( Special Note : This paper was peer-reviewed by the 'International Society for Universal Dialogue', and accepted for presentation at their 13th Congress, held in Romania in July 2014)
Though not
declared officially, science believes in materialistic monism. It believes that
it can explain every aspect of reality in a matter centric paradigm.
Though science in its institutionalized form today was the net outcome of the scientific-spirit
that blossomed in the 15t and
16th centuries, it appears that it has abandoned this spirit
altogether, and opted to sit proudly upon the huge bundle of its 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 single point in the beginning, and
it exploded in a Big-bang some 16 billion ago. Stephen Hawking
describes science’s smart logic of evading what is unknowable,
and then take-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 the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined 2
Science simply ignores the fundamental of a
pure logic, that when inferences are drawn after discarding factors of the superstructure
of any organization, it can not be fully
true about the infrastructure, because both aspects together make-up the reality.
Both can not be independent and 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 attempt to correlate itself with it.
Some of the grave philosophical and logical
inconsistencies of the evolution theory has been brought out by the author,
Palakudy J.Abraham in one of his blogs :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. its from bits: a phrase coined by ‘John wheeler’ who earlier
famously coined the term ‘black-hole’.
2. Hawking. Stephen.
A brief history of time,1992, 12.Bantam Books, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man, animals and plants are
aggregates of live cells. It is the cell that mutates 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 adaptation1?
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 itself, in order to adapt
efficiently with the 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!
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 materialistic explanation of the reality of existence and
life
This paper
intends to analyze the reason behind it, or 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.
The
following are the chief unverified presumptions of science that led
science to claim physical base for the whole reality:
1)
That
external sense-organs are the whole and
sole source of primary human knowledge. Nothing in the mind is inherent, but
whatever man does is learned behavioural traits
2)
Despite
the crucial evidence gathered by the high-energy physicists from the sub-atomic particle world
experiments, that the myth of science’s ability to gain objective
knowledge- independent of the observer is no more valid, it is yet to
absolutely shed the old dogma. Those experiments show that science’s old belief
in an objective reality independent of the observer is a well exposed myth
3)
It’s
reluctance to distinguish between the structure
and substance realm, and accept the said paradigm as a more central category
of every known form of reality than the cause
and effect paradigm. It is also the result of a naïve dogma that the hard-ware
as it is in a computer, could act as a self-sustaining system without a soft-ware
programme to run the hardware.
Scientific
spirit vs: science’s dogmas : Scientific spirit was all about the value of discarding the old,
unverified dogmas, and embracing the new knowledge and knowledge-forms with an
open mind. Observation and analysis gather new data and new axioms
continuously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Palakudy
J.Abraham.Google blogger. Leading intellectual dogmas that negatively
influenced modern world. 2013.sub-heading 1, para 15.Accessed on Feb 5,
2014, http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.in/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence, even if they disturb the very
foundation of any already established scientific dictum, it must be ready to
abandon the old, and embrace the new reality. It must incorporate every newly arrived evidence
instantly, and build-up a new science every now and then. Sticking on to old
and established knowledge forms will make it not different from dogmatic
disciplines like religions.
Now let us
take up the above four presumptions of science one by one, and see how could it
make itself more open, more akin to its original spirit of science.
1)
Incomplete knowledge of science, as to how do we know:
Due to the great lag between the development in physics and development
in cognitive sciences, what we know has gained greater relevance over how
do we know. What are the various aspects of this serious lag ?
a)
The obsession with the centrality of sense data : Science still believe that
external objects creates certain firing of neurons in the brain, to register
the sensation. The subject of experience, ie. the living species, goes on
registering such external data throughout its life, and using its ever
increasing aggregate effect to improve its survival needs. There is nothing in
the mind that was not there in the senses previously. Every behaviour is learned
in the process of survival, and then carried-forward to the next generation
through the genetic route.
