Professor Schaff and I have engaged frequently over the question whether the scientific view of the world is healthy or not. In my recent post, I drew a distinction between science and technology. The former tries to understand the world for the sake of knowing. The latter tries to understand the world in so as is necessary for mastery of some domain. Jon says this:
Prof. Blanchard defines science thusly: "Science is the pursuit of the underlying truths about the world, all of them, out of a simple desire to know." True enough. In this sense theology and philosophy are sciences or are parts of science. But for at least 250 years this is not what most people mean by science, as most people are not Aristotelian in their outlook. When most people say "science" what they mean is the attempt by man to use his mind to master the natural world, including himself, and manipulate it to his own ends. It is not just about "understanding," it is about use.
It is certainly true that a lot of people, including a lot of academic authorities, are unaware of the distinction between science and technology. For the most part this a good thing. It keeps legislatures, incurious about nature but very curious about economic development, interested in funding science. But scientists have never been confused about what they are doing, for the last two thousand years. They were trying to understand what is. Jon goes on:
The divide between philosophy and the natural sciences is deep. In general, the modern scientist, qua scientist, does not believe that we can say anything authoritative about that which is not measurable and quantifiable. Thus the complaint, for example, that political science is not a "real science," try as it might to ape the natural sciences. There is the derision of the humanities as "soft."
I don't think the divide is all that deep, but what my colleague is complaining about here is what the philosophy of science calls "physicalism." This is the view that nothing exists except what is physical, and here "physical" means measurable. This is one of the special characteristics of modern science, and it is has been so spectacularly successful in opening up the book of nature that I find it hard to fault it. But it is important to this applies only to the raw data. Einstein's general and special theories of relativity begin with measurable data, but the data was available to everyone. Einstein interpreted the data with astounding genius, presenting profoundly beautiful visions of the kosmos. Those visions necessarily go beyond what is measurable, even if they suggest experiments which involve measurement. Modern science, like all science, is dependent on poetry.
And finally there is this:
Prof. Blanchard and others are admirably attempting to bridge this gap. But it does not change the fact that when a modern scientist says America has a "scientific soul," he does not mean we are a nation of Aristotles. In short, he does not mean by "science" what Prof. Blanchard means.
I do not know whom Prof. Schaff was reading when he came across that quote: "America has a 'scientific soul.'" The unnamed writer might have meant merely that America was brought into being by people who had a great confidence in science, and that it has been nurtured here ever since. If so, her or she was certainly right. The founders thought their revolution and constitution making were informed by a scientifically correct understanding of human nature. I happen to agree. Benjamin Franklin earned an immortal place in the history of physics by suggesting that electricity needed two poles, positive and negative, to explain it. Science has certainly been an integral part of the American soul, and this is one of the reasons for our greatness.
And just for clarification: I think a nation of Aristotles would be a very bad idea.
Recent Comments