https://ebookmass.com/product/science-and-humanity-a-humanephilosophy-of-science-and-religion-1st-edition-andrew-
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
The Philosophy of Science: A Companion Anouk Barberousse
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-philosophy-of-science-a-companionanouk-barberousse/
ebookmass.com
The Ascetic Ideal: Genealogies of Life-Denial in Religion, Morality, Art, Science, and Philosophy Stephen Mulhall
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-ascetic-ideal-genealogies-of-lifedenial-in-religion-morality-art-science-and-philosophy-stephenmulhall/
ebookmass.com
The Philosophy and Science of Language Ryan M. Nefdt
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-philosophy-and-science-of-languageryan-m-nefdt/
ebookmass.com
The Politics of Digital India: Between Local Compulsions and Transnational Pressures Pradip Ninan Thomas
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-politics-of-digital-india-betweenlocal-compulsions-and-transnational-pressures-pradip-ninan-thomas/
ebookmass.com
Christmas Kisses 1-The Lady’s Christmas Kiss Rose Pearson
https://ebookmass.com/product/christmas-kisses-1-the-ladys-christmaskiss-rose-pearson/
ebookmass.com
The Alpha Wolf Prince’s Arranged Marriage (The Omega’s Royal Arrangement Book 1) Lorelei M. Hart & Colbie Dunbar
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-alpha-wolf-princes-arrangedmarriage-the-omegas-royal-arrangement-book-1-lorelei-m-hart-colbiedunbar/
ebookmass.com
Andrew Marvell Matthew C. Augustine
https://ebookmass.com/product/andrew-marvell-matthew-c-augustine/
ebookmass.com
Two Tribes Fearne Hill
https://ebookmass.com/product/two-tribes-fearne-hill-2/
ebookmass.com
The Many Faces of a Himalayan Goddess: Hadimba, Her Devotees, and Religion in Rapid Change Ehud Halperin
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-many-faces-of-a-himalayan-goddesshadimba-her-devotees-and-religion-in-rapid-change-ehud-halperin-2/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/spinoza-and-the-freedom-ofphilosophizing-mogens-laerke/
ebookmass.com
SCIENCEANDHUMANITY
SCIENCE ANDHUMANITY
AHumanePhilosophyofScienceandReligion
AndrewSteane
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©AndrewSteane2018
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2018
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018931548
ISBN978–0–19–882458–9
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198824589.001.0001
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
ToNeilandAlison
Acknowledgements
Ifindmyselffilledwiththankfulnesstomanypeoplewhohavehelped withthisbook.
FirstIwouldliketoacknowledgeallthosewhohavewrittencogently andthoughtfullyintheareasIhavetriedtopresent;manyareauthors ofworksincludedinthebibliography.
Moredirectly,IwouldliketothankSonkeAdlungatOxfordUniversityPressforhishelpingettingthisbookunderwayandontopublication.IalsothankHeatherMcCallumwhogaveahelpfuleditorial steeronanearlierproject;thisbookispartoftheresult.IthankProf. P.EwartandmembersoftheOxfordForumforinsightfuldiscussion andencouragement.IthankDrJ.GrantandProf.R.Swinburnefor theirexpertadvice,andalsotheanonymousrefereesatOUPwho offeredmanydetailedpointsofconstructivecriticism.TheyweregenerouswiththeirtimeandexpertiseandIamtrulygrateful.
IthankProf.DerekStacey,Prof.HarveyBrown,DrBethany Sollereder,DrNoahCarl,andDrSallyHodgsonwhoeachreadanearly draftofoneormorechaptersandgavewell-informedfeedback.Ithank WillKempforhiscogentfeedbackonasetofpoemswhichincluded mostofthoseincludedhere.Ithankalsomyfamilyfortheirconstant andkindsupport,andProf.HansHalvorsonforencouragementand someexpertadvice.