If science admits the existence of any inherent drive, with its root
beyond the learned habits, such admission would
directly hint at non-physical elements in life. The volcanic urge of man that
compel him to seek knowledge and bring order and consistency to his
knowledge, and a series of similar, well observable drives that lead him
to set-behaviour patterns etc. haven’t yet prompted science to look for the
roots of such urges.
Abraham.J.Palakudy, an independent researcher on mind, argues that
these drives are similar to laws of motion for material objects, discovered by Newton:
If the laws of motion, the
basic inherent ‘drives’ of matter are what determine the motion of
physical bodies, why can’t we presume that similar drives of the emotional body and mind of man too are nature’s means to
determine the life related behavioural motions of
Man 1?
Instead of describing reality in its most wholesome form, science seems
to be chained to the category of some kind of ‘solidness’ attached to the category
of ‘physical’.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..Palakudy., J .Abraham. Google
Blogger.. ’Mind: Existential drives of man and other blogs on mind’ .2013.
para.4. Accessed 5,Feb 2014. http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.in/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest
in the above line of thinking is Cybernetics, or the ‘information’ theory. It
suggests that existence is driven by the forces of ‘information’. Natural
evolution is a self sustaining process, wherein species produce and use
information the most optimal manner, thus saving energy and increasing
efficiency and survival tactics, in a never ending process.
Old aversion to the hegemony of Church and Her dogmas seems still tormenting
the mind of the Western-man, and therefore, he is unable to think of a possible
scientific reality that might be linked
to an equally scientific law of mind too, free of all
religious concepts. He can easily embrace such a notion, once he is helped to
abandon his dogma about his hardened notions about the ‘physical’.
b)
The role of the yet unrecognized
faculties of mind in the act of knowing: When science goes on making laws after laws, and
claims after claims on nature and world, it does not stop for a moment to
seriously look into his various faculties of mind that helped him achieve such
feats, or equipped it to form such laws.
How do scientists
fix the logical relation between the evidences he has collected in support of
his theory and the conclusion he has arrived at ? He would say it was his faculty
of reason that was behind the feat. But unlike the faulty of smell or sight that
create certain neuron firing inside specific locations in the brain that
directs the mind to identify the sensation from the memory, what kind of neuron
firing takes place when such logical order is identified between the pieces of evidence and the hypothesis in question in the mind ?
Such order
might be based on an analogy that
already exists in the mind concerned with a similar past connection, or at
times a not yet heard or known novel relation similar to something that
Einstein was able to connect his theory of relativity with. Remember,
Einstein’s was a new theory mankind had never heard of ! Still our faculty of
reason
could
approve it, based on the probable ‘order’ buds available in the brain to approve
the logic of such relation ! We would probably jump to say that we could observe
the pieces of evidence, but sensing such never heard relation demands much more than merely
observing the pieces of evidence. Logically linking and relating what has been
observed is an entirely different act from the passive observation.
In short, more than what the external sense organs collect, and mind
processes in the role of a motherboard, there are many, not yet fully
recognized faculties that aid our knowledge making process. This mystery
faculty that provides sense of order, consistency and ‘unity’ to what
has been observed is much more central to fixing exactness to our
knowledge than the laborious exercise of data gathering.
There is no doubt that similar to the way science is centrally depended
on the certainty of sense information that our external sense organs provide,
it is unknowingly more depended on the above described, mystery faculty,
or the sense- organ that detects or senses the order
factor between what has been observed and the hypothesis formed.
The order ( or consistency, unity, or plain sense ) factor,
at close look, is very similar to the other known external ‘sense’ categories, or qualities of
existence, like our sight, smell, taste etc. These are nature’s own specially
schemed instruments or faculties that create and constitute human knowledge !
We should be logically compelled to believe that there could be other,
yet again un-known, such ‘categories or qualities about existence that man has
not been provided sense organs to detect or know them!
