Views versus truth
I am old enough now that a noticeable number of "facts" I learned in school are no longer considered correct due to the advancement of science. For instance, one system of nomenclature was being taught when I took high school biology, but by the time I got to college, schools were teaching a different type of cladistics. Similarly, I have been amused to read that our solar system now has only eight planets -- Pluto no longer fits the definition.
These examples point toward what is going in the process of science-- or any truth-seeking inquiry, actually.
First of all, it is important to point out that no matter how we choose to classify planets or life forms, reality has not changed one whit. The body called Pluto still exists out there in space, and has all the properties that we have measured about it, such as its mass, chemical composition, orbital dynamics, temperature, etc. (Actually, even things like "temperature" are just other categories). And altering our categorization of animal species does not change the qualities of a cheetah (nor does the cheetah care).
One aspect of what is commonly called "science" is really just classification: how we divide up the Universe into groups in order to bring some order to the vast quantity of phenomena and objects we observe. Biologists are beginning to discover that some (all?) of this classification is itself biologically rooted: we are designed to perceive boundaries in certain ways through our eyes, ears, skin, etc based on the structure of our nervous system. For example, we have touch nerves specific to pain, heat, pressure, etc, so these are natural ways for us to divide up the field of touch sensations. Similarly, our eyes see edges and colors in certain ways that make it convenient for us to perceive objects. We break up sound in certain ways due to the structure of our ears, and our languages exploit that natural way of hearing to produce meaningful variations in tone.
Western philosophy does not consider the mind to be a sense organ, but many Eastern views do. The eyes have forms as their object, the ears have sounds as their object, the nose has scents as its object, the tongue has tastes as its object, the body has touch sensations as its object.... and the mind has ideas as its object. There are natural ways that our minds divide and classify ideas and viewpoints.
This is clear when you think about it. If it were not true that I hear sounds in a fundamentally similar way as you, how could language have ever been invented? If I perceived light and motion fundmentally differently from you, how could we ever agree that a tree is what is standing before us? Similarly, because our minds work basically the same way, I can understand your train of thought, and I can agree that "tree" is a reasonable concept to use.
The classification aspect of science is a product of the mental sense organ. We seek to find a more and more refined view of what we observe around us using all of our senses.
But this is not reality. Our views are not reality, no matter how refined they are. As noted at the beginning, Pluto and cheetahs are what they are regardless of what we call them or even how we measure them.
And so we can see the difference between the surface and the deeper aspects of science. Mere classification is a surface aspect of science. Dividing the world into groups and the rules between them is necessary for our understanding, but it is only the tool, only the product of our mental sense. Just as seeing is the natural product of having eyes, classification and differentiation occur naturally, simply because we have a mind.
The deeper aspect of inquiry is to experience reality directly. Science was in fact born with such a deep intention. At the time that science was emerging as a practice, alternative ways of probing experience were not directed toward reality, toward truth. Science purposefully took up the nobler aims of the human spirit-- free inquiry into what is really happening, rather than received wisdom about it. And that spirit is still alive in science... but only sometimes.
Science has begun to become enamored with sense pleasure-- pleasure of the mental sense organ, that is. Pleasure in classfication, division, theorizing-- i.e., getting wrapped up in ideas rather than reality. Doing science for the gratification of the mental sense organ is no different than doing things for the gratification of one of the other five sense organs. Some people live for their bellies or their visual stimulation; some scientists just do mental masturbation.
Deep inquiry into truth can occur in science. This happens when we remember our humility before the vastness and wonder of Nature, when we see ourselves as just one more part of the Universe-- essential and miniscule at the same time. When we remember that things really just are as they are, and we are here to witness that, to touch that, to explore that. To explore everything!
[And yes, there are other methods of inquiry that also point toward truth. Science has no monopoly, nor is all science of this truth-seeking nature.]
Changing our classification systems in science is normal. We may find that we have fewer/more planets than we used to, or fewer/more species on Earth, simply by drawing lines differently. We must refine our views in order to advance in understanding. And these lines aren't so different from lines that create such categories as "atoms" and "magnetic fields" either.