Finally,myspecialthanksgotoMarcoBodnar,CasparJacobs,and DrPhilMarriottfortheirgeneroushelpandthoughtfulcomments. MarcoshowedmesomeplaceswhereIwasobscure;Casparnoticed whererelevantconsiderationshadbeenmissed;andPhil,inafewwise words,deftlyshowedmetheneedtoreconfiguretheflowofthebook. Allthishelpshouldnotbetakentoimplycompleteagreement;thiswas acaseofproductivediscussionandthesefriendseachhavetheirown independentviewpoints.
Alltheseinteractionshelpedmetoseewheremyargumentswere unclear,orinsufficientlyjustified,orpoorlyexpressed.Iamverygratefulforhavingsuchdefectsdetected,andinconsequencethebookwas muchimproved.Thedefectsthatremainaremyownresponsibility.
Counterpoint, Frequencies copyright©KunjanaThomas1988,1990,1992, 1995,2004;extractsreproducedwithpermissionoftheLicensorthrough PLSclear.
TheCartographerTriestoMapaWay toZioncopyright©KaiMiller2014, extractreproducedwithpermissionoftheLicensorandCarcanetPress Limited.
Linesfrom R.S.Thomas,SelectedPoems:1946–1968 (BloodaxeBooks,1986), reproducedwithpermissionofBloodaxeBooks.
Everyefforthasbeenmadetotracecopyrightholdersoftheextracts frompoemsquotedinthisbook.Theauthorandpublisherapologiseif anymaterialhasbeenincludedwithouttheappropriatepermissionand acknowledgement,andwouldbegladtobetoldofsuchomissions.
thebrightnessover aninteriorhorizon,whichisscience transfiguringitselfinlove’smirror.
—thefinalphraseofthepoem ‘Destinations’byR.S.Thomas 70
Introduction
Sixpointstobeshowninthebookareintroduced.Scienceisa richtapestrywhichdoesnotatallsuggestthattheworldisapurposelessmachine,butnordoesitreplacetheartsandhumanities. Werespondtooursituationthroughallourpowersofexpression, includingformsofgivinginwhichourveryidentityissharedand allowedtobeshapedinreturn.
Itistimetoshakeoffawidelybelievedbutmistakenideaofwhatscience isandhowitinteractswithhumanlifeintheround.
Foralongtimenowithasbeenthehabitofsciencewriterstopresent theirdisciplineasifitwasthebe-allandend-allofknowledge,and everythingelsefollowsinitswake.Particlephysicistshavewrittenabout theirforthcoming‘theoryofeverything’asifitamountedtothefinal wordonthenatureofreality,thevery‘mindofGod’.Iaccusealsothe tenthousandwebsites,andthepopularbooksthathavespawnedthem, thathavepresentedDarwinianevolutionasiftheauthorsknewthe purposeofeachorganism’slifetobetheproliferationofthatorganism’s genes.Thesamefundamentalerrorispromotedbyneuroscientistswho, waxinglyricaloverwonderfulmagneticimagesofthelivinghuman brain,havedeclaredorimpliedthatallthefunctioningofthebrain isabouttobelaidopen,withnoinputfromtheartsandhumanities required.
Itismyopinion,andthecentralthesisofthisbook,thatallsuch visionariesinfacthaveaskewedvisionofbothscienceandthearts. Ithinkthatwhatpoetsdo,andwhatliterarycriticsdo,andwhat musiciansdo,iseverybitastruthfulandinsightfulaboutthenature ofrealityasiswhatphysicistsandchemistsandbiologistsdo(and mathematicians,engineers,historians,philosophers,andsoon).Of coursetheafore-mentionedskewedvisionarieswillimmediatelyclaim thattheyagree,andtheydidnotintendtodenyorunderminethe ScienceandHumanity. AndrewSteane,OxfordUniversityPress(2018). ©AndrewSteane.DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198824589.001.0001
validityofthearts.Butthefactis,thewaytheyhavepresentedscienceis suchthatsciencewouldandmustdoexactlythat,whereasIthinkthat whengraspedcorrectly,itdoesnot.