While external sense organs provide us with raw stimuli, mind add them
to the memory and create cumulative knowledge. To create new relations and make
new laws, we have just seen the central role of the internal ‘sense’ organ of
‘order’, or our faculty of reason.
The point that gets exposed here is that it is not our intellectual
prowess that help us in creating new knowledge and knowledge axioms, but another
pre-ordained sense organ of logical order, inherent in the mind.
But this order providing organ, the not yet recognized sense organ, could provide order only to
the spectrum of premises in-front of it ! When premises are formed based on the
surface level observations, a surface level conclusion will be the result. To
overcome this draw-back, nature has attached, another yet to be recognized PRISMATIC 1 function to the above organ of
Reason.
When a seeker of knowledge feed any particular ray of thought or idea to
his sense organ of reason and contemplate, it splits the fed ray of thought, or
idea into its all sub-ideas, possibilities and options in a typical ‘spectrum’ like illumination. This
inherent faculty of mind helped are man’s every invention, and new ideas ! Many
a times, the new premises that emerge from the spectrum prove the older
theories inconsistent with the new finding. Newton’s mechanical view of world was proved
inadequate to the newly found quantum theory, was one of the examples of this
natural process.
It not only destabilizes old theories and believes like in Newton’s theory , but also
creates unheard social theories even. The American revolutionists declared that
‘rights and liberty of man’ were ‘self-evident’ truths ! No one can find any
supportive premises from the past social history of man, to base these declared
‘rights’ of man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Palakudy J. Abraham. E. Book. ‘Is reason a sense organ ? A
super-mind above he known mind?’ Amazon. com, p.17. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008NOEE9I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example to show that this faculty, or the sense organ of ‘order’
often works independently of any past observed relation is the mind’s ability
to detect the fact of ‘less order’( inconsistent, or inadequate logic) in
arguments, when the supportive arguments are weak, or poor. We all are endowed
with this natural faculty, provided we are familiar with the subject of
discussion.
Here the final point is, how can such tenets of high ‘order’ be present
in human mind unlearned, but inherent ? It is exactly similar to the inherent
faculty of our eyes to see, and ears to hear. The difference is that, here what
the new sense organ detects or senses is not physical objects or events, but
the much more crucial and central ‘sensible’ relation factor between them ! This
category of ‘order’ that helps us to make sense of things, events and even science, is obviously not always a
product of man’s past experience, as seen above. It is an alien category
endowed to man by nature, and his realities are validated by it, and it alone.
But man often naively claims that they are products of his own intelligence and
rational powers.
This mystery internal sense organ is what provides SENSE to whatever we
claim as truth and theory, whether it is science’s latest cybernetics theory,
or Copernicus’ old heliocentric theory.
c) How does science succeed in proving theories by
supportive proofs and experiments?
Veteran scientist Albert North Whitehead had written:
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 law1.
A reasonably good number of pieces of evidence could prove a theory. But a similar
number of hidden, or not considered at the time of arriving at the theory, that
might question the very veracity of the said theory might be always lying
outside in the world, unknown to mankind. Reason will be bound only by the
evidences available upfront, unless it is put to task endlessly for pondering
over the end truth in every given field of knowledge, utilizing its ‘prismatic’
function ! Thus, every theory we make is like various rest-stations that mountaineers make
on their way to the ultimate peak. .
When referring to Logic, most of us refer only to the formal ‘forms’ of
logic, and not to the actual content.
Bertrand Russell was sharp enough to pin-point this common fallacy:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Whitehead.Albert North. Essay. Foresight.Chap.V1.part.1.’Essays
in Philosophy’. Edit.Houston Peterson.1974,367.New York. Pocket Books
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
form is
not another constituent, but is the way the constituents are put together…..
It is obvious that the knowledge of logical
forms is something quite different from knowledge of existing things….we may
also have knowledge of the form without having knowledge of the constituent1.
