The limits of science

Max Payne

Abstract

 

Note the title is altered from the Limitations of Science to the Limits of Science for my own purposes

1. There are two ways to looking at the relation between science and transcendence
(A) There is systematically no connection
(B) Science provides a model for moving into the understanding of transcendence.
(A) or (B) This depends on whether science is taken to mean scientific knowledge or the process of scientific inquiry.

2. The first science was astronomy because only the measurement of spatial measurement and time are possible to the naked eye. Systematic science only starts with Galileo's distinction between primary and secondary qualities which leads on to Descartes division between matter and mind and the division between what is objective and subjective.

3. The paradigm example of physics proceeds by limiting observation to primary qualities of space and time that can be measured. The human equation is to be eliminated. This is a vast and powerful concentration of attention. Note however that the evidence for Darwinian evolution, for example , is far more complex and involves judgements in secondary qualities. Furthermore Heisenberg gives a significant limitation to the elimination of the observer. This approach has been extremely successful in the accumulation of knowledge. The implication of equating science with the knowledge it yields is some form of Positivism.

4.1 But the objective facts of science do not litter the universe for us to stub our toes one. Experimental science is quite difficult. Mankind has had our physical experience for half a million years, but science has only existed fully for 400. It is the process of science that creates scientific knowledge.

4.2 Karl Popper interpreted science as an open system which perpetually questions itself. The proviso that it primarily aims at its own disproof does not necessarily follow. The primary aim of science is improbably to find the widest synthetic unity capable of predictive accuracy.

4.3 Michael Polanyi argued that the objective depends on the personal. The procedure of science depends on personal skills and depends upon a commitment to the values of impartial rationality.

4.4 The paradigm of science is the Relativistic requirement to seek that description which is true for all possible observers. The ideal of science is to have one totally unified system of explanation.

4.5 The process of inquiry is superior to the necessarily transient and imperfect crystallisations of that inquiry into a particular system of knowledge.

5.1 The processes of science have an intense relevance to facing up to the transcendent dimension of reality. The transcendent has been crystallised into different and strongly differing religious systems. Though they are powerfully important to the individuals that accept them, these systems are significantly the function of time and place. Science by contrast shows the possibility of universal objective knowledge in the physical area of human experience. Our rationality compels us to seek an equivalent universality in our awareness of the transcendent.

5.2 The question is can our inquiry into the transcendent be an open system? The answer must be that it has to be. Only in such an approach can anchor the transcendent into the coming civilisation of the 21st century.

6.0 The primacy of process over content has crucial consequences

6.1 Mind/matter - consciousness includes matter. Material description is necessary but not sufficient.

6.2 Religious systems are transient

6.3 Transcendent experience is best analysed by those self-critically self-aware - visionary stage merely a beginning.

6.4 Both science and religion profoundly transformed by mutual contact. Science must accept that it is dealing with but a ground state of being. Religion must accept its most cherished assertions of faith are just that and nothing more.

6.5 A science of consciousness cannot be detached - self-awareness is necessary, and therefore self-transformation.

Conclusions

Seeds for further discussion

1. Science is ideally a system of hypotheses and a self-critical and critically self-aware pursuit of truth
2. The current metaphysical assumptions of science as postulated by 'scientism' are valid in their own terms but are not sufficient to give us the basis for a complete account of reality.
3. Scientific empiricism needs to be broadened and deepened to include data from transcendent experience.
4. Scientific values such as honesty and accuracy underpin science but are rarely articulated. In this context, knowledge itself is a value.
5. Knowledge of the history of science and medicine makes us less sure of our current certainties.
6. All intellectual frameworks have their limits, and influence our interpretation of evidence.
7. Reality is a holarchy of complexities where we need to use an appropriate level of explanation at each level. Different levels of explanation need to be coherent with each other.
8. Consciousness is correlated with brain processes but cannot necessarily be reduced to them.
9. Knowledge obtained from transcendent experience informs our understanding of the different levels of reality.
10. Insight into reality is obtained in a process in which the fullest experience informs understanding and understanding points in the direction of ever deeper experience.
11. A science of consciousness requires a participatory rather than a manipulative approach.
12. A science of consciousness includes a process of self-development and should address the nature and relationship between primary and secondary qualities.

All of us agree with some of these statements, but perhaps none of us with all of them!