ForthirtyyearsIhavehadanintensedesiretogetamoretruthful visionofthenatureofthephysicalworldandhumanlifeinit,a visionwhichdoesnotfallintotheerrorofmisconceivingscienceand presentingitinhegemonicfashion,thewaythisisdoneinnumerous popularbooks.
Tobeclear,letmesaythatIwholeheartedlywelcomemanyofthe pointssciencewritersmake,especiallyaboutbeinghonestandcareful aboutevidence,andlettingtheworldbewhatitis,andcelebratingthe richnessthatordinaryphysicalstuffisabletosupport,withoutoverlayingitwithsuperstition.Suchwritinggivesvoicetothewidespread wishtoaffirmthatthephysical,materialworldisitselftheexpression ofwhatmatters,anditdoesmatter,whetherornotitisatemporary phenomenon.Allthisiswelcome.Butinourcelebrationofscientific knowledgewehavetoallowalsoforbasicphilosophicalpoints,such asthedifferencebetweenatextanditsmeaning.Forexample,when onehumanbeingmeetsanother,theyseeplentyofevidence,butwhat conclusiondotheyform?Theverysameevidencemightbeinterpreted tomean‘hereisaslavethatIcanuse’or‘hereisfellowhumanbeing, everybitasworthyofconsiderationasmyself’.Itisnotself-evidentthat peoplewillalwayscometothesecondconclusion,andfurthermore, itisnotthecasethatanystudyoffundamentalphysicswillsuggest eitherthattheyshouldorshouldnot.Whatshallwedo,then?Is the‘modern,scientific’viewtheviewthatmoralconsiderationsare reallyjustsubtlepowergameswithnointrinsicbeautyandtruthof theirown?ThepointIwanttoargueinthisbookisthatwhereas theadjective‘modern’mightapplytothatconclusion,theadjective ‘scientific’doesnot.
Theoverarchingaimofthisbookistogetinviewsomethingthat paysdeepattentiontothenaturalworldandtothewholeofwhat goesoninhumanlife.Imean attention inthesenseadvocatedbythe FrenchphilosopherSimoneWeil; 77 itisthedecisiontoworkhardat listeningsympatheticallyandseriouslytotherealitiesthataddressus, bothinthewidernaturalworldandinoursharedlife.Inthepresent context,itisthedecisiontolistensympatheticallyandseriouslyboth towhatscienceisanddoes,andtowhatotherareasofdiscourseare anddo.Ifonetakesupthischallenge,thenonediscoverssomething
importantandliberating.Onediscoversthatthepictureofthenatural worldthatweobtainfromscientificstudyisnottheonewidelyassumed incontemporaryculture.Itiswidelyassumedthatscienceissomehow ‘onthesideof’,orimplies,oristhenaturalpartnerto,theviewthatthe physicalcosmos,andlifeonEarth,isasortofhugemachinemoving blindlyintothefuture,andthismotionhasnopurposeormeaning beyondthestoriesormeaningsthatweandotheranimalsinventfor ourselves.Iaimtoshowthatthisisnotso.Rather,scientificstudy, approachedwithalittlebitofphilosophicalmaturity,isperfectlyin tunewith,andindeedstronglysuggests,theviewthatthenatural worldiscapableofgivingphysicalexpressiontoarichanddeeprange oflanguages,includingalltheonesthatareimportanttohumanlife, andinthisrichexpressionwedonotinventmeaningbutdiscoverit. Imeanhere‘languages’suchasjustice,ethics,andaesthetics,toname afew.Thereisnotjustanappearanceofthesethingsinthedynamicsof humanaffairs,buttherealityofthem.