He also
touches the ‘extra-experience’ role of the faculty of ‘reason, in arriving at
conclusions:
Logical
knowledge is not derivable from experience alone, and the empiricist’s
philosophy can therefore not to be accepted in the entirety…..we must therefore
admit that there is general knowledge but not derived from sense, and that some
of this knowledge is not obtained by inference but ‘primitive’2.
In some of
his later works, he said to have clarified that by primitive, what he
had meant was intuitive sources. From what we have observed above about
the mystery role of the sense organ of reason in every inference, we
could see that those primitive source is nothing but the inherent
faculty of reason itself ! It’s very job is to provide sense to whatever
we gather through the senses, the so called empirical method. This ‘sense’
factor is always outside the realm of the external sense inputs. It is an
‘in-itself’ quality in existence. We simply use it, and then feel or experience
the ‘exactness’ about our knowledge.
Therefore,
science’s description of reality based only on empirical data, without taking
into consideration the above seen unrecognized but clearly observable mystery
faculties of mind and reason, can be treated only as ‘workable models’. Mind
and its various external and internal organs and faculties are the very tool or
instrument for man, to know his realities. What anyone who engaged in the mission
of inquiry and search must ensure is that, he knows what his tools are, and how
he would analyze the data received from them meaningfully. The irony is that
men of science frequently make use of the said mystery faculties of reason, but
not aware that he has such a faculty. He is always depending on them for his routine scientific feats.
Knowing these tools at clinical angle would enhance science’s reach, as well as the wholesomeness of her endeavors.
2)
Despite the end of the myth of ‘objective’ knowledge independent of the observer, in
the aftermath of the sub-atomic particle field experiments, science is yet to
implement it in her day to day philosophy
Now we are
moving to the 2nd major unverified presumption of science, about the
very foundation of objective knowledge. As we all know, the assumption of
science that there exists an external reality independent of any observer, constitute
the very foundation of science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Russell.Bertrand.
Lowell lectures. ‘Essays in Philosophy’ Edit. Houston
Petrseon.1974,297.New York.
Pocket Books
- Russel.1974,293
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
today 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 observer1
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’2
Heisenberg
:
Natural science does not simply describe
and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves 3
It should become clear to mankind
from now on that, our science is only our own species’ ‘collectively’
subjective knowledge system. Under strict logic, we could compare them with the
rude scientific endeavors of many animal species: monkeys insert long plant
reeds into white-ant mounts and bee-hives to pick the target food items.
Capuchin monkeys routinely roll down heavy stones from hill tops to scare away
predator leopards. They also permanently keep a flat stone as a base to break hard-shelled nuts.
Having been
able to semantically name each and every object and event of our experience should
not mean that we have had complete knowledge of the world. It primarily contribute
only towards our academic scholasticism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Capra.Fritjof. The Tao of Physics. Chaucer Press,
1979,71.Bungay, Suffolk
2 Capra. Tao of Physics.141
3.Capra. Tao of Physics.144
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Do science believe that the ‘Hardware’ of any system
is self-sustainable without a Software to run on it ?
With our human kind of
understanding, sense and reason, we can not think of any physical object to
work or act on its own. When we hear of a stone rising up in the air on its own,
we discard the story as superstition or heresy. But at the same time our
mainstream science believes that matter is self-sustaining in itself, as the
programme (soft-ware) with which it runs, is itself an inherent trait of
matter, ie. the programme of evolution. Indirectly, it approves the existence
of a soft-ware, ie, the programme of evolution, but refuse to accept and
recognize it as the role of a ‘mind’ like organization, that runs along-side
the matter organization.
This issue is akin to the more
fundamental problem between determinism and Free-will. Though quantum theory
seriously questions determinism, science is yet to come into terms with the
said reality.
Same kind of a serious contradiction
exists in the matter of energy conservation theory and the empirical
phenomenon of entropy, the law of gradual, irrecoverable energy loss in the 2nd
law of thermodynamics.
