A Peculiar Oceanography
Descrição do Produto
A Peculiar Oceanography Matthew tanle
0
0
0
ab v e g f d FRUARY 13, 2016
The Island of Knowledge
WHN YOU HAR omeone arguing that
The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning
cientièc knowledge i limited, ou could e
Marcelo Gleier
excued for expecting to ènd a creationit or a toacco indutr pokeperon. Intead, here we have a ditinguihed Iv League phicit contending that cience give u onl a ᝲ⺬action of realit. In The Island of Knowledge, Marcelo Gleier want to forge a third wa etween cientim and ocurantim where we can emrace oth the power and incompletene of cience. Man people ugget we hould trut cience ecaue it i almot ènihed — ènal explanation for everthing ᝲ⺬om quark to concioune are here or jut around the
Pulihed 2014-06-03 aic ook 368 Page
corner. A Gleier tell u, thi i a dangeroul ditorted perpective. He provide a compelling lit of reaon to think that cience i not done and, indeed, that it will never e done. ome of thee reaon are technical, ome conceptual. A our intrument improve, we will ee thing that we cannot even conceive of now. The limitation of light peed and our particular location in the hitor of the univere mean that we can onl oerve a tin lice of the como. Gödel’ incompletene theorem and the halting prolem keep u ᝲ⺬om an mathematical road to ènal truth. To illutrate the conequence of thee limit Gleier introduce hi metaphor of the “iland of knowledge.” Like an active volcano, thi iland i lowl growing a new knowledge i added. We hould not think of the iland a ever eing “done” ecaue we can alwa add more urface area, even if occaionall a
PHILOOPHY & CRITICAL THORY CINC & TCHNOLOGY
RCOMMNDD The Prophets Leave Hometown: Three Physicists Try Philosophy
peninula get wahed awa the rogue wave
David Kordahl
of a diproving experiment. And a the iland
Is God Necessary?
grow, the horeline — the dark edge of our ignorance — continue to expand. A igger iland onl preent u with more mterie.
Marcelo Gleier
Of Good Horses and Bad Science Alitair Welchman
Thi mean we can never know all the truth aout realit and, indeed, that a “theor of everthing” i a pointle quet. A “unièed theor” i impoile ecaue we will never even know all of the data and idea that would need to e unièed. Gleier dimie project
uch a tring theor a little etter than romantic fantaie. ven more trongl, he contend that we have no acce to univeral knowledge of an kind; we are all trapped in our own little corner of pace-time, ehind our deepl êawed rain. ven mathematical truth are impl the tem we ènd ueful for olving our particular prolem at a particular point in time. Gleier want u to e le⢟啽 with an image of cience a an open-ended puruit: an iland that can alwa expand, not a ucket that i almot full. It can never e ènihed. We can, and hould, puh on our limit. Indeed, thi ook i a compelling call to a new “wa of living, a collective apiration to grow a a pecie in a world èlled with mter, fear, and wonder.” Author of thee ort of ook o⢟啽en aume NW TO LAR? ARCHIV CTION CHANNL AOUT that their expertie in cience automaticall make them expert on related hitorical and IGN IN philoophical quetion. Gleier nicel avoid thi pitfall, referencing and engaging with the relevant humanitie literature. It i not ever da that one ènd a popular cience ook with an inightful dicuion of Mircea liade. That aid, there are certainl more reource that would have een helpful for the argument. In particular, engaging, a, David Hume’ claic conideration of the limit of cience could have igniècantl enriched the text.
DONAT
The tronget portion of the ook are found near the end, and are ometime uilt around autoiographical
material.
Thee
more
reêective ection illutrate Gleier’ idea with torie ᝲ⺬om hi own career and work. He give u moving anecdote of eing inpired to tud cience encounter with Uri Geller and Fritjof Capra, and hi truggle to ènd a mentor who hared hi paion. It i ver helpful to ee how hi view of cience were haped hi experience, and how thoe view in turn haped hi own deciion. Thi ground Gleier’ idea in the real world of cientièc practice, intead of eing impl atract claim. The èrt half of the ook or o alo attempt to accomplih thi grounding through anale of important cientièc dicoverie and hitorical idea. Yet while there are man intereting tale here (and the author doe a good jo preenting them), it i not alwa clear how the help advance the ook’ argument. Gleier’ viion of cience i o⢟啽en too utle, and the reader need a little more guidance in ènding it in the hitorical
material.