Whenonestatesitbluntlylikethis,somemayfeelthatthisisobvious anddoesnotneedtobeargued.However,ithasrepeatedlyhappened thatscientistshavesupposedthattheirjobistoreconfigurethewhole humanoutlook,andreplacealltheselanguagesbyasinglemachinelikeparadigminwhichwordslike‘justice’,‘good’,and‘bad’havelittle ornomeaning.Itisimportanttoshowwhysuchasuppositioniswrong. Furthermore,thisisnotacaseofaconflictinwhichtheartytypes fightamisconceivedrearguardactionagainsttheinevitabletruthof anoutlookcallingitself‘scientific’,andwhichregardspeopleasmere carrierbagsformolecules.Rather,thislatterpicturehasgotscience itselfwrong,andisnotgenuinely‘scientific’.
Whatisgoingonhere?Howcananexpertinphysics,orinbiology, orinneurosciencebeatthesametimewrongaboutphysics,orbiology, orneuroscience?Itispartlyowingtothecompartmentalizationof knowledge,and,Ithink,thereissomethingofthemythofPygmalion involved.Inthisstory,thesculptorPygmalionmakesastatueofgreat beauty,andfallsinlovewithit.Thestatuecomesaliveandvarious outcomesareimagined.Inasimilarway,apractitionerofanyareaof intellectualstudymaybecomesothrilledwiththeconceptsatworkin theirarea,thattheyfallinlovewiththoseconceptsandbegintothink theycanexplaineverything.Theconceptsmightbequantumfieldsand space-time,orgenesandreplication,orneuralnetworksandsynaptic potentials,forexample.Itseemssonaturaltothinkthateachareacan
4ScienceandHumanity
explaineverythingthatisbuiltoutofthethingsstudiedinthatarea. Whynot?Whatiswrongwiththiswayofthinking?
Thecentralargumentofthisbookistwofold.Iwillargue,first,that scientificexplanationdoesnottakethemistakenformIjustdescribed, and,second,thatanalyticalreasoningdoesnotconstitutethewhole ofwhatisrequiredtogetattruth.Withregardtothefirstargument, Iaimtoshowthatscientificexplanationisinfacttwo-way,notoneway,andthatthisnaturallyallowsandindeedsuggeststhepresence offurtherlayersofmeaningintheworld,beyondthecategoriesof science.Concerningthesecond,thesefurtherlayersofmeaningare exploredbytheartsandhumanities,and,morehumblyandtentatively, inspirituality.Thoseformsofspiritualitywhichdeserveattentionare theformswhichdealconvincinglywiththewholeofthisframeworkof meaning.
Bysayingthatscientificexplanationistwo-way,notone-way,Imean thatscienceisnotaladderinwhichphysicsexplainschemistrywhich togetherexplainbiology,andsoon.Rather,biologyilluminatesphysics justasmuchasphysicsilluminatesbiology.Thesituationmightbe comparedtotherelationshipbetweenastoneandanarch(Figure1.1). Thenatureofanarchisnot explainedby thenatureofstones,evenwhen
Figure1.1. ArchesandotherarchitecturalfeaturesattheNaturalHistory Museum,London.
Source:DavidK.Hardman.
thearchismadeofstones.Afterall,thearchcouldhavebeenmade ofwood.Rather,thearchisanexampleofashapewhichhascertain genericproperties,andsuchashapecanhappenwhenstonesaregatheredandconfiguredinacertainway.Thisisreasonablystraightforward andobvious,butonemustthinkitthroughatlengthinordertosee thewideramificationsofthiswayofthinkingforthewholescientific pictureofthenaturalworld.
Havinggotscienceright,wecanventureintoandrespectthehumanities,bywhichImeantherichvarietyoffurtherstudiesthatpeople undertakeinliterature,arts,music,language,politics,andsoon.The bookdoesnotaddressanyspecificissueswithinthosesubjects;itmerely acknowledgestheircompletevalidityasdisciplineshavingtheirown appropriatelanguageanddiscourse.Buthavingacknowledgedallthis, Iwanttogofurther,andaskwhatitisweultimatelyrelyon,andwhat weshouldaspireto.Thisisthequestionofhowtohelponeanother locateor‘frame’ourlivesinthemosttruthfulandcreativeway.
