Concepts like hidden dimensions of reality (string theory) or hidden infinite possible parallel universes (the multiverse) are radical revisions of the very concept of reality. Since detailed contact with experimental data might be decades away, theorists have relied mainly on mathematical consistency and "aesthetics" to guide their explorations. In light of these developments, it seems absurd to dismiss philosophy as having nothing to do with their endeavors.One thing that I've noticed again and again from very smart people is that they can sometimes develop a kind of tunnel vision regarding what they know and what they don't. It's as if they think that once you hit a certain level of smart you must know simply everything worth knowing. One of the benefits of a broader, more classical education is you can't help but have your horizons expanded. You also see how some of the very cream of the crop of humanity were sometimes spectacularly wrong. This should give one pause, and perhaps some humility. . .
Make no mistake, philosophy (and the philosophy of science) are not about doing science. Instead, these fields ask entirely different kinds of questions. They explore the relation between the possible and the actual, the correct links between an argument and it's conclusions or the tension between theoretical models and claims of evidence for those models.
Carbon-nanotube physicists are so deep within the traditional modes of empirical (i.e., data-driven) scientific investigation that they can happily ignore what goes on in the halls of philosophy. But as Krauss' example shows, cosmologists can push so hard and so far at the boundaries of fundamental concepts they cross over and fall prey to their own unspoken philosophical biases and misconceptions.
(I can't help but think that this same argument, with slightly different terms, was commonplace all the way back in Plato's academy.)
Although very different in detail, this argument reminds me of the similar conversations I have regularly had with coworkers who try to convince me that the tangible and observable evidence-based explanations of science have disproved religion. I always find it interesting that by putting their faith (pun intended) in scientific principles that are based on mathematic consistency rather than any physical contact with experimental data, they are engaging in the same exercise of belief that religious people do; accepting abstract explanations for unobservable phenomena based on their satisfaction with more tangible experiences at a more observable level. Although the believer has never seen God, Heaven, or Hell, they will likely tell you of an observable experience they have had in their everyday life that leads them to believe in more unobservable religious doctrines. Similarly, because I know by experience that gravity exists, my satisfaction with the scientific explanation for gravity and so many other observable phenomena lead me to accept scientific explanations for unobservable phenomena. I am NOT saying that religious explanations of creation or what not should be inserted into public school curriculum in place of or alongside science. However, I do think both sides of the debate would do well to realize that religion and science are two distinct and valid approaches to explaining the observable and unobservable environment and that a person doesn’t have to reject one for the other because each field’s explanations for similar events (creation, nature of universe, etc) are different. Perhaps this is why I really have no problem being both a believer in religion and science as I see similarities in two very different approaches to explaining our observable and unobservable environment. I believe the Bible and I accept the basic concepts of biological evolution. I just always figure when all is said and done, I’ll get a thorough explanation of everything from He who actually put it all together.
ReplyDelete