Thi
i
omewhat
compounded extremel hort chapter (ix to ten page i tpical), which make it di륩﮵cult to full explore the concept with which we are preented. Depite the ook’ relentle illutration of the
limit of cience, the author i clear that he think hi anali make cience more rout. We are, he write, in a time of rampant cientièc peculation and arrogance, and thi ook i hi attempt to retrain uch tendencie and protect cience ᝲ⺬om overtepping the ound of it intellectual integrit. Thi critique i written a cientièc inider, not an external opponent, and it how. In
addition
to
curtailing
the
more
epitemologicall adventurou cientit, thi ook make another important contriution to the pulic undertanding of cience. Much of the ditrut of cience we ee in thi countr toda i uilt around the mitaken elief that cience i uppoed to e precie, certain, and permanent. ometime thi i driven ideolog, ometime not, ut there i a common theme: we cannot trut cientit unle the are sure. How can ou elieve in evolution until the foil record i complete? How can we act on gloal warming unle it i etalihed to e 100 percent anthropogenic? Wh hould I liten to m doctor’ advice when the keep changing their mind on whether egg are good or ad for me? All thee critique are aed on the aumption that complete, unchanging certaint i the proper goal of cience. ut, a Gleier compellingl argue, cience can never actuall provide that certaint. Lapeople o⢟啽en read that lack a an indication that cientit have failed. If ou
think cience i aout aolute truth, an revelation of it imperfection eem like a etraal. The et olution to thi prolem i to change the initial aumption. If we preent cience
a
Gleier
doe,
a
inherentl
incomplete ut till ueful, then we can judge cientièc claim on their own merit rather than againt an impoile tandard of Truth. Our “iland of knowledge” can e an intereting place to explore even if it doe not extend all the wa to the horizon. Gleier’ metaphor of the “iland of knowledge” i evocative, and one wonder how far it can e preed. Are there other iland out there? Iland dominated , a, literature rather than cience? Could we ever ecape our iland and go viit another? From Darwin on, iologit have tudied cloel how organim migrate ᝲ⺬om iland to iland. o what happen when a new idea wahe up on the hore of our “iland of knowledge”? Iland ecologie are ᝲ⺬agile. Invaive pecie ravage ecotem made delicate millennia or eon of iolation. Could the ame thing happen to “iland of knowledge”? An alien idea that quickl overwhelm our cognitive landcape, rooting out our aoriginal theorie the wa rat detro the net of Galapago ird? Perhap thi i a ᝲ⺬uitful wa to think aout change within cience. Intead of Kuhn’ political metaphor of the “revolution,” where
an entirel new intitution completel replace a previou one, here we have èerce competition for ènite niche. Then, eventuall, a new alance form etween invaive and native pecie. Mae Copernicanim invaded the iland of Aritotelianim, and dominated the lowland of poitional atronom while the Peripatetic continued to thrive in the highland of moral philooph and aethetic. Then, if we think of cience a an iland, we hould conider a profound prolem of iland iogeograph: are iland, in fact, iland? The conventional model à la MacArthur and Wilon aume that there i a genuine iolation at work — the ocean i an impenetrale arrier. ut it ha ecome increaingl clear that the horeline i not a fortre. The water i itelf an ecotem, and interact contantl with iland. There i no harp eparation. If that i the cae with our “iland of knowledge,” what doe it mean to have limit to cience? It i not that nothing live in the water; rather, there i a tranition ᝲ⺬om land to ea. What i happening in the zone where our knowledge fade into not-knowledge? What are the epitemic equivalent of amphiian or ea ird? We hould e alert to the poiilit that the limit of knowledge are not well deèned, and might e trepaed. Gleier a there are no lighthoue in the water to how our path, and that ma e. ut condition on an iland are haped powerfull the tate of the ocean.
And, occaionall, omething intereting crawl out of the urf. It i hard to think aout iland without dri⢟啽ing into trope of exploration — the intrepid voager charting the mteriou ile. I think thi i, in the end, quite cononant with Gleier’ view. For him, contant exploration i the eence of cience. We hould e excited that cience i limited and proviional, ecaue that mean we will never e ènihed learning. Unolved mterie are good thing. Without the unknown, we would have no eache. ¤ Matthew Stanley is an associate professor at New York University, where he teaches the history and philosophy of science.
0 Comments Recommend
1
Los Angeles Review of Books
⤤ Share
Sort by Best
Start the discussion…
Be the first to comment.
✉
Subscribe
d
Login
Add Disqus to your site Add Disqus Add
ὑ
Privacy
Lihat lebih banyak...
Comentários