Itiswidelyagreedthatthenotionsof gratitude and generosity arecentral totruthfulliving,andmany(myselfincluded)feelthat forgiveness is equallycentral.InthisbookIamnotgoingtoargueabouttherelative meritsofdifferentvalues,exceptinafewgeneralterms,butIwill presentsomecarefullyconstructedphilosophicalargumentsinthis area.Theaimistoshowthefollowingpoints:
1. Thestructureofthenaturalworldissuchthathigh-levelprinciplesdescribeand constrainwhatcanbesupportedbylow-leveldynamics.
2.Adescriptionofaphysicalobjectorprocessintermsofitsinternal structuredoesnotaddressthequestionofwhetherornotthe objectorprocessservesapurposeinawidercontext.
3.ThequestionofwhetherthestoryoflifeonEarthhasmeaning beyondbeingameresequenceofevents(‘justonethingafter another’)isnotresolvedbyscientificstudy,butthisdoesnotimply thatitisanon-question,northatwehavenomeanstocometo reasonablejudgementsaboutthat.
4.Itisnotpossibletoemployrationalargumentinordertoderive one’smostbasicallegiance,orsetofallegiances,fromotherconsiderations.
5.Acertainwell-knownphilosophicalargument,foundinvarious formsinThomasAquinas,DavidHume,andRichardDawkins,is unsound.
6.Itispossibletogiveacoherent,meaningful,andattractivesense tothenotionthatwearecalledupontorespondtotruthand
realityviathewholeofourpersonhood,usingallourpowersof expression,includingourveryselvesaspersonalbeings.
Thefirstiteminthislistisemphasizedbecauseitfeedsintothediscussionoftheotheritems.
Theargumentreferredtoinitem5is,inbrief,theclaimthattheistic typesofreligiousresponseareeithersuperfluousorsimplydon’thelp inmakingsenseofourexperiences.Aquinasarguedagainstthis;Hume andDawkinsassertit.
InthelastitemIamalludingtothenotionthattruthisrichinnature, havingasufficientdegreeofrichnessthatcertainwidelyusedreligious metaphorsareappropriate.Thatistosay,personallanguagesuchas ‘Parent’isappropriatewhenapproachingtheuniversalrealitythatmost deeplysupportsandemancipatesallthings.HereIamtalkingabout thatnon-contingentrealitycorrectlynamed‘God’,butIavoidedthe wordbecauseitissowidelymisused.
InapreviousbookIofferedaperspectiveonscienceandreligion∗ whichwasnotsomuchanattempttopersuadeastodisplay.Iwas invitingthereaderintoagallery,toshowsomeatleastofwhatitis liketounderstandandacceptsciencewhilealsounderstandingand acceptingwhatsomeformsoftheisticreligionaretryingtosay.The presentbookismoreofanargument;itdoessetoutacarefulcase forvariouspositions.ButIhavelimitedaims,andtheyaremostly philosophicalinnature,asindicatedabove.
InthisbookIamtryingtoconveyanideaaboutthestructureof science,andexplanationmoregenerally,thatissufficientlydifferent fromwhatpeoplehavebeentaughttoassumethatitcannotbeneatly tackedonorfittedintomuchcontemporarydiscourse.Rather,that discourseitselfmustchange.Iwillpresentargumentsforthisidea, butmuchoftheworkconsistssimplyingettingtheideainview. Thisisliketeachingalanguageoranartisticstyle:youhavetobegin tospeakthelanguage,ortoallowthestyletoworkonyou,before youcanassessitssuccess.Thebookthereforeincludessomescience, andsomephilosophy,andsomepoetryandalittlepolemic,andsome otherthings.
∗ Religion(initsgoodforms)isanefforttorecognizecorrectlywhatwetrulydepend on,andtoseekwhatcanproperlybeaspiredto,andtorespondappropriatelytowhat wefind.Badreligionistheabuseofthis.
