We have seen in the last Post why the empirical sciences cannot claim to be the arbiters of genuine human knowledge due to their own internal constraints and limitations leading up to the primacy of consciousness. This is especially true after the discovery of Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle and the latest developments in modern physics that is concerned with both Relativity and Quantum theories. All of them point to the fact that our scientific data are actually observer-dependent. It means that what we know about the entire Universe is according to our method and capability of observation and analysis, which is the same as observer-dependence. Does it mean that what we know through the methods of empirical sciences is subjective and can never be objective?The answer is both yes and no. Yes, in the sense that we cannot know anything independent of our capacity to know and in the case of empirical sciences it is restricted to the observable by our senses and verifiable by experiments. As reality has many levels or dimensions, we may say that certain levels of reality may be reached by the restricted methods of the empirical sciences and to that degree they are objective, provided one does not deny observer-dependence. Where they go off the limits is when they try to legislate on what can be or cannot be known, the proper field of philosophy, and try to constrict all reality within their field of knowledge. The proper attitude of scientists at the threshold of their scientific enquiries, as suggested by the theories of Quantum mechanics, is to stand and gape at the imponderable depth of reality they are unable to describe or explain. They should accept the advice of Ludwig Wittgenstein in such situations: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent" (See Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the last proposition no. 7).
Both Relativity and Quantum theories being the very foundations of modern Physics, we are compelled to accept the fact that all our scientific data are actually observer-dependent. This entails that without the presence of the observer, much of Quantum Physics and Relativity would not even make sense. Our experience is, therefore, paramount in understanding the scientific theories. Therefore, our scientific theories are in fact theories of how we experience the Universe. This would be in contrast to a hypothetical Universe that is independent of us as observers. Besides, the speed of light is the more fundamental entity only because our sensory apparatus rely on electromagnetism for its functioning. The conclusion, therefore, is that our physiological experience is the foundation for our science, which means that the foundation is not any phenomenon that is independent of us as conscious observers. Furthermore, the theory of Relativity demonstrates that even time and space are only secondary entities dependent on our conscious experience.
Does it mean that the perceived entities cannot be separated from the perceiver? There is no scientific evidence to show that the perceived entities can be considered as separate from the perceiver's experience. Here the role of Philosophy, especially its Epistemology, comes into focus that can sort out the relationship, in general, between the subject and the object in our knowledge. As far as empirical sciences are concerned, their proper function is scientific inquiry with hypotheses and theories that may be tested and verified producing results that can be accessed by all. The relationship between the observer and the observed Universe calls for a deep study of our consciousness for which the empirical sciences themselves are not equipped. Since consciousness is a vital and fundamental component of our reality, it has to be studied in depth. This is achieved in Philosophy through the Philosophy of Mind and experimentally in Psychology through a study of the subconscious and the unconscious. These fields of study may be pursued by those who are interested in the topic. As for our conclusion of this discussion, we may say that we have shown from a scientific perspective itself the limits of scientific knowledge without denying the immense value science and technology offer to humanity. As long as the empirical sciences are engaged in the investigations proper to their own fields, without encroaching upon fields beyond their well-defined path, there will be no confusion in the matter of knowing reality and attaining truth.
Both Relativity and Quantum theories being the very foundations of modern Physics, we are compelled to accept the fact that all our scientific data are actually observer-dependent. This entails that without the presence of the observer, much of Quantum Physics and Relativity would not even make sense. Our experience is, therefore, paramount in understanding the scientific theories. Therefore, our scientific theories are in fact theories of how we experience the Universe. This would be in contrast to a hypothetical Universe that is independent of us as observers. Besides, the speed of light is the more fundamental entity only because our sensory apparatus rely on electromagnetism for its functioning. The conclusion, therefore, is that our physiological experience is the foundation for our science, which means that the foundation is not any phenomenon that is independent of us as conscious observers. Furthermore, the theory of Relativity demonstrates that even time and space are only secondary entities dependent on our conscious experience.
Does it mean that the perceived entities cannot be separated from the perceiver? There is no scientific evidence to show that the perceived entities can be considered as separate from the perceiver's experience. Here the role of Philosophy, especially its Epistemology, comes into focus that can sort out the relationship, in general, between the subject and the object in our knowledge. As far as empirical sciences are concerned, their proper function is scientific inquiry with hypotheses and theories that may be tested and verified producing results that can be accessed by all. The relationship between the observer and the observed Universe calls for a deep study of our consciousness for which the empirical sciences themselves are not equipped. Since consciousness is a vital and fundamental component of our reality, it has to be studied in depth. This is achieved in Philosophy through the Philosophy of Mind and experimentally in Psychology through a study of the subconscious and the unconscious. These fields of study may be pursued by those who are interested in the topic. As for our conclusion of this discussion, we may say that we have shown from a scientific perspective itself the limits of scientific knowledge without denying the immense value science and technology offer to humanity. As long as the empirical sciences are engaged in the investigations proper to their own fields, without encroaching upon fields beyond their well-defined path, there will be no confusion in the matter of knowing reality and attaining truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment