3. The Primacy of consciousness

                                          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. 

2. How Restrictive is the Method of Empirical Sciences with regard to Human Knowledge?

                                                                  Every branch of knowledge has its own field of subject-matter. What is the proper field of scientific knowledge engaged in by the empirical sciences? The observable Universe with all its varieties of living and non-living entities that can be observed by our senses and experimented with verifiable means is the proper field of scientific knowledge. Beyond this, to claim that there is nothing other than the observable by our senses and limited to this visible Universe is ultra vires or beyond the scope of the empirical sciences. For, how will such a claim be justified? It cannot be justified either way by the empirical sciences as it cannot overstep its own method that is restricted to the observable and the question here is going beyond it. Here only Philosophy can say something sensible as we have seen in the last Post how it is armed with the first Principles of all inquiry and knowledge. Out of those Basic Principles what the empirical sciences use is the Principle of Causality that is but a subset of the Principle of Sufficient reason. Thus we see that Philosophy is the suitable candidate to say something about what is beyond the observable as it is invested with the Principle of Sufficient reason. It is not that Philosophy necessarily discovers truths over and beyond those discussed in empirical sciences and humanities, but because Philosophy clarifies concepts belonging to all fields of knowledge bringing out false coins that get mixed up with genuine ones is it relevant for human knowledge. Philosophy achieves it through its powerful weapon called Logic that cannot be denied by any reasonable human being. Logic is used in all branches of knowledge, and yet it is Philosophy that has taken upon itself the task of fine-tuning it in accordance with the very first Principle of Sufficient Reason. Besides, what Aristotle called Metaphysics (the very word means 'after or beyond Physics') is at the threshold reality of Physics where Physics has nothing to say because it can say nothing about its own foundations. It is evident that the subject-matter of Metaphysics cannot be in the same order as that of Physics, as it has no problem to take into account the observer-dependence of human knowledge. However, it is not the task of Metaphysics to lay foundation for Physics as it only points to the wider dimension of reality inaccessible to Physics and other empirical sciences.
                                           Since the empirical sciences have to restrict themselves to what is observable by the senses, they cannot sit in judgement over what is counted as knowledge in general especially after the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein. Einstein describes the space-time field in his Unified Field Theory. There Einstein accepts a non-physical field as the basis for matter. What is more, it is applied to reality in general bringing sciences closer to the truth and yet he did not attend to the discrete digital properties of space and time. Einstein was stuck with space and time as the primary energy field, neglecting the role of consciousness as the primary energy field. His student, David Bohm along with the Quantum Mechanics theorists Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and Eugene Wigner accepted consciousness as the primary energy field and yet they missed out on the digital connection that stumped them from proceeding any further in the quest for truth. This shows that any credible and objective conception of reality must include subjective experience that can reliably lead to a useful method of investigation that can be accessed by anyone interested in truth and reality. Here is the relevance of Philosophy, especially of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic, Philosophy of Mind etc. in advancing human knowledge that is wider than merely scientific knowledge. Since the method of empirical sciences is based on quantitative measurements and mathematical formulas, independent of subjective experiences, they are stuck with ignorance of the nature of their own foundations, let alone the nature of reality and truth! This ignorance is not due to any negligence from their part, but flows from the necessity of observer-dependence that is part and parcel of the nature of human knowledge, but missing in empirical sciences.
                                          As observer-dependence is crucial to our argument to deny the empirical sciences the coveted role of arbiters of valid human knowledge, let us see a little more about the scientific basis to our contention. How do we explain the second postulate of relativity of Albert Einstein?  It concerns the constancy of the speed of light. Now the constancy of the speed of light is nothing but a consequence of how we have defined time and space. This definition of ours proceeds from the way we have experienced the Universe. What does it mean? It means that our science is nothing but a science of what we experience and not of a Universe "out there" independent of our observations. It follows that we have defined the speed of light as constant relative to us and this is a consequence of how we experience the Universe. We shall continue this reasoning in our next Post on 'The primacy of Consciousness'.     

1. Can Science Claim Monopoly over Knowledge?

                                           It would seem that scientific knowledge is the savior of mankind from superstitions, unverified assumptions in religions, intellectual terrorism emanating from dogmatic assertions etc. that restrict and even destroy human creativity and freedom inherent in human nature. Does this picture of scientific knowledge and its capabilities square with actual facts? It is true that scientific and technological progress have been able to get rid of many superstitions, prejudices and false beliefs that have ruled humankind for centuries. In this field, Philosophy has done great services in eradicating false notions, beliefs and styles of life that were unbecoming for the dignity of human beings even before the sciences emerged on the scene. For, it was Philosophy that prepared the way for empirical sciences and the consequent technological inventions that contributed to the welfare of humanity in no small measure as the history of human thought reveals. By empirical sciences we mean the sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Biology and all other sciences excluding Philosophy, Mathematics, Logic etc.
                                           We must see the connection between Philosophy and the empirical sciences in the following way. Historically speaking, Western Philosophy started in ancient Greece as the first response to the wonder the humans felt in their everyday life. All sciences gradually emerged from the first principles of rationality propounded by Philosophy and were gradually weaned away. What were these first principles that helped humanity to acquire, accumulate and utilize the knowledge gained therefrom? The Principle of Identity that identifies a thing from other things; The Principle of Contradiction or non-Contradiction that helps to avoid contradiction; The Principle of Sufficient Reason that demands a reason for everything. The reason can be either in itself or outside itself; if it is the former, it is akin to the Principle of Identity where one doesn't have to look for a reason outside itself. If it is the latter, it is called the Principle of Causality, which is the main Principle used by empirical sciences in all their investigations.
                                           However, at present neither Philosophy nor the empirical sciences can claim any primacy as their roles have become distinct and independent of one another. They need not be bothered about any primacy as both have their roles clearly marked out. Let the empirical sciences advance hypotheses, theories etc. and try to prove them and bring out the essences of things by means of verifiable evidences. Philosophy in its proper role is not interested in them as its proper role is to clarify concepts, not only in Philosophy but also in empirical sciences. This role of Philosophy in clarifying even scientific concepts frees them from unmanageable knots they have got into thinking that they were plumbing the depths of reality! This is done by presenting the relevant concepts in a perspicuous manner and solving genuine problems as well as dissolving pseudo-problems.
                                            In this connection, let us not fall into the temptation of attacking the normal form of expression as if attacking a statement, a pitfall the Idealists, the Solipsists and the realists fell into. The conflict is between a picture in our heads and the picture of our ordinary way of speaking. We would like to think that our ordinary way of speaking does not describe the facts as they are. As if, for example, the proposition "he has pains" could be false in some other way than by that man's 'not' having pains. As if the form of expression were saying something false even when the proposition 'faute de mieux' asserted something true. (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, paragraph, 402). It means that we should avoid the confusion arising out of our way of speaking with what we want to express by it as happened to the philosophical thinking of the Idealists, Solipsists and the Realists. The same problem may arise in the empirical sciences whereby the scientists may consider our ordinary language as below standard and unworthy of their attention. Of course, the scientists have their special languages couched in mathematical formulas, theorems etc. and that is the specialty of their investigations. However, they cannot totally escape our everyday ordinary language that stands as the base from which their investigations have taken them to higher zones. Ultimately they have to come down to the ordinary language to verify the meaningfulness of their expressions on pain of being meaningless otherwise. We shall see in the next Post how the method of investigation of the empirical sciences is restrictive and cannot claim overall dominion over the kingdom of knowledge.