I recently had a great conversation with a student. A physics major. We were discussing Plato in class (his metaphysics) and we entered into a discussion of what the word “real” means. I explained that the word is not terribly helpful because it can be applied to just about anything: Sherlock Holmes and the various actors who have portrayed him. Both are real. Just in different ways. The character is real, as are the actors. But their reality has different ontologies: Sherlock Holmes has a different ontology than Benedict Cumberbatch has, for example.
From there, we wandered into the world of the physical sciences. Science has encouraged us to view the brain as real, and the thoughts in the brain as so much electro-chemical phenomena. This is a conceit. Science has a very loose grip on physical reality. We do not understand the brain, and physics and chemistry do not have much to say about what matter is composed of. They talk a lot about it. But they do not understand it.
We then entered into the limits of science. And the big difference between description and explanation. We can describe the behaviors due to gravity. But, why does matter possess that property? No one knows.
Put a seed in dirt, add some water, and a flower grows. Biology can describe what happens, but it cannot explain why it happens.
So, science has explained very little. The universe, gravity, the mind (consciousness), these all remain mysteries.
One of the best lines I have ever heard about science was from a student years ago—a biochemistry major—who possessed a truly impressive intellect. She said in frustration one day, “Science is a lie.” I laughed at that. Just because science is busy measuring stuff, does not mean science understands what it is measuring. “We’ve got numbers!” Big deal. Those numbers do not help us understand the universe.
Psychology, for that matter, also knows very little. It does not have much to show for its efforts. We might have names for behaviors, but that does not mean psychology understands them.
Students have been trained to think of the table in front of them as real. And everything else as suspect. This is wrong.
Now, of course, I would never advocate that we chuck science in the bin. We should continue to try and understand the universe. But, we need to be honest about what we know, what we do not know (which is a lot), and what we might never understand. Just because we’re smart and develop impressive technologies, does not mean we’re going to solve these mysteries. It’s pompous and laughable to assume “We’ll figure it all out.” We might not. We’re organisms, we have limitations (by definition), and we’re only so smart. Why have we not really come much of a distance since Newton? Because we have serious limitations. We are basically asking the same questions that the Pre-Socratic philosophers asked 2,700 years ago. Yes, we have a more refined vocabulary and better technology, but we are still faced with total mystery.
Please watch Noam Chomsky’s lecture on this subject (link below). It is superb—and remember it is being delivered by one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century. His conclusions matter. And don’t skip the Q&A!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0&t=2716s