The said dilemma of science can be
solved only by its accepting some kind of a duality of mind and matter, wherein
it accepts existence of a different set of laws, and even energy form in
existence, that determine the working of the mind. In other simple and more
direct words, a hardware system is a passive structure for a compatible software
system to run on it. The former is simply a device meant for, and designed to
accommodate the latter.
Accepting the inevitable existence
of such a software program in the realm of existence need not drag science
into the realm of religion, a belief system in the omnipresent, unexplainable
power behind life and existence. Instead, it need to be only applying the plain but coveted ‘scientific spirit’ into
such inquiries, by being open-minded to probe into a different source of
energy, or the probable laws of nature that runs parallel to the physical
realm. A hint is already given at the following portion of this paper as to
what could be such different source of energies are.
The paradigm of substance and
structure:
We know that the law of causality is
central for science. It says, whatever that happens must have the support of a
fitting, well explainable cause. If the heavenly bodies are fast traveling away
in an ever expanding space, the cause of for this phenomenon is attributed to
the Big bang. The impact of the Big-bang is still continuing, in the form of
stars moving away from each at high speed. When a cause is attributed to any
given event, it is equal to proving the veracity of the event, science
believes.
But if we look at each event as if
it were one in a chain of multiple sequential events, the cause-effect paradigm
losses its scientific centrality. Each event in question turns out to be only
one in a multitude of events in a given sequence, it takes away the role of
‘cause’ in strict logical sense. Instead of cause it would turnout only
the preceding event in the chain of sequence. For example, rain is not
strictly caused by the heavily-loaded water vapor particles in the clouds. The
cause there was only one event in the long sequence of multiple events, like sun
heating water bodies on earth, the vapor flying up in the air to form clouds
etc. Search for the ultimate cause for every event in life and existence will
lead to metaphysics, instead of physics.
When the cause-effect paradigm proves
its naïve-ness to explain the wholesomeness of life and existence, as it is
good enough to explain only pockets of isolated realities, the relevance of a
more fundamental paradigm that helps to explain reality more wholesomely comes
to surface. It could be the paradigm of substance and structure, or structure
and essence.
Substance and structure, in a way,
is cause and effect paradigm applied to the whole reality, instead of the pockets
of isolated realities. Cause, if taken as the first cause of every sequence of
events that exists in the world, as once mentioned earlier, will naturally lead
us to the singular cause behind everything that exists. Such first cause may
not be a mathematical equation as the matter centric science might infer. But
it could be an emotion content, a predisposition that had prompted the whole
to come into being ! This emotion content is the hidden energy source
that we have referred to, in the previous portion of this paper.
Whatever that exist as a tangible object or
event in the world, it is some kind of a structure, or a hardware
as in our previous example, schemed as a means for some kind of a known
or unknown substance. Our sense
of reason would readily agree to the above proposition, as it is a very sensible
( logical) deduction.
What is the paradigm of substance
and structure ?
Every object in existence, as it
appears to our sense organs and mind, is some kind of a structure. If it is a
leaf, it has color, shape, its atomic structure etc as part of its structure. (We
need not compare this example with the old division of the quality of objects
into primary and secondary ) It has a certain ‘predilection’ or pre-disposition
also, for which the structure is only a means.
This predilection or predisposition
need not wear a metaphysical colour as in Kant’s phenomena and noumena
division. This predisposition of
structure is meant here only as a specific
experience to the particular subject in the world. What
experiencing subjects in the world actually experience is NOT the
structure, but the predisposition or the predilection of every object
and event ! This proposition angle makes the whole difference very
clear. The end products in the world as it appear to the sense-mind
mechanism should be the central object of probe of science. It should not
exclusively dedicate the ‘structure’ realm as her only field of enquiry. The
end product-life-runs more on emotional directions than the
typical physical laws.