PartIofthebook,Chapters2–9,presentsthestructureofwhat happensinthevariouspartsofscientificstudy,andhencewhatthis tellsusaboutthenatureofthephysicalworld.Thescientificpicture ofthenaturalworldisrichandfluid,movingbetweenmultipletypes ofdiscourse;thephysicalworldisnotamachinebutameetingplace.In particular,Chapters7and8lookattheDarwinianevolutionaryprocess, withaviewfirsttopointingoutcategoryerrorsinexistingliterature, andthentogettingasenseofwhatkindofprocessitis.
PartIIofthebook,Chapters10–17,looksatwhatsciencecannot do,andhowdiscussionofvaluesandofreligiousideasoperates.Science,thoughfullofinsightandusefulnessinitsowndomain,remains severelylimitedinhowitcanhelpus.Thisisbecausesciencecannot answerthemostbasic,everydayquestionsweface,suchas,‘Whatshall Idothisafternoon?’.Toanswersuchquestionswemustpayattentionto furtherwaysinwhichrealityimpingesuponusandaddressesus.This isaboutthenotionof value,andformingjudgementsaboutwhatwould be good or bad, better or worse,andwhatisworthyofourcommitment. Theconceptof values andtheconceptof goodness invokefromusatypeof responsewhichisnotaltogetherthesameasfollowingareasonedargument,andthereisnothingirrationalorunworthyaboutadmittingthis.
PartIII,Chapters18–22,presents,inapositiveway,anoutlookwhich triestodojusticetoallthevariousthemes.Theaimistoshowhow certainmainstreamreligiousideascaninhabitthispicturewithout awkwardness.Thebookisnotshyofspirituality,andindeeditventures toincludeafewspiritualexercises,butitholdsbackfrompresenting anyfullydefinedframeworkofreligiouslife.Rather,myaimisto presentscienceinharmonywithartinsuchawaythatthejourneyto spiritualityisavailable,notclosedoff.Thisisimportantbecausehumans arespiritualcreatures,andtorefusethemthisjourney(forexampleby suggestingthatonemustpartfromreasoninordertoundertakeit)is deeplyunjust.
PARTI SCIENCEANDPHILOSOPHY (FINDINGROOMTOBREATHE)
2 Light
Onceuponatime,therewaslight.Brightlight.Not a light,butLight— everywhereandeverywhen.Notjustbright:brighterthanbright.
—Thisbright?
—No,brighter.
—Thatbright?
—No!Brighterstill!Dazzling!Burning!Dangerous!
—Butwhatislight?
—Lightismotion,lightisenergy,lightiswaves,lightisstreaming matter–antimatter-bombsofenergy.Rushingtooandfro,neverceasing,alwaysmovingasfastaspossible.Neverstopping,norevenslowing down.
—Isitalleverywherethesame,thislight?
—No.Thereareknotsoflight,andtherearestreamersoflight,and flickeringfibresoflight.LiketheNorthernLights!Onlyhuger,and moreintricate.
—Isitamush?Isitasoup?
—No!Therearepatternsandpicturesinthelight.Look!Hereisa knotwheretwoflashescametogether.Oneflashgoesthisway,oneflash goestheother,andwheretheyoverlapanextrabumpofbrightness movesalongthewave.Look!Nowthebumphasmetanotherbump, andtheycirclearoundoneanother.Theyareweavingahelix.
—Oh!Howpretty!Howbigarethosebumps?
—Theyaretiny.Teenytiny.Butseehowmanyofthemthereare! Look,wholecrowdshuddlingtogether!Tenthousandbillionbillion here,onehundredthousandbillionbillionthere.Theymakeshapes.
—Yes!AndIseetheshapesmovingaround,bumpingintoone another.Howcanitbe?Whereisallthislightcomingfrom?
—Looksomemore.Canyousee?Canyousee?
—Yes!Yes!Herethereisacloudoflight,andherethereisarockof light!Andherethereiswaterylightandherethereiswindylight!The ScienceandHumanity. AndrewSteane,OxfordUniversityPress(2018). ©AndrewSteane.DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198824589.001.0001
windisblowingandthewateristossingandturning.Therearewhole worldsoflight!Oh,howcanitbe?
