One of the signature achievements of centuries of effort in the natural sciences and mathematics is the establishment of ``fundamentals'' that have served as the foundation for all science thereafter. In this essay, I will argue for a semantics of ``what is fundamental'' defined not on the basis of a reductionist search for explanations based upon microscopic constituents, but rather on those deeply satisfying insights that are known for their broad explanatory reach. This explanatory reach can be thought of as an intellectual superpower because possessing it allows us by pure thought alone not only to explain things that are already known, but to predict things that are not yet known. Unfortunately, fundamentals have a darker side as well. The addition of the three simple letters ``-ism'' takes the notion of fundamental and turns it into one of the worst of human traits, namely, the insistence that there is only one divinely-inspired truth. As an antidote to such fundamentalism, I close by reflecting on one of the most fundamental lessons of science: the requirement for the kind of simultaneous openness and skepticism that makes science work.
Rob Phillips