- The Search for Knowledge and the True Nature of Reality -
The next obvious human attempt at gaining knowledge is the pursuit of
scientific advancement. The goal of increasing scientific knowledge has seemed
to be existent throughout history (some periods being more explosive than
others); this journey starts at the creation of the first tools, all the way to
advanced space exploration and global computerization. It would seem as though
this advancement simply benefits the lives of mankind. This is true for
technology. As technology is a byproduct of science, it is secondary to the
goal of obtaining pure, unadulterated information. This being said, computerization
has allowed for an overall increase in global awareness amongst our global
society. This is certainly important in the immediate time-frame of the planet
earth, yet the fundamental laws of nature involved with creating this
computerization have been known for a quite a long time. Once again, technology
is just the application of what is already largely known; creating tools for
humans is the engineer’s job! To me, the avant garde of our society are the
scientific theorists.
The end goal of the pursuit of knowledge through rigorous scientific
study is one with Aristotelian roots. Aristotle’s ideal pathway for attaining
gnosis was bound by what humans can truly
know. That is, why theorize on what is clearly unattainable when it may very
well end in complete delusion? This view seems like the safest route if one is
trying not to be incorrect about the true nature of reality. In this mind set,
if an idea has no explicit and non-refutable evidence, it must be labeled as
unknown. This rigor will make sure that we humans don’t outrun where we really
are in our philosophical journey. This is the curse of the ‘armchair philosopher’.
This common figure attempts to gain knowledge on a cosmic scale through analytical
thought and experience. The fundamental flaw with this way of grasping at
gnosis is that there is no fact checking structure involved. The product of
this sort of behavior is seen in our society on a grandiose scale; its
manifestation being the wide-spread acceptance of religion or any form of
mysticism as undeniable truth. This is why I only rely on science and mathematics
as structures of relative truth; these interconnected studies are the only ones
that have explicit evidence in that without them, our reality could not exist.
All other human aspects fall underneath the metaphorical blanket of pure
mathematics as elements of chaotic, self-consistent structures which may or may
not have meaning (which we assumedly will never truly know from an Aristotelian view).
Scientific theorists attempt to chart the nature of reality. This seems
like a nearly impossible task, and it often is! Many theories in physics find
their home in mathematical consistency rather than their experimental
verification. This is the nature of modern physics; find what works on paper
and try to create an experiment to prove it. Often times, an experiment is
infeasible, therefor the theory will always remain just that, a theory. The
advancements in physics which we can expect in the next few decades will
presumably have no possible experiments (due to the astronomical energies
needed to replicate the conditions of the big-bang), thus making these theories
impossible to disprove. This fact will make scientific and mathematical
advancements become as dogmatic as any form of mysticism. This is quite disheartening
for us physicists, yet biologists, astronomers and chemists can still have
their fun stamp collecting. (All of these studies can be derived from the laws
of physics anyway.)
In seeing this somewhat hopeless search for truth in the mathematical
studies, many intellectuals have decided it best to study the humanities. In
this pursuit, the knowledge seeker studies the aspects of human interaction,
origin (inexorably tied to history) and personality. I will boil these studies
down to sociology, anthropology and psychology. These would be referred to as ‘soft
sciences’ or sciences which don’t rely on perfect numerical data, but rather
depend on simple observation and analysis. Because we all need to exist within
the confines of humanity, these studies are important to us. In my view, they
are only important to us. There is no
evidence that our interaction produces any changes in the universe other than
the physical changes which our bodies (and destructive cultures) naturally make,
therefor the ramification of these studies remain in the air. None the less,
the human studies are extremely interesting and the knowledge gained from these
increase our awareness of our immediate environment and why people do what they
do.
Is knowing why everything is the way it is
even important in the first place? Can we trust our own philosophical thought?
Stay tuned for
my opinionated rambling on those questions!
I agree entirely that classic rationalist armchair philosophy, spinning out a priori speculations not grounded in empirical fact, is inadequate to objective reality as science seeks to know it. I would just add that each of us grasps a fraction of subjective reality that science cannot (and does not seek to) know.
ReplyDeleteWm James: "Common sense is BETTER for one sphere of life, science for another, philosophic criticism for a third; but whether either be TRUER absolutely, Heaven only knows." Pragmatism, Lec. V