Philosophy.
Edited: 7 Oct 2007.Nicholas has been reading Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and he asked me what do I think of it.
Honestly I have not read the book. I have The Selfish Gene but I have not read it either. The only thing that I have read that is written by Dawkins is a letter that he wrote to his 10-years old daughter which basically asked her not to believe anything other than things that can be proven by empirical methods. I remember also that he seems to be quite against tradition and establishment.
I would hate to simplify (because I seriously don't know what he has written about), but probably I can still talk about an absolutely secular philosophy in which people believe that if given the time, science can explain everything.
I find that intrinsically problemetic.
1. How do you define science?
The line between science and philosophy is very unclear, especially at the level of theoretical physics. It is easy to say nowadays that something is scientific while others are not when you are in a field like medicine; but in theoretical physics I wouldn't expect every theory to be provable by experimental means or direct observation. So is that still science? Those people are working towards a grand unifying theory which governs all - what then is the difference between that and mathematics in Plato's philosophy?
Question: in that realm, what is science explaining then? Is it explaining anything? Or basically has it morphed into a philosophy or religion? Mathematics in Plato's system is certainly just part of his philosophy and not a science.
So, since the string theory doesn't have empirical data supporting it (I don't know about this bit), are we supposed to dismiss it as completely worthless and refuse to believe in it? Extending this rhetoric: does it mean that every belief and theory that is not based on empirical data is completely worthless? If so, we won't even be here today - because science won't even look like what it is now today. The history of science didn't go this way - it was only during the Enlightenment (18th/19th century) that the current secular approaches of science were widely accepted. The Industrial Revolution was based on science before that...!
2. Can I explain why I am sitting in this room in Baltimore typing in my blog about scientific philosophy?
It seems like I can - but in fact, no. I can't.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to answer everything using empirically provable methods. It is downright MEANINGLESS. Basically, if I had made an alternative choice somewhere down my life - e.g. In 1997 I could have bowed down to my dad's pressure and went to RI; in 1999 my mum could have given up insisting that I switch to DHS; in 2001 I could have chosen to do LEP instead of trip-science - I would not be sitting here typing these. Why did I make those choices that brought me here? Why didn't my dad force me harder? Why didn't I be more insistent in 1999? I DON'T KNOW.
This just has to be accepted. Yes, things like why does a young rat that is licked and groomed by its mum is more tolerable to stress can be explained by molecular epigenetics. Yes, the patient has cancers in his lungs, intestine, liver and brain all at the same time because he inherited the Li Fraumeni syndrome, and not because God wants to punish him. But things like why did we become friends cannot be explained molecularly - it can't even be explained socially! If A and B are basically exactly the same in terms of character etc., why is A my friend but B is just a stranger to me?
Random chance? NO IT'S DEFINITELY NOT RANDOM CHANCE. If you ask a string of questions you will see that. There is a certain level of certainty to it. What makes that?
It is meaningless to tackle this question using science or even social science. It is more meaningful to use religion or philosophy to answer it. What creates that certain level of certainty in everything? Scientific theories like evolution can explain things up to a certain extent - it will finally hit a wall when the question goes to the level of how did the first cell come about or how was the first protein molecule made. Science can only say that it formed by random chance - which is something I find extremely unconvincing. Because you can attribute anything to random chance - and you do not have to explain further or be responsible for it.
Moral of the story: Science has its limitations. Science cannot explain everything. Science is there for us to explain natural or social phenomena and through that improve our lives, but it is meaningless to force it to do anything else other than that. Think about it.
Labels: Philosophy and Religion