But we mustn't forget that all of this categorization could be reaching for the nobler purpose of discovering truth. And truth is never an idea. The real question is, What is this Universe? Not, How can we describe this Universe?
These examples point toward what is going in the process of science-- or any truth-seeking inquiry, actually.
First of all, it is important to point out that no matter how we choose to classify planets or life forms, reality has not changed one whit. The body called Pluto still exists out there in space, and has all the properties that we have measured about it, such as its mass, chemical composition, orbital dynamics, temperature, etc. (Actually, even things like "temperature" are just other categories). And altering our categorization of animal species does not change the qualities of a cheetah (nor does the cheetah care).
One aspect of what is commonly called "science" is really just classification: how we divide up the Universe into groups in order to bring some order to the vast quantity of phenomena and objects we observe. Biologists are beginning to discover that some (all?) of this classification is itself biologically rooted: we are designed to perceive boundaries in certain ways through our eyes, ears, skin, etc based on the structure of our nervous system. For example, we have touch nerves specific to pain, heat, pressure, etc, so these are natural ways for us to divide up the field of touch sensations. Similarly, our eyes see edges and colors in certain ways that make it convenient for us to perceive objects. We break up sound in certain ways due to the structure of our ears, and our languages exploit that natural way of hearing to produce meaningful variations in tone.
Western philosophy does not consider the mind to be a sense organ, but many Eastern views do. The eyes have forms as their object, the ears have sounds as their object, the nose has scents as its object, the tongue has tastes as its object, the body has touch sensations as its object.... and the mind has ideas as its object. There are natural ways that our minds divide and classify ideas and viewpoints.
This is clear when you think about it. If it were not true that I hear sounds in a fundamentally similar way as you, how could language have ever been invented? If I perceived light and motion fundmentally differently from you, how could we ever agree that a tree is what is standing before us? Similarly, because our minds work basically the same way, I can understand your train of thought, and I can agree that "tree" is a reasonable concept to use.
The classification aspect of science is a product of the mental sense organ. We seek to find a more and more refined view of what we observe around us using all of our senses.
But this is not reality. Our views are not reality, no matter how refined they are. As noted at the beginning, Pluto and cheetahs are what they are regardless of what we call them or even how we measure them.
And so we can see the difference between the surface and the deeper aspects of science. Mere classification is a surface aspect of science. Dividing the world into groups and the rules between them is necessary for our understanding, but it is only the tool, only the product of our mental sense. Just as seeing is the natural product of having eyes, classification and differentiation occur naturally, simply because we have a mind.
The deeper aspect of inquiry is to experience reality directly. Science was in fact born with such a deep intention. At the time that science was emerging as a practice, alternative ways of probing experience were not directed toward reality, toward truth. Science purposefully took up the nobler aims of the human spirit-- free inquiry into what is really happening, rather than received wisdom about it. And that spirit is still alive in science... but only sometimes.
Science has begun to become enamored with sense pleasure-- pleasure of the mental sense organ, that is. Pleasure in classfication, division, theorizing-- i.e., getting wrapped up in ideas rather than reality. Doing science for the gratification of the mental sense organ is no different than doing things for the gratification of one of the other five sense organs. Some people live for their bellies or their visual stimulation; some scientists just do mental masturbation.
Deep inquiry into truth can occur in science. This happens when we remember our humility before the vastness and wonder of Nature, when we see ourselves as just one more part of the Universe-- essential and miniscule at the same time. When we remember that things really just are as they are, and we are here to witness that, to touch that, to explore that. To explore everything!
[And yes, there are other methods of inquiry that also point toward truth. Science has no monopoly, nor is all science of this truth-seeking nature.]
Changing our classification systems in science is normal. We may find that we have fewer/more planets than we used to, or fewer/more species on Earth, simply by drawing lines differently. We must refine our views in order to advance in understanding. And these lines aren't so different from lines that create such categories as "atoms" and "magnetic fields" either.
But we mustn't forget that all of this categorization could be reaching for the nobler purpose of discovering truth. And truth is never an idea. The real question is, What is this Universe? Not, How can we describe this Universe?
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home