Structure of everything is designed
in such a way that it serves the purpose of the essence. Take a car, a man made
structure. The structure is specifically designed to serve the purpose of the
car; to carry passengers for fast travel. This means is the essence of
the car, and same is the case with leaves, sun, moon, the sea, an atom, and the
finally, the wholesome structure known to man, our universe.
Science is concerned only with the
structure of every object of its probes. It totally ignore its aspect of substance
or the essence, or even disagree with the fact that every structure essentially
and inevitably should have an essence, or substance too. Science naively
concludes that existence is a Zero-sum game, with out any specific purpose
other than its being there for its own sake ! Evolution is explained as the process
of this zero-sum game of existence, with the goal of optimum conservation of
energy, or information and knowledge, for maintaining the ultimate
material balance of the universe. What outright rejects such models of science
is our above referred sense of reason, the ultimate judge of the
veracity of man’s conclusions. Such conclusions might have the support of many
evidences, but it ignore or do not take into consideration an entire realm of
opposite evidences. Or, in other worlds, such theories fail to explain the
entire known realm of human experience, and aspects of life ! In the words of
Whitehead again, such evidences might be good enough to exemplify the law, but it
ignore equal or more number of opposite evidences when life and existence as a
whole is taken into consideration.
The above obstinate stand of science
about the Zero-sum nature of existence is equal to accepting some kind of a
predisposition.( an essence or substance) But such essence it refers to is a cold,
and purely mathematical essence. In summary, science indeed accepts a software
programme behind the physical world, in the form of its evolutionary direction.
So, one can say that scientific explanation of reality suffers only in the
matter of an inadequate ‘essence’ of ‘substance’ that it attribute to such
reality.
Finally, 'its' from bits' dilemma
Stephen Hawking said:
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 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hawking.
Stephen. A brief history of time,1992,
12.Bantam Books, UK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This vital observation indicates
that, till every localized laws of science is linked together by one single
logic, and one universal premise, we could only endow them
status of working solutions,
for meeting our day to day issues. Logic need to be understood and re-defined
as one master-relation at the start of a string, and every isolated
pocket of logic that we use to explain localized events must necessarily be
linked logically to the said ‘master-relation’, in the form of a chain of well
connected events.
If human system of logic follow such
a must law and precedent, the tendency of mankind and its various institution
finding a suitable local logic for justifying every localized decision and
conclusion would come to an end. Mankind will get a clear intellectual and
logical direction in every field of activity, such as science, politics,
industry and education.
Sir Arthur Eddington had also
sounded a stand similar to that of Stephen Hawking on the various feats of
science in explaining reality:
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 1
The above words of the most senior
men of science clearly reveal the nature of the scientific explanations of the
world; they are explanations of localized realities, a few among an infinite
number of them. It can not claim any
knowledge of whatever is the whole reality. The imaginative models of
the its it make are not different from similar models of such whole that
religions make. When science calls the religious models ‘superstitions’, she
should means only that the organs of knowing of both parties claim using for
the job are different, the same way a blind man’s way of making his realities
are different from that of a deaf man !
Such explanations of science about
reality cannot be strictly called anything other than mainstream
superstitions of our present age. Our previous ages too had similar
superstitious description of reality, like the Geo-centric theory etc, which
our modern age has replaced with new findings and new theories. Similarly, many
of our present mainstream account of scientific reality also would be
replaced by the more enlightened future
generations. ( END )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Eddington.
Sir Arthur. Nature of the physical world. .’ Philosophers of
Science’.Edit. Saxe Commins and Robert N.Linscot. Modern Pocket Library.
(?)424, New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Abraham J.Palakudy ( Founder of conscience of the society: a philosophical non-profit organisation)
Special Note: This is a peer-reviewed and accepted paper, scheduled to be presented at an International philosophical forum in July 2014.
References
:
.Palakudy
J.Abraham. 2013. ‘Leading intellectual dogmas that negatively influenced
modern world’. http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.in/
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
