Modern Science and its
Critics
“The main problem with
modern science is its materialism and its reductionism.” Do you agree? Can alternative views of science be rigorously defended?
Before I put my views on the subjects of materialism and reductionism
across, I would like to give a brief explanation of the two. Firstly I would like to discuss
materialism. Materialism is the view
that everything is material or physical, this means that everything that exists
in the world exists in a merely physical form, this obviously poses many
problems for subjects such as religion, but I will discuss that later. Reductionism follows the basic premise that
to understand things we must look at the parts that constitute the whole.
Scientific materialism, which rejected all notions of
spirituality or divinity, had assumed that 'seeing is believing', that is, that
what we observe with our senses and interpret with our reason is the final
truth. For materialism empirical
evidence was sufficient for something to be proved. I believe that scientific materialism started in the Fifth
Century B.C. with the early Greek atomists Leucippus and Democritus. Although they where not true materialists in
the modern sense as the knowledge that was available at the time was extremely
limited, they believed that everything was made up of indivisible,
indestructible atoms
However problems started to appear for scientific materialism with
the arrival of quantum theories and relativity, one of the forerunners in this
was the famous physicist Albert Einstein. The implication of Einstein's views
is that what we perceive can probably never be the final truth, because our
senses do not experience reality directly.
He believed that there were three different kinds of reality, the one
that we perceive with our senses, the reality that is actually real and the
reality of the scientist. This shows
that materialism has great problems,
for it only deals with the first idea of reality, the one that we see, and it
does not take into account what really is happening, for example the random
unseen movements that are at the heart of the sub-atomic particles.
Einstein’s theory of relativity posed many
immediate problems for materialism, and it is still causing many now, for it
states that everything is relative to the viewer/subject. For instance if I was travelling in an
exceptionally fast vehicle then time would pass slower for me in relation to a
man who is not moving. Also, light
always passes an object at the speed of light, irrespective of the speed of the
object. This poses great problems as it
raises questions on the reliability of empirical evidence. It also means that all previous experiments
that involved the speed of light might have incurred errors, because they did
not take this relativity into account.
The emergence of relativity and quantum
physics heralded what could be the end for materialism. This is because quantum physics have brought
ideas such as non-locality; this basically says that if two sub-atomic
particles part and fly in opposite directions and one has a spin of up, then
the other must have a spin of down. It
follows from this that if the spin changes in one of the sub-atomic particles,
then it will result in the other being changed as well, although there would be
no physical connection between the two.
This obviously poses problems for materialists because there is no
physical connection between the two particles.
This is just one of many examples in which scientific materialism cannot
explain recent findings.
If we allow for the above to be considered as true, then it
has serious consequences, for if it is true then this means that there is
something else in the universe that is not wholly physical, so has this
heralded the end for materialism? Although in the past ideas such as
phlogiston, the ether that was thought to have produced heat, seemed to have
been true, when it has since been proved that they are not, and I believe that
the case for materialism has come under the same problems. But are the problems enough to abandon
scientific materialism altogether? I
believe that scientific materialism does not need to be abandoned altogether,
as it has brought us knowledge that is used in everyday life and is integral to
our daily lives.
A.N. Whitehead points out some of the problems with
materialism in his book Science and the Modern World. He says
“The
dominating note of the whole period of three centuries is that the doctrine of
materialism afforded an adequate basis for the concepts of science…When undulations
were wanted, an ether was supplied, in order to perform the duties of an
undulatory material.” A.N. Whitehead Science and the Modern World, p142.
This seems to show one of
the major flaws in scientific materialism, and the way in which it dealt with
problems. There have been many
occasions in which scientific materialism has dealt with problems in this case,
such as the aforementioned phlogiston.
The causes of heat could not be found, so the idea of phlogiston was
thought up. It was an invisible ether
that produced heat, it could not be empirically proved, but it satisfied many
people for a long time. Of course we
now know that heat is the product of particles vibrating. This but could there be more solutions like
phlogiston that are still used in today’s society? It would seem that materialism is facing many problems that it is
unable to account for.
There
are many different schools of thought that involve the nature of the universe,
and many of these are in direct opposition to the scientific materialist
view. Three such objectors might be a
pantheist, an animist and a vitalist.
Pantheists believe that the cosmos is divine and the Earth is sacred. They do not believe in a deity as such, they
hold nature itself as the creative presence in the universe. Animists believe that everything in the
universe is a living being, or that they posses some sort of soul. Finally, vitalists believe that living
organism’s posses a non-material inner force or energy, and it is this that
gives them life. These are all opposed
to the belief that everything is physical, although they all have different
beliefs, they all seem to say that there is a driving force in the universe
that is not physical.
It is true that we have gained a lot from
materialism, but I think that its time has come. It needs to be revised, for there have been continuous debates in
history that have had great relevance to this, such as the mind body
problem. Although this is not directly
linked to scientific-materialism I believe that the arguments by philosophers
such as Descartes still have a great deal to say on the subject.
Descartes believed that there were two types of things in
the universe, those that are physical/material and those which are not, and
cannot be empirically proved. He
believed that there where physical things such as the tables and chairs, but
the most valuable point to be gained is that he believed in the consciousness
that acts upon these, this would be similar in my eyes to the unseen force that
connects the two particles in the aforementioned non-locality. The views of A.N. Whitehead seem to be
similar to those of Descartes, in the way that he believed that there was more
to the universe than the merely physical side.
Whitehead thought that scientific materialism believed that
there was, what he called a “brute matter”, which is “senseless, valueless,
purposeless” and it is this that is the building blocks of the world. However his views did not conform to this. He thinks that this is not suitable for what
actually happens in the world.
Whitehead believed that there was much more to the world, he believed
that scientific materialism was not able to say anything about our
experiences or consciousness. Whitehead
seemed to prefer the thought that matter was more alive than a materialist
would allow.
