Monday, February 18, 2013
Science: A Search for Knowledge, Truth, or Utility
"Therefore, because he that knoweth least is fittest to ask questions, it is more reason, for the entertainment of the time, that ye ask me questions, than that I ask you." -Governor of the House of Strangers, New Atlantas Section 15 p. 127
Aphorism CXXIV "Here is another objection that will certainly come up: that (despite our criticisms of others) we ourselves have not first declared the true and best goal or purpose of the sciences. For the contemplation of truth is worthier and higher than any utility or power in effects.... We declare that inept models of the world (like imitations by apes), which men's fancies have constructed in philosophies, have to be smashed. And so men should be aware (as we said above) how great is the distance between the illusions of men's minds and the ideas of God's mind. The former are simply fanciful abstractions; the latter are the true marks of the Creator on his creatures as they are impressed and printed on matter in true and meticulous lines. Therefore truth and usefulness are (in this kind) the very same things, and the works themselves are of greater value as pledges of truth than for the benefits they bring to human life." The New Organon p. 96
After some discussion of the new scaffold for science that Bacon is suggesting we use to reconstruct our understanding of the world from the total beginning Bacon addresses some foreseeable objections. The objection which he raises in the above aphorism centers on what the goal this rebuilding of science is. There are many issues that could be brought up against Bacon here such as his assumption that their is a divine consciousness that planned the world and that this being is a necessary one for all existence and experience. Another issue is that Bacon seems to think that this new methodology or instrument will guarantee that our experiments will interpret nature only in the correct way and that they guarantee truth. However, I think the largest problem with Bacon is his equating truth and usefulness. His view can only be considered to make any sense if we assume that this new method gives us an essentially God's eye point of view. We also run into the huge problem of truth losing its objectivity if we consider utility and truth equivalents of any kind. The concept of utility is itself subjective, it totally depends on the agent's views and goals. Truth on the other hand is supposed to be universally objective and agent-independent. I don't know if the famous tri-part definition of truth was something Bacon was aware of so it may not be fair to blame him for being unaware of many of the now famous epidemiological issues that come from seeing truth as being certain and concrete. Bacon's attempt to deal with these issues however are side-stepping at best.
Regardless, it brings us to an important question: What is the goal of science and the study of nature currently and what should it be? I personally think that conceiving of science as a search for utility or production is incredibly naive, misguided, and dangerous. Do you disagree? Are their solid reasons to think of science in this way? If so are they able to withstand the counter-arguments one could make?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why do you think it is naïve to conceive of the study of nature in this way? I do think the main focus of science currently is for the sake of utility versus merely for the sake of knowledge. The only danger that immediately comes to mind is that we don’t know exactly what the consequences of new scientific innovations will be. It’s entirely conceivable that they may eventually pose a danger. I feel that while we may say we appreciate knowledge and truth over utility yet we really appreciate utility more. Everyday we enjoy the utilitarian purposes that science has bestowed upon us. Furthermore, I don’t think knowledge, truth, or utility have to be separate categories. Utility can derive from truth obtained from knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is naive, but I do think it is very dangerous to approach the study of nature this way. Today, many people do not concern themselves with understanding nature for the sake of knowledge but for the sake of practical progress. In some ways, this is very advantageous to us and can help make our lives better. I agree with Cecile in that we do not look at the later consequences some of our discoveries may cause. We enjoy immediate gratification that the progress of science can provide us but do not always think of what could happen in the long run. Utility can come from knowledge, but I think the importance of what we are discussing is the reason we want to have that knowledge and in most cases it is for utility, this is dangerous because it causes us to lose respect for nature as an end in itself, and look at it only as a tool for mankind.
ReplyDelete