While talking with a fellow named Aaron Gavin today, a crisis in my personal philosophy of science arose.

I genuinely find a great deal of truth in Paul Feyerabend’s claims, particularly that scientific thought is not absolute truth.  Specifically, I believe this is based in the fact that we cannot look at science, or anything else for that matter, with a truly objective opinion–everything we do is anchored in our pre-conceptions of what is true.  For this reason, Feyerabend suggested that we isolate each field, and protect them all from each other–that is religion, natural science, social science, and politics (at least in a true and just democracy).  Frankly, the idea of a political system isolated from science literally makes the hairs on my neck stand up.  Not to insult any-one’s political views, but imagine the past eight years’ policy on science at a ten-fold magnification!  That’s just plain scary!

Now, this lead me to think, that the fields need to influnce their overseer (politics), but perhaps they shouldn’t completely control it.  Feyerabend agrees with this in Against Method, stating that religion and science should have some control of their governance.  However, he says a true democracy would keep them equally weighed.  I simply cannot accept that philosophy–I have to believe the secular and natural world needs to have more direct influence to overcome crisis (‘God helps those who help themselves’).  I know this goes right against Feyerabend’s (and in a sense Kuhn’s) logic that we often back up our scientific ideas with facts AFTER coming to our conclusions.  Take the observer-bias confound in psychology, that’s a prime example of this fact.  Still, I have to believe that science is the closest to valid truth that we can substantiate.  At this comment Aaron did what he usually does and made me put my head in my hands, unable to answer with a response–that’s through my own point of view!  How on Earth can I safely make any conclusion about philosophy, truth, or science.  I then fell back to Descartes’ basis of truth on the certain existence of thought.  I think, therefore science is the best solution (I think more in science than I do in religion).  This doesn’t work either, as it limits my world view and conclusions to the world of my own thoughts, whereas the truth about true truth has to be generalizable, otherwise is isn’t true!

If your head isn’t exploding yet (cause mine was), I am running through the thought that you cannot justly separate religion and science, and you cannot claim one is better (contrary to Richard Dawkins).  Both are heavily anchored in human thought.  Religion places the emphasis on something(s) higher than us (and its/their existence), while science places the emphasis on natural truth(s) (and its/their existence)–but if you think about it, what is the difference?  In the end, every conclusion is based on some intellectual leap of faith.  I’m reminded of Xeno’s paradox, how can you safely make that intellectual jump without foreknowledge of the result?

In short, I think I need to schedule a tea time with the pope, Richard Dawkins, and Isaac Newton to really sort this out for myself.  Until then, does anyone else have a thought on this?  It may seem silly, but this is really bothering me–short of rejecting the ability of humans to understand truth, I have no real answer to this…that REALLY scares me.  If the tree falls, I know it has to make a sound!

-Greg

PS; Never talk philosophy with a philosophy major if you have an open mind, it’s just not healthy!  Also, I’m really sorry about all the cliches and odd analogies I use–it’s the result of a mind trying to express itself within the limits of a language.  It’s really cool to see how this has been one of the limiting AND driving factors of classical science!