“I have also sketched an
alternative philosophy of science in which organism takes the place of matter. For this purpose, the mind involved in the
materialist theory dissolves into the function of an organism.” A.N. Whitehead, Science & the Modern
World, p241.
This is important as it shows that he believed that there was more to
the world than the physical. He has
tried to show that physical things can be thought of to have aspects that
cannot be described in the realms of materialism. Many people in today’s society share his views, and the majority
of people now seem to believe that there is more in the world than what can bee
seen and touched. If we look at
materialism as Karl Popper said we should look at all realms of science, then
he would say that it has been falsified, and should thus be either thrown out,
or modified in such a way that it can take into account the non-material
aspects of the universe. This would mean
that the name has to be changed, but I’m sure that it is a small price to pay
for the continuation of centuries of work.
Now that have discussed scientific materialism I would like to discuss
some of the issues that are raised when we consider the reductive elements of
science. Science is always trying to
get to the bottom of things, and they normally try to do this by making things
as small as possible, and then finding the uses of the small particles. Now this seems sensible to me, for if we for
instance want to understand how a car works then it is easiest if we take it to
pieces and then find the uses for all the small parts, as opposed to viewing
the thing as a whole and working from there.
In 1974 Francisco Ayala identified three main types of
scientific reductionism, methodological, epistemological and ontological. Methodological reductionism is a research
strategy for studying wholes, such as cells in terms of their parts. Epistemological reductionism is the claim
that all theories and laws from higher-level sciences such as neuroscience can
be derived from those that are based on the lower level sciences such as
biology, but namely physics.
Ontological reductionism is the view that all higher-level entities are
nothing but complex organizations of simple entities and the whole is nothing
but the sum of its parts.
It is sometimes argued that the world-view of modern
science is reductionism. This I think
is because of the past success that have been demonstrated by reductionism, and
many people also believe that there can be little learnt from looking at things
as a whole. I believe that reductionism
is based upon the success of modern physics; it does not suffer from the
problems that face materialism, as it does not discount the non-physical
aspects of the universe. I believe that
it is best to understand reductionism with the use of an old but convincing
analogy. If we want to find out what is
causing a problem with a stereo system we can look at each individual component
to see if there is a problem, and I believe that this would lead us to finding
the problem quicker than if we looked at the thing as a whole.
There
are however many people that believe that the best way in which to understand
things is to look at them as a whole.
This view is called holism. The
basic premise of holism is that the whole is more than the sum of its
parts. Whereas most sciences divide
things to understand them the holist looks at things in aggregate and says this
gives a better understanding of their nature and their purpose. One of the most influential philosophers of
this realm was David Bohm. Bohm was
also a scientist, he believed that the world is not actually composed of atomic
building blocks, but processes. He
describes the world as “undivided wholeness in flowing movement”. He believes that the interactions in the
world can best be thought of as “…how the organs constituting living beings…”
as opposed to”…how parts of a machine interact…” This shows that he believes
that all the interactions in the world are related, and cannot be wholly
understood as one would understand the separate components of a stereo.
In
the seventeenth century the philosopher Baruch Spinoza was one of the first
pantheists, as I have said, pantheists believe that the universe is
divine. According to Spinoza all the
actions and objects we see in the world are really only different parts of a
single substance, he called this substance God or nature.
Holism
seems to be gathering more and more supporters in recent times, but I for one
do not believe that there is a great deal to be learnt from it. One of the reasons for the recent approval
could be that of wave-particle duality.
This says that every particle can be considered as both a wave and a
particle. Now this would obviously pose
problems for scientific materialists, but for a holist it poses none. It is easier to conceive of an atom as a
whole thing that has many properties rather than conceiving it as being two
different things. Although this is one
occasion when holism has the upper hand over other realms of science, such as
materialism, I believe that there is still more to be learnt by considering
things as being built up of other things.
But
there are still many arguments for holism, for example, is a book merely a
combination of paper and ink? This
seems again to have arguments in its favour, as materialism would not be able
to explain the knowledge that is contained in the book. Holism seems to have few points in its
favour, but there are some, such as the meaning of books and quantum particles,
and these are well worthy of consideration.
As
I have shown there are many ways in which to consider science, none of them
seem to be perfect, but all of them seem to have points in their favour that
the others cannot account for. I still
think that the method that has given us the most understanding and the most
breakthroughs is that of scientific materialism. But, this seems to have more problems than the rest. I believe hat the way forward is in the
realms of quantum physics. This is the
study of the particles that make up the universe, and the way that they
interact with the surrounding world.
Quantum
theory is a relatively new field in the realms of science, it has many points
in its favour as it allows for connections that are not physical, and it also
allows for many of the theories that were developed in the realms of scientific
materialism. But, it still has its
problems. One problem that all sciences
face, and only a few deal with is that of religion, as I have said pantheism
allows for, and in fact necessitates the need for a God. Materialism obviously denied the existence
of a God, as God by his very nature is not a physical being.
It
seems to me that a single science will never be able to encapsulate all of our
beliefs; this is because different people believe in different things, and it
is not possible to cater for all people in one go. In the realm of science however, I believe that quantum physics
holds the strongest position, whether this will continue to be the case we
cannot know. Science is forever
changing, and this is in my view one of the strongest points in its favour,
although people will always object to some theories, this just makes people
want to prove them wrong, and thus further our knowledge of the universe.
Science
and the Modern World, A.N. Whitehead, Cambridge University Press, 1933.
The Collected Works of Spinoza, Volume I, edited by Edwin Curley, Princeton, 1985.
Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems, edited by Francisco J. Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.
The Cambridge Dictionary of
Philosophy Second Edition, edited by Robert Audi, 1999.