The
Third Culture

RE: THE NEW HUMANISTS

By John Brockman


From: Piet Hut
Date:
4.14.02

I, too, expect science to be able to deal with any aspect of reality, in due time. The only catch is that we don't have much of an idea what this future science will look like. This means that we can be proud of the method of science, and of the results that have been obtained so far, but we'd better be very modest about claims that our current results more or less describe the world 'as it really is'. There are two directions in which to argue for this position.

1. Argument from the past. Remember how self-assured many of the leading physicists were toward the end of the nineteenth century? Fundamental physics seemed almost completed - and then suddenly relativity theory and quantum mechanics came along, offering a vastly different understanding of physical reality. Today we still admire the great contributions from people like Maxwell and Kelvin, but we have completely dropped their pictures of what the world really is like.

2. Argument from the future. Imagine living in the year 100,000, in an optimistic picture in which civilization has not completely destroyed itself. Would it really be plausible that history books would tell you then that science developed in 500 years, from Galileo in 1600 till the year 2100, when the structure of reality was understood, with the rest being 97,900 years of footnotes? I find this extremely hard to believe. I consider it far more likely that we will continue to see 'jaws dropping, eyes widening, minds opening', not only in popular presentations, but at the very frontier of science as well.

This is why I don't expect science to be able to provide a valid alternative to a full world view anywhere soon. Whether we are looking for an ethical, humanistic, religious, or spiritual view of the world including our own presence, science just isn't far enough along to address that quest. It makes more sense to use the scientific method to sift through the knowledge that has come down to us through the ages, to try to separate dogma and specific cultural trappings, while highlighting that which seems to be based most on empirical investigations. Insisting that the results of those investigations fit into a 21st (or 19th or 23rd) century snapshot of a scientific framework would be arbitrary limiting.

I wish I could have a peek into the future to see what a more mature future science would look like, what mathematical structures it would use, how it would describe the subject, to what extent it might have risen beyond a purely descriptive style into other types of (still empirical and verifiable) investigations. Who knows? But whatever will be discovered with these tools in, say, the year 52,002 will already now apply to the real world. And the question is, from the vantage point of 52,002: will our current scientific knowledge be seen to be more helpful to leading a full life than our current religious and spiritual views? If we distill from the latter what is closest related to experiential insights into the human mind, my guess would be that these will provide for us the more useful tools for quite a few centuries to come.

PIET HUTan astrophysicist at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton. and a founding member of the Kira Institute. [more....]



John Brockman, Editor and Publisher
contact: editor@edge.org
Copyright © 2002 by
Edge Foundation, Inc
All Rights Reserved.

|Top|