Epistemology

The Epistemology of the Cosmos

During one of my recent debates with a close friend, we returned to a topic that we’ve picked up and dropped off several times throughout the years, a topic in which our opinions differ greatly. I am speaking of epistemology, the philosophical branch associated with the nature of knowledge and understanding. I find it of particularly valid interest, because as a person who wants to be a scientist, I’m very interested in the nature of what it means to know. The validity of scientific theories relies on experimentally-verifiable results. If verification truly means nothing, then the entire scientific methodology fails.
And this was the point that my friend tried to argue. His stance on knowledge is that while we may be able to accumulate information about this world, the truest workings of the cosmos are far removed from humans, so far removed that the distance between us and the fundamental truth is infinite, or nearly so. He says that the study we call science isn’t the art of figuring out the basics of the universe, but is merely a title for human exploration of our environment. He has a very metaphysical view of the world, and I can’t say whether he has this stance toward knowledge because of his metaphysical beliefs, or he holds his metaphysical beliefs due to his stance toward knowledge. To give you some background, my friend is very interested by psychology. He’s studying it now at Stony Brook University. I think his continual experiences with people (whose fundamental truths are never reached, it seems) has poisoned his perceptions of the greater sciences.
I disagree. Entirely. With everything. I’m of the opinion that the secrets of the universe can be unlocked. Even if humans are removed from the fundamental machinery of existence, we can still approach and reach it with abstractions and technology. Let me tell you a little about myself before I go on. I’m a physics student who wants to be a professor of Theoretical Particle Physics, so you can see from the get-go I have a bias of my own. Much as my friend is very accustomed to dealing with people and thinking in terms of them, I’m used to considering mechanical issues. That’s how I approach the understanding of the universe. I have a good reason to think this way, however, and that is the validity of science’s benefits to humanity’s understanding versus the benefits of metaphysical studies.
Now, I’m not saying that philosophy hasn’t contributed to humanity. It has in big, big ways. What I’m trying to get at is that when one is challenged to look at the universe and form one’s perspective, through which one will see the universe, one has to consider both options. There’s a metaphysical view which will explain the workings of the world in its own integrated way, and there’s a scientific view which will explain the workings of the world in a separate but just as integrated way. The only difference between them is how much more science explains.
Let’s look at existence of the soul. That’s a classical argument that runs along the lines of our debate. Now, for the soul, there are two camps. There are dualists, who believe in a body and a soul, and there are physicalists, who believe in only the body. Dualism explains many things about life. It explains that the reason that one is conscious is because one has a soul, a metaphysical element bonded in some way to their physical body. It explains that death is when one’s metaphysical element is separated from the body, and from there are all sorts of theories as to what happens thereafter. Physicalism explains that the body is a machine. It is a very complex, very fancy machine, but ultimately just a machine, and it says that the reason that one is conscious is because of electrochemical reactions in one’s brain. Death is when that activity stops. These two arguments both explain the world in a way. They don’t contradict themselves. The views make sense within themselves.
But the difference is that physicalism explains more. It’s part of a view that elegantly explains things like mental illness (damage or malfunctioning brain matter), comas (points when the brain is electrochemically inactive), and mood (balances of neurotransmitters). In order to explain points like that, Dualists have to resort to very complicated explanations, none of which are verifiable, as they have to do with immeasurable “non-physical” substances. Dualists could be asked, why is the soul connected to the body? How does the soul affect the body and vice-versa? Why is there a reaction between a physical and a non-physical element, and do we see those anywhere else? Where did the soul come from in the first place? The dualist is at a loss for explanation. There are many competing theories within that domain for each of those questions.
Now ask the physicalist; why does the brain work? How does electrical activity translate into consciousness? Where can we physically find awareness? The physicalist will have to come up with complex explanations, and to be honest, he won’t know all the answers, either, but he will know more. His views are clearly easier to integrate with other parts of life. The life of the flower in his windowsill can be explained by thermodynamics and biomechanics, not souls and aether. So, though he doesn’t have all the answers, he has more than the dualists, which points me toward believing his side of the story.
In much the same way, I will confess that I do not know the underlying truths of reality. I do not know how far we are from the ultimate answers. But from what I’ve gathered, it can be approached. I’ve seen scientists formulate theories about the smallest particles in existence and have witnessed the epic advancement in our perspective that validating a theory like that can bring. I’ve learned about ways of doing math with infinities and realized that maybe in the entire universe, there’s one electron. I’ve used my own imagination to grasp at higher-dimensional brane theory (don’t look that one up. Headache warning), and I’m confident that any perceptions of humanity as being endlessly lost in the universe is like a person who sees a project and says, “This is going to take forever.”
Forever is a long time. Let’s not be dramatic.