Thinking About Ordinary Things (Ukázka, strana 99)

98

in living organisms, in human societies and culture, there are noticeable similarities and structures, which manifest themselves in a similar way.

Language, mathematics, or the structural rules of native tribal societies all show similarities. A living organism is neither a mechanical machine, as Descartes believed, nor a system of chemicals and energy; life is above all an organisation of molecules, cells and organs governed by the exchange of information. Nothing is unchangeable or constant; there is, however the ability to regulate and balance out the fluctuations which occur. A warm-blooded creature does not need to maintain its constant bodily temperature by protecting itself from external changes of temperature, as it is able to ‘monitor’ these changes and actively compensates for them. That is called feedback and it is not a chemical or energy link. It is an information link, albeit one carried out by means of chemicals or electricity.

The concept of information has changed the world in our lifetime. It was not there eighty years ago. It, too, is mathematised and still closely connected to mathematics, but it is a different kind of mathematics. It is not concerned with measuring quantities; it deals with formulating the regularity of structures. In place of differential equations, algebra comes to the fore, as well as informational statistics. A good example is provided by the Markov chains – in each language, it is possible to determine the average word length or the probability of a given speech sound being followed by another. If we let a computer generate a random sequence of letters with the same statistical properties, the resulting text will not make sense, but it will, at a casual glance, strongly resemble writing in German or English. Information and the processing of it nowadays dominates not only administration and all levels of government, it also sustains a vast industry, as well as providing the foundations of molecular biology and genetics. Moreover, the concepts of structure and information have helped bring about interdisciplinary scientific projects and endeavours, often motivated by environmental concerns, perceiving nature, and the Earth, as a whole, something which frequently slips off the radar of the specialised disciplines.

The aim of this ridiculously short summary of the ideological history of science is merely to demonstrate that ‘science’ today is anything but monolithic, that there is a constant flow of new ideas and concepts, which retroactively affect even everyday existence. In this way, science constantly touches on and grapples with philosophy, which should not only act as a nutrient medium for science, and provide new ideas, but which should also monitor the direction which science is taking. For all

Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS190621

99

their natural tensions and misunderstandings, the two disciplines belong together. Not only through philosophers offering criticism of how blind or fragmented science is, nor just on the strength of the frequent excursions into the realm of philosophy so beloved of many scientists.

They should recognise their shared responsibility for the future of our world. To reach interesting and useful results, science has to simplify.

It has to neglect various aspects of reality, as they are not measurable, not useful for its purposes, not general and necessary enough. But it is perhaps one of the tasks of philosophy to remind us that these models are methodological simplifications, not reality as a whole.

The astonishing success of European science owes much to Descartes’ discovery that no reality need be examined as a whole. We can pick out the tiniest section or feature of it, and provided that we stick to an exact method, our results will be valid, and applicable. The individual findings and discoveries may be stacked up, and one person’s research may provide a springboard for another’s, while an ever-growing body of reliable and exact findings is created. Naturally, through the division of reality into particular items, aspects, and principles, a certain loss is sustained – as if we were carrying out a post mortem. An exact method must simplify and disregard that which cannot be ascertained. That is why the scientific picture of reality is the more satisfying the simpler the object of its examination. The most serious consequence of the scientific method is, however, the strict separation of the scientist from his subject, the separation of the scientific result from its practical usage. A physicist describes the properties of matter, he proves that it can be split – and the technicians will build a bomb or a power station. It follows from the definition of their task that it is of no concern to them, whether it is right or wrong. That is up to others to decide.

And yet the scientist is a human being too, and once he leaves his laboratory, he re-enters our shared world, where the question of right and wrong must be constantly posed and responsibility must be assumed for the answer we have given. The core of the problem lies in the tendency of modern organisation to compartmentalise, thus separating activity from responsibility. The scientist researches the splitting of the atom, the technician builds the equipment, the politician makes the decision whether to use the bomb or not. The guard in a concentration camp complies with orders, while his commander has actually not killed anyone in person. Where does the responsibility lie? Millions killed and no murderer to be seen. The same goes for less drastic examples – think of the automobile, one of the most successful technical inventions,

Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS190621

100

which is each year responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and has the lion’s share of responsibility for our cities not being fit for living in.

Is this good or not? And above all, whose problem is it anyway? Who should be racking their brains over it? Who makes the decisions and who bears the responsibility? Is it possible to attribute it to anyone?

Questions: We know many scientific disciplines; what do they have in common and how do they differ from one another? Could they be arranged in some order? ● Is mathematics a science? A natural science? What is specific about it? ● What is the difference between conventional and alternative medicines? Can they reach some understanding? ● It is essential for science to know that there are boundaries to its remit. How is this reflected in science, in the thought processes of a scientist, in his life? ● Can science pass a value judgement? Why so, or why not? Based on what reasons? ● Can a scientist withhold judgement? Does his particular field make a difference to this? ●

Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS190621