|
|
Return to E-mail Discussion page Greetings all, A brief introduction: I'm a post-baccalaureate student, majoring in philosophy and minoring in mathematics. I specialize in philosophy of cognitive science and artificial intelligence. I wanted to discuss a recent experience and ask for suggestions from those of you who probably deal with this kind of thing more often than I. In one of my philosophy classes, we are discussing certain existentialist philosophers' claims that science is (partly or wholly) responsible for human alienation. These philosophers have advanced the idea that, in doing science, scientists have presupposed something ontologically inappropriate about the "being" of objects--namely, that in describing, say, a hammer (in terms of subatomic particles), they are *beginning* with ONE object rather than, say, two or five or twenty. It's as if they are saying that divisions between an object or organism and the world are arbitrary. (I'm aware that I could be misinterpreting the intent here, but that's the best way I know how to sum up what I heard). Several students spoke up about how science (especially physics) and its reductionist methodologies "reduce everything to subatomic particles or collections of atoms" and "strip things of their human meanings and purposes" by "separating us off from the objects of our perception". They called for a more "humanized" worldview, and made it clear that this kind of view would not be available from science's "disinterested, detached" way of explaining the world. Most of the students agreed with this view, but I did not. I spoke up in defense of science, but unfortunately, I found myself the lone voice in support of of the idea that science does *not* have to be alienating--in fact, I added, science can be a profound source of wonder, awe, and connection to the world. (One of many examples that convinced me of this is a book by Evelyn Fox Keller called "A Feeling For the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McLintock"). I mentioned that I thought good science should be self-critical and always open to re-evaluation, rather than thought of as the final arbiter of all possible truth and reality to the exclusion of other worldviews. To take one example, I suggested that we could use complementary "levels of explanation" in order to hold these ideas in our minds at once, instead of positing them as opposite ends of a continuum. We could think of a hammer as BOTH a "collection of atoms" and a tool for human use, simultaneously and without any loss of "meaning" that comes from its human uses. However, I don't think the instructor or my fellow students were very convinced. Admittedly, I was struggling to find the best way to express these views from within a philosophical context. I used to think science was alienating, but that changed a lot as I got older and learned more about science. So I would like to ask: What might *you* have said in a similar situation? What might I have said that would discourage people from such glib dismissals of science? I'd like to be better prepared if an opportunity like this arises again in the future. Thanks in advance for
any comments! "Mathematics has
been most advanced by those who distinguishedthemselves by intuition
rather than by rigorous proofs." |
