On the fundamental problem for science

The fundamental problem for science does Russell’s paradox reveal, ie, that there isn’t any single truth (except this fact, ie, that there isn’t any single truth). We simply can’t describe reality unambiguously. This leaves science with only two alternatives:

1. to describe reality in more than one consistent way (using an orthogonal system of classification like Linnean systematics) or

2.  to hypocritically assert that there indeed is a single truth (as cladistics and particle physics do, whereof particle physics even asserts to “think it has got it”).

The problem with the latter is that it is an inconsistent typological approach, ie, joining the typology of science with the belief of faith, meaning that it supports the contradictory oversimplification called populism, including race biology.

The problem with the former is that it voluntarily abdicates from science’s hegemony in the Western World. The matter is not about whether the scientific method (ie, the hypothetico-deductive method) is superior or not, but just about whether it can find a single truth or not, which Russell’s paradox reveals that not only it, but moreover NO approach can find.

Confronted with this choice, scientists are perplexed. In every matter, there is an objective (ie, general) and a subjective (ie, personal) aspect, and in this matter the choice is indeed between pest and cholera. Shall I, as a scientist, inconsistently support race biology or consistently voluntarily abdicate from my (our) hegemony?

My answer to this question is the latter. Russell’s paradox reveals that science can’t serve as a religion (ie, has no unambiguous answer), which for me means that this battle is lost. Science simply can’t serve as a religion (ie, has no unambiguous answer). The problem with this choice is to retain the notion that science indeed can be the guiding star for our efforts, although it can’t lead us to a halt (per definition). It is better to be consistent and take the consequences of this consistency, than to pretend that there indeed is a pink elephant in reality.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s