—Nowlookhere:Iwanttoshowyouaspecialplace.
—Ohyes,Iseehugeglobeshavegatheredtogetherinthelight,and lightisstreamingoutfromthelargestofthem,andistakeninbythe others,andgivenback.
—Yes,andnowseewhatpatternsthereareonthethirdglobe.Itis thegreatest,mostsplendid,andalsomostpainful,danceoflight.
—Iseeit.Icanhardlyspeak.Itisbreathtaking.Itmakesmewantto weep.
—Areyouweepingforjoyorforsorrow?
—Idon’tknow.Look!Ihavefoundatinypulsatingglobuleinthe light,oh,sobeautiful!Itislessthanahair’sbreadthofahair’sbreadth across,butitisastonishing!Itisafactoryoflight.Ithaslittleturning motorsandlittlewalkingtweezersandintricatecoiled-upcoilsoflight insideit.Anditisforeverforaginganddrinkingandthenitgrowsand splits.Oh,tellmehowitcanbe!Howcantherebesuchthings?
—Look,looksomemore,andthenyouwillknow.
—Iseefishoflight,andbirdsoflight.Iseetreesoflight,andanimals oflight.AndnowIseepeopleoflight.Theyarewalkingandmeeting, andlaughingandweeping.Howfragiletheyare!Justamoment’sbreak inthelight,andtheywouldvanishintonothingness!
—Doyouseetheirthoughts?
—Iseetheexpressionsontheirfaces,andthemovementsoftheir bodies,andIseethemspeakingandlisteningtoripplestheymakein thelight.
—Anddoyouseethemmakingthings?
—Yes!Theyaremakinglotsofthings.Theyaremakingusefulthings anduselessthings.Theyarerearrangingthelight.
—Butwhataretheyreallymaking?
—Oh!Isee!Theyaremakingeachother!
—Yes.Nowwheredoyouthinkthislightiscomingfrom?
TheStructureofScience,Part1
Thefirstmajorthemeofthebookisintroduced.Thisisthat sciencedoesnotpresentaladderortowerofexplanation,buta networkofmutuallyinteractingandinformingideas.Thedigital computerillustratestheinterplayoflow-levelandhigh-level language.Theroleofsymmetryand symmetryprinciples inphysics isdiscussedatlength.Iarguenotjustthatsymmetryiscentralto physics,but,moreimportantly,thatitoffersasubtleconstraining influencethatisnotthesameascauseandeffect,butisneverthelesscentraltoexplanationandunderstanding.Numerous examplesareinvoked.
Thischapterandthenextwillpresentthestructureofscientificknowledgeandexplanation,and,atthesametime,thestructureofthenaturalworld(sinceIthinktheformergivesgoodinsightintothelatter). Thepresentchapterapproachesthisbyfirstsurveyingtheterritoryand thenfocusingonwhatarecalledthephysicalsciences.Thenextchapter turnstothelifesciences.Ihaveavoidedtechnicalterms(whether scientificorphilosophical)wherepossible.Iftheyareusedthenthey canhelpsomereadersbutleaveotherslessthanconfidentofgettingthe details;Ithinknothingessentialwillbelosttothelatterclassofreader. Myfirstmainpointisfairlystraightforward:itisthatscientificknowledgeismulti-layered,andthisreflectsamulti-layerednatureofthe naturalworld.Forexample,youcandogoodworkinbiologywithout havinganyknowledgeofthequantumfieldtheorywhichdescribes elementaryparticleinteractionsinsideallthemoleculesthatmake upalivingcell.Thisisbecausethefunctioningofacell,orofan organism,alreadymakesitsownsense,withoutregardtothedetailsof thefundamentalphysics(fascinatingasthoseare)goingonatthelevel ofindividualatomicnuclei.Thisideaof makingsense isabsolutelycentral toscience,butthewayitworksiswidelymisunderstoodinthemodern world,andoftenmisrepresentedbypopularizersofscience.
