Chris,
"If the non-reductionist view is what you have in mind, then I think science is actually perfectly compatible with it -- in fact, (I would argue) reductionism is a very poor match for the actual results of modern science. A hierarchical view of nature, which leaves room for emergent properties and emergent entities (substances) is actually a much better fit."
I agree with your account of the non-reductionist view & this is indeed more or less what I was getting at, but I would question whether science is ultimately compatible with it. In fact I had the idea of "emergence" specifically in mind with my "rabbit out of the hat" metaphor. Isn't "emergence" just a fancy term for "presto!"? There is, say, a science of physics (in principle encompassing chemistry), and a science of biology. The science of physics works systematically & with increasingly powerful results towards defining the "laws" of physics, and likewise the science of biology towards the "laws" of biology. But neither the science of physics nor the science of biology provides any possible explanation for the "emergence" of life out of matter. That belongs, rather, to the new science of Chaos. But is Chaos really a science? Isn't it just a way of saying: we don't know what the fuck is going on here, but man, it's really cool!
In short, perhaps, science operates competently at each level, but has no competence in grasping the relationships between levels. It works horizontally, not vertically. In this sense it is inherently reductionist even if it pragmatically allows for multiple levels, multiple sciences.
"If science did not have knowledge of reality, what accounts for science's ability to manipulate it?"
My point was not that the manipulable is unreal, rather that science mistakes the manipulable for the whole of reality. This plays directly into the "ontological" point of view, insofar as non-manipulable reality, such as, say, the being of one's beloved, is "more real" to oneself than any manipulable reality. The manipulable is a rather low grade of reality, from a human point of view. Such distinctions are ontological distinctions, which science has no idea of.
Brian,
"Thanks, EA."
No problem, JB.
"But I would certainly agree that the technical growth has been exponential, and further, inexorable and asymptotic by the look of it (although I hate to think of that axis). More than this, it's shown astonishing growth in its capability to domesticate and nourish itself on discontent, especially with itself. But it's leaving the religious evolution so far behind now, I think, that the latter has, as it were, disappeared and come back as a sort of technical holograph, whether it be Chris' "psychology", new-age religiosity, sales up on the Passion, whatever."
I see your point, & if I were arguing with a flagrant optimist I might mount similar arguments. But I have an abiding intuition that the whole picture outwits me. Arguments either way are just a way of keeping one's ignorance in balance, keeping oneself open to what happens next. There is always the need to counteract onesidedness & naivety, & the rhetoric is ready-to-hand. Maybe that becomes a vocation. But then, it's a kind of giving-up, too, a falling-off from four-square facing of reality, which has no rhetoric, nothing to fall back on, no pillow, no club-house, no special vocabulary. It's just out there.
At least, that's my opinion!
|