Library. (?)424, New
York
Rudolf Haag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)
( Wikipedia)
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/did-thomas-kuhn-kill-truth ( a paper on Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy)
https://www.edge.org/conversation/carlo_rovelli-science-is-not-about-certainty-a-philosophy-of-physics)( Carlo
Rovelli)
No comments:
Post a Comment