Nature Of Science

 

Is methodological reductionism being turned into ideological reductionism? It might be okay, for scientific purposes, to reduce a human being to genes an DNA molecules, but that does not mean human beings are ultimately “nothing but” genes and molecules. Interestingly enough, the power of genetics—reducing the complexity of reality to the simplicity of genetic models—is at the very same time also its weakness of no longer being able to do justice to the complexity behind its simplified models.

 Are there any limitations to science?

Science has many limitations. Because all sciences use their own models, they are “blind” for what does not fit into their models. Each model is based on its own assumptions and refers to its own kinds of causes and boundary conditions. Each model is only a surrogate for “the real thing”. The only model that could ever qualify as a perfect replica of the original is the original itself. Therefore, scientists of the different areas or fields of science have a very selective approach; everything outside their scope is on their “blind spot,” because they neglect what they did not select. Physicists, for instance, only use a “physical eye” to capture the physical parts of this world; chemists have a “chemical eye”; and geneticists see everything with a “genetic eye.” But let us not forget that physics cannot capture everything, neither can genetics. Arguably, even all sciences combined cannot capture all there is, for they only capture what can be measured and counted.

 To gain access to the huge domain of all that counts but cannot be counted, measured, or quantified, we need more than a “scientific eye.” Let me mention a few examples. Just like the “physical eye” sees colors in nature, so the “artistic eye” sees beauty in nature, the “rational eye” sees truths and untruths, the “moral eye” sees rights and wrongs, and the “religious eye” sees a spiritual dimension in life. All these different “eyes” are in search of reality, but each one “sees” a different aspect of it. Even astronomers do not deal with the universe in in its entirety, but only with its physical aspects.

Consequently there are also many kind of blindness.

Reality is like a jewel with many facets; you can look at it from various angles, with different eyes, from perspectives. What you choose to neglect you cannot just reject.

 Fr. Robert Sokolowski, Ph.D.

Lecture

Fr. Robert Sokolowski, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1962, he is internationally recognized and honored for his work in philosophy, particularly phenomenology. In 1994, Catholic University sponsored a conference on his work and published several papers and other essays under the title, The Truthful and the Good, Essays In Honor of Robert Sokolowski. Fr. Sokolowski came to the College as part of the E.L. Wiegand Distinguished Visiting Lecturers Program, which was established to bring distinguished educators to Thomas Aquinas College and St. John's College. Following is abridged from a lecture he gave at the College on March 26, 1999.

I'd like to begin with a rather confrontational claim: That phenomenology can help restore the understanding of being and mind that was accepted in classical Greek philosophy and medieval thought and can still take into account certain contributions of modernity, especially those of science. Phenomenology, in its classical form, understands the human mind as ordered towards truth, and this is the understanding of the mind that prevailed in classical thinking. Phenomenology develops this understanding through its doctrines of intentionality and evidence but with a consideration of modern problems.

 

COMMON SENSE PRINCIPLES OF DISCUSSION

by Anthony Rizzi

 

 

Effective and civil discussion is absolutely essential in reestablishing science on its firm foundation. Since discussion has in recent times become less and less clearly centered on its purpose — which is to get to the truth — we find we have developed bad habits of discussion. Indeed it often happens that, despite our good intentions, discussions degenerate into incivility. It is our hope that the following thoughts will help restore the right emphasis and civility in conversation.

 

l) The aim of discussion is to arrive at a precise statement of a problem  and a true answer. It is profitable if progress in achieving this goal is made even if there is not ultimate success.

 

2) The first step in critical thinking must be to state a problem clearly in the form A is B, or at least that A is not B. Many disagreements arise from not being clear about what problem is to be solved.

 

3) lf you are speaking to someone who has more education and knowledge in the field under discussion, give deference to him. This means that conversation will not equally split with each person speaking 50% of the time. Clearly, the one who has more knowledge will necessarily have to

spend more time relating it.

 

a)       The receiver of knowledge should not resent the giver merely because the giver gives more, i.e. speaks more. Indeed, like the receiver of a wonderful material gift, the spiritual gift of knowledge should be received with sincere appreciation. Few who receive a gift of gold will respond with accusations of unfairness about the inequity involved of them not being able to respond in kind. Rather, most will receive it with great thanks and enthusiasm as lottery winners do. Since the spiritual gift of knowledge is literally infinitely more valuable, the gratitude of the receiver of knowledge should be immense.

 

                b) One essential way of showing gratitude to the giver, which is also an exercise of justice, is to remember his gift and acknowledge him to others. Remembering is key in the process of finding and verifying trustworthy sources, for one needs to remember who has given what to be able to note whose information is reliable.