By Dr. Layne Hartsell, Center for Science, Technology, and Society Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok and Asia Institute, Tokyo
In this lecture and exchange with faculty, I rely on Sandra Mitchell’s integrative pluralism as a background for discussing the scientific project as it is today. Starting with the last 400 years of modern science and its progress towards scaling back the mechanical model to that of probability, I also rely on Richard Feynman’s famous proclamation that we will figure it all out, an expectation he seemed to believe was obviously true. These are the contours of the discussion, where unwarranted certainty in humanity's intellectual prowess and destiny was also expressed by other notable thinkers in the past though often with considerably more humility.
The enduring faith that science will figure it all out, conquer all mysteries, and unify physics into one complete theory remains surprisingly resilient despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This relentless optimism in human reason is a problem as I think there are fundamental limitations, and then, concerning science and society, there should be limitations concerning what can be done such as in technics.
The overconfidence expressed by modern champions of science like Feynman is reminiscent of equally unjustified proclamations made centuries ago when science was thought to have been on its way to achieving its ultimate goals. Newton and Galileo did not share such boundless self-assuredness. In the Dialogues, Galileo wrote that “limitations of human understanding: entirely unimaginable to us…extreme rashness to make human abilities the measure of what nature can do; not a single effect in nature...; vain presumption of understanding everything can have no other basis than never understanding anything.” (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Ptolemaic and Copernican). He also discussed gravity, “[there is] the name of gravity but what is the essence of that movement; as to the cause of infinite other motions we give "nature." Already, he was seeing the limitations of a mechanical model or physicalism.
Socially, in an age of absolutism, he went on to criticize the indolence of those priests and scholars in the robes, himself preferring the garb and the company of the regular artisan or mechanic. Today, similar arrogance of the Scholastics of his time and subsequent incoherence was seen in the fashionable nonsense and posturing in science and postmodernism in the late 20th century.
What we find such as based on Mitchell’s work is that when we investigate nature, we do not find a more narrow field for inquiry as we would expect if we are indeed figuring things out. What has occurred is an ever widening field for inquiry and at the same time better precision and understanding. It is seemingly a paradox when looked at from the previous paradigm, including from the perspective of Thomas Kuhn who thought science to be merely immature. The problem is not so difficult when viewed from emergence or integralism.
It wasn't until well after Newton's Principia that scientific ignorance was again laid bare. With Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes the pendulum had swung far in the direction of excessive certainty, reductionism, and mechanics before the recognition of profound gaps in our understanding and radical new domains to explore which came with Albert Einstein and Ernst Mach in mathematics and physics and then with Kropotkin in socio biology. Mach had also shown interest in biology as next frontier though likely biology and particularly the ‘sensations’ as he called them.
The limitations I speak of in this lecture arise from the inherent constraints of human perception, cognition and imagination. Fundamental assumptions of human uniqueness and exceptionalism must always be rigorously scrutinized.
While straddling both the Court and Commons, Galileo recognized his own limitations in the face of the vast, incomprehensible expanse of nature's uncharted territories. Newton said that we are like children on the seashore, where we can see the sand and waves nearby, and yet, out beyond the vast ocean, we can know nothing.
The enlightenment dream of complete scientific illumination awaits perpetual postponement that looks to be permanent. I think by recognizing openness and working within such, science makes true progress.
The proper role of science is not to proclaim inevitable truths beyond questioning (scientific absolutism), but to ferret out the untrue and challenge our beliefs and assumptions, and overall, to develop a body of knowledge that is as reliable for practical applications such as in medicine.
Layne Hartsell, (USA) 雷恩∙哈特塞尔 - 마이클레인핫셀 - 3E: Energy, Economy, Environment - research professor at the Asia Institute, Tokyo/Berlin, and a fellow at the Center for Science, Technology, and Society, Department of Philosophy, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. Past affiliations: assistant professor, convergence studies, Sookmyung Women's University and Research Institute for Asian Women - Asia-Pacific Women's Information Network Center in Seoul. Research professor, Sungkyunkwan University and the Advanced Institute of Nanotechnology, Seoul/Suwon. Lecturer at Mahidol University, Siriraj Medical Center, Department of Molecular Biology and Bioinformatics, Bangkok. Researcher at the University of Virginia College of Medicine, Charlottesville. He is a member of the board at Korea IT Times.
