Letter To A Physicist

 

This letter was an answer to a physicist who asserted that science has priority, not philosophy.

        There is ’science’ then there is the ’scientific method’; you do not seem to acknowledge their differences. Knowledge, prediction (even if mathematical) is science as much as philosophy is science. The philosophical a priori that one need to do ’science=knowledge’ can make all the difference in how I view the usefulness or nature of the ’scientific method’, a method based on logic, therefore philosophy.

For example, if I assume philosophically (you might say scientifically, having your experimental goal in mind) that ’all there is’ is, or can be, mathematically accessible or understandable. That assumption is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

The Scientific Method measures and counts, If I assume that all I care and worry about can be measured and counted so far so good. We are all witnesses to how far that Scientific Method has taken us.

I do not for an instant doubt or question the utility, the grandeur of the Scientific Method. Far from me the thought. But in the realm of Knowledge (Science if you will) it is only part of the story.

In the realm of Knowledge science is limited

BRAIN DEATH

 This an introduction to an article from the National Library of Medicine.

The article can be found here: Brain death and true patient care - PMC (nih.gov)

Summary: Though legally accepted and widely practiced, the “brain death” standard for the determination of death has remained a controversial issue, especially in view of the occurrence of “chronic brain death” survivors. This paper critically re-evaluates the clinical test-criteria for “brain death,” taking into account what is known about the neuro-critical care of severe brain injury. The medical evidence, together with the understanding of the moral role of the physician toward the patient present before him or her, indicate that an alternative approach should be offered to the deeply comatose patient.

Importance of Philosophical History.

 

The following from a Gilson Reader illustrates quite well I think the point I was trying to make to my brother which is: “ a philosophy or philosopher can only be understood in the context of the history of philosophy.”

 By  turning the concrete into a mosaic of clear ideas, the mathematical method of Descartes raised difficulties whose solution was sought throughout the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; in the nineteenth century it led in the end to despair—despair of philosophy itself.

How can the domain of pure thought ever be in touch with the domain of pure extension when the property of substances is to be mutually exclusive? This is what Descartes does not tell us. He allows us a thought (not a soul), and extension (not a body): he is unable to account for the union of soul and body.

 

. . . The occasionalism of Malebranche, the pre-established harmony of Leibniz, the parallelism of Spinoza are so many metaphysical “epicycles to solve an ill-stated problem by rescuing, with the aid of complementary devices, the very principle which make the problem insoluble.

 

Again:

What is the most striking difference between the Greek notion of the deity and the notion of God common to practically all the seventeenth-century philosophers? The best answer we can imagine is that, apart from Anaximander, who in a rather cryptic statement said that “the first principle of all things is infinite,” no known Greek philosopher ever posited an infinite being as the cause of all that which is, whereas Descartes, Leibniz, Malebranche, and practically all the other metaphysicians of the seventeenth century conceived of God as the primary cause of all that which is, and they did so on the strength of he principle hat, if there is a God, He must needs be an infinite being. The remark applies even to the only one among these philosophers who was not a Christian, namely Spinoza. God, Spinoza says, ”is a being absolutely indefinite, that is a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence.” What can be the cause for this radical change in perspective? The only answer we can imagine is that this cause is to be found in the theological speculation which starting from the biblical notion of a

Creator of all beings, led the men of the middle ages to conceive infinity as a positive conception of being.

 

Again:

. . . Even Spinoza cannot be fully accounted for without taking into account the speculation of the middle ages. To overlook what happened to philosophy in the thirteenth century is to deprive the history of Wetsern thought of its continuity and, by the same token, its intelligibility.

BELIEF

        Starting from a quite general analysis of the basic attitude of "belief", we have arrive directly at the Christian mode of belief.

 For to believe as a Christian means in fact entrusting oneself to the meaning that upholds me and the world; taking it as the firm ground on which I can stand fearlessly. Using rather more traditional language, we could say that to believe as a Christian means understanding our existence as a response to the word, the logos, that upholds and maintains all things.

 It means affirming that the meaning we do not make but can only receive is already granted to us, so that we have only to take it and entrust ourselves to it.

Correspondingly, Christian belief is the option for the view that the receiving precedes the making--though this does not mean that making is reduced in value or proclaimed to be superfluous. It is only because we have received that we can also "make". And further: Christian belief--as we have already said--means opting for the view that what cannot be seen in more real than what can be seen. It is an avowal of the primacy of the invisible as the truly real, which upholds us and hence enables us to face the visible with calm composure --knowing that we are responsible before the invisible as the true ground of all things. 

To that extent it is undeniable that Christian belief is a double affront to the attitude that the present world situation seems to force us to adopt. In the shape of positivism and phenomenalism it invites us to confine ourselves to the "visible", the "apparent", in the widest sense of the terms; to extend the basic methodology to which natural science is indebted for its successes to the totality of our relationship with reality. 

