How Could Science be Different?

Sophisticated abstract thought is perhaps humanity’s greatest asset, and language its most important technology. But abstract thought begs an ever-present question: to what extent does the content and patterns of our thoughts align with what we call reality; to what extent are they are a reliable guide to our explorations of reality? Modern science is an exemplar of a social activity that methodically addresses this alignment problem, and has given rise to abstract thought systems that reflect aspects of physical reality with astonishing precision. Owing to its numerous discoveries and the transformative technologies based upon them, its underpinning mechanical conception of reality has profoundly shaped how we think about reality. However, I believe that the successes of modern science have dulled our sensitivity to the alignment problem, leading to complacency in accepting many aspects of the mechanistic conception as essentially correct, save for minor corrections in the microscopic realm. I believe that in order to ensure the continued evolution of human thought and to maximize the creative potential of science, it is essential that we critically examine the metaphysical underpinnings of modern science in light of its products, and sympathetically consider other metaphysical perspectives. In particular, the construction of a coherent metaphysical conception of reality that accounts for the full content of quantum theory is vital, for it would provide a physically well-founded alternative to the mechanical conception. However, I contend that the organization, practice, and teaching of modern science is presently too far skewed towards the utilitarian and pragmatic to effectively engage in such a task. A transformation is needed, one that reconnects science with reflective and contemplative modes of being at both individual and disciplinary levels.

Philip Goyal

7 Likes • 8 Ratings

Reply to this thread