Again, in the shape of techne it calls upon us to rely on the "makable" and to expect to find in this the ground that upholds us. The primacy of the invisible over the visible and that of receiving over making run directly counter to this basic situation. No doubt that is why it is so difficult for us today to make the leap of entrusting ourselves to what cannot be seen. 

Yet the freedom of making, like that of enlisting the visible in our service by means of methodical investigation, is in the last analysis only made possible by the provisional character that Christian belief assigns to both and by the superiority it has thus revealed.

UGLINESS

     To be in error is by definition to be out of touch with reality as it is. Error is therefore at least misleading, even when it is presented unwittingly and in good faith, and because it is out of touch and often with an element of beguilement, there is in it an element of the ugly. 

        New ageism serves as an example of what we mean. By mingling Oriental texts with a sprinkling of scientific terms and bits of literature and religion that may appear to the unwary to bestow an aura of respectability, contemporary gurus make assertions that are actually nothing more than airy, vague sentiments with no foundations in the actual world: "Field of infinite possibilities . . . the unbounded, ever-loving universe  . . . [we are]all sisters of a mysterious order . . . space and unified field . . . our age of awareness . . . conscious energy field". These romanticized but vacuous feelings may mislead millions into thinking their problems are being solved in some mysteriously ultimate manner. New ageism is pseudosophistication devoid of evidence and serious thought, quite the opposite of the beautiful.

Proposing what may tickle some ears, new ageism makes few or no moral demands, for one need not worry about responsibility to God, about a need to say no. Hence, there is no fear of responsibility and punishment for the choices one makes. A recent critic observed that "the spiritual peace and enlightenment offered by pop gurus doesn't require a lifetime of discipline.  It requires only that  you suspend judgment, attend their lectures and workshops and buy their books or tapes."

Worldview

 

It is only the assumption of a worldview that allows us to think at all. Whenever any of us thinks about anything we are operating under a certain framework. That framework is our worldview. We show our particular worldview by our words and actions which might tell a different story from what we think our worldview is.

Our worldview can be expressed in a set of presuppositions; such presuppositions are my assumptions, which may be true, partially true or entirely false.

There are of course, a way things are, but we are often mistaken about the way things are. People disagree on what is true; some assume one thing, others assume another. One might not be aware of one’s commitment to some basic presuppositions and these presuppositions can be hold inconsistently.

Does everyone have a worldview?

A worldview is an achievement which can be distinguished from a worldvision with which we all begin life with.

A worldvision is a set of intuitions about the world formed in all individuals by their family and home environment their teachers and education, and the broad culture within which they live. It is also bound to the idiosyncrasies of an individual person’s temperament. That particular combination provides a workable(but limited) frame of reference with which to live from day to day. In the same sense, it is possible to spend an entire life navigating the streets of a city only in a first-person perspective, never seeing a map of the city (and all that is beyond it) or climbing a skyscraper in order to move from the limitations of your individual vision of each street to a larger view of the whole city.

Worldview relates to worldvision in that sense. It elevates the limitations of first-person vision to the breadth of bird’s-eye view. An individual vision within the world is a necessary starting point, certainly, but it should not be confused with an extensive view of the world.

How does one develop a worldview?

 It is a lifelong journey that involves a variety of factors. A healthy worldview is one that is constantly questioned and revised as one’s understanding of reality evolves.

The following steps could be taken in consideration.

_Question your assumptions: Identify the beliefs and assumptions that underlie your worldview and question them. Examine your core values, beliefs and motivations. Reflect on experiences that have profoundly shaped you. This can help you identify any biases or prejudices that may be limiting your perspective.

_Question and learn: Be curious and have a willingness to challenge assumptions.

Think about purpose. “Why am I here?” or “What gives life meaning?”

Dive into philosophical texts and thinkers to challenge your thought processes and refine your understanding of concepts like morality, truth, and existence.

_Explore other perspectives: Expose yourself to different cultures, philosophies and ideas. Look at different existing worldviews like Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Postmodernism, etc.

Are  they acceptable to you, if not, why not?

_Cultivate critical thinking: Explore writings from different cultures, disciplines, and ideologies. Whether it’s philosophy, science or art, varied perspectives can reveal hidden biases or overlooked truths. 

Conversations that challenge your perspectives help refine your thinking and reveal areas that need deeper exploration; specially with people whose experiences differ from your own.

This is not eroding one’s beliefs but abut strengthening them through thoughtful scrutiny.

A robust worldview is flexible, it adapts and grows as you encounter new experiences and knowledge. Allow yourself to modify your beliefs in response to new information. Weave your life experiences into the larger philosophical discussion you encounter.

Not every question has a neat answer. Embracing uncertainty can foster deeper intellectual humility and resilience.

 _Commit to lifelong learning.

Developing a coherent worldview is an ongoing process. Embrace the journey of continuous inquiry, learning, and self-transformation. Revisit and reassess your conclusions periodically.

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.