Positivism, Natural Science and the World of Metaphysics

by Barbara Baudot

It is a scale of proportions which makes the bad difficult and the good easy. Albert Einstein.

Presently, positivism dominates public thinking: knowledge gained from the observable and the economics of instrumental rationality and instrumental calculus circumscribe the ambit of public decision making. To achieve environmental security, the proportions in the policy criteria scale have to be changed, from value on material opulence to one of simplicity and the art of living.

This perspective is consistent with the epistemology articulated by a group of modern philosophers that formed the Vienna Circle, which began to gather in the early decades of the 20th century in the coffee houses and the University of Vienna. Their conception of the world was called scientific, in the sense of empirical and positivist. For adherents of the Vienna Circle, the only knowledge that was valid must be gained from experience. and logical anaysis thereof.[1]  Statements or ideas of a non-empirical nature were rejected as meaningless. Thus metaphysics and related philosophical perspectives were rejected because they could not be subject to scientific enquiry. According to the Manifesto of the  Circle; “Metaphysics and theology are allied to traditional social forms, while the group of people who “face modern times, rejects these views and takes its stand on the ground of empirical sciences”[2]

The legacy of the Vienna Circle rejection of philosophy and metaphysics reflects the ubiquity of materialism in modern society, which characterizes modern political power and imagination. Materialism makes difficult the quest for harmony between and within societies, as well as between humankind and the natural environment. Science and technology are treated as ends in themselves and such focus precludes realization of projects and solution to problems that require imaginative and transcendent thinking.

Professor of philosophy, Tomonubo Imamichi has illustrated the problem of public purpose as one of means and ends captured within a framework circumscribed by technological possibilities.  According to Imamichi, the modern western culture in its logical analysis, hostage to empiricism, has inverted the structuring of human intention. The classical form of this structuring is elaborated in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: the major premise is the human aim or ideal, while the minor premise is the range of free choice of means to attain the aim. Following this structure, Imamichi notes that human goal-orientation has spurred technological progress to a position of primacy over other human aims. Thus, today, while the minor premise remains the optional choice of means, this minor premise has been translated to the position of major premise, while “the goal to be realized” is relegated to the minor position. Because of the inversion of means and ends, goals are no longer transcendent ideals—but are pre-determined by the horizons of technological change and technological power.[3]

It is ironical and sad, that the modern interpretation of natural science can legitimately be blamed for catapulting the individual into a global, technological civilization under a regime of domineering materiality. This is ironic and sad because physics and higher mathematics actually point to a number of very significant ideas concerning the realities of the universe and life which could, given an appropriate world view, remove the chains binding human intentions to material circumstances and aspirations. With the assistance of reason enlightened by imagination and wisdom, modern science can lead humanity to a high sense of purpose and a perception of the value ecological harmony. Physicist Brian Greene’s summarizes this standpoint:

To open our ideas to the true nature of the universe has always been one of physic’s primary purposes. It is hard to imagine a more mind stretching experience than learning, as we have over the last century that the reality we experience is but a glimmer of the reality that is.[4]

In this post-modern age of skepticism and non-truths, the world vainly seeks facts and then proofs. In science, there are no definite facts and proofs. Scientific thinking and instrumental rationality, as Albert Einstein reminded the world, have strong limitations.  He notes that the whole of science is “nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking (…) even the concept of the ‘real external world’ of everyday thinking rests exclusively on sense impressions.”[5]  Einstein also explained that science is methodically directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences—bringing together, by systematic thought perceptible phenomena into as thorough-going an association as possible. In the immediate it produces knowledge and indirectly, implies means of action. But, such empirical thinking is neither the way to determine the meaning in life, nor to identify the goals and values essential to social harmony, sustainable life-styles, and happiness. These can only be discovered through reason by way of philosophical or religious thinking.[6]

Metaphysically minded physicists and mathematicians invite seekers of meaning to journey on an ultra-microscopic trajectory to the precipice of infinity and void, which Albert Einstein calls the frontier of science and religion. Einstein defines this experience as a cosmic religious feeling which:

( . . )takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.[7]

Einstein esteems this feeling to be the guiding principle of life and work, in so far as individuals succeed in keeping themselves free from selfish desire. He finds it akin to that feeling which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.

Einstein is not alone in this discovery and its source of meaning and purpose, and the state of the art of thinking about the laws of the universe appears to confirm his observations. While the Vienna Circle was building an approach to empiricism that sucked any significance of knowledge that was derived from non empirical sources, a group of scientists gathered in Cambridge in the 1930’s, and building on Einstein’s theories of relativity (1905, 1915), Max Plank’s quantum theory (1900), and Werner Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty (1926), plumbed the depths of physics and molecular biology, to discover the world to be inexplicable in material terms. Seeking the fine structure of molecules in atoms, the scientist enters a region dominated by void. Just when one might expect to find ultimate particles of matter, matter vanishes—only electrical and gravitational fields cavort in the void. This vision lead, astronomer, Sir Arthur Eddington, to conclude that: “The stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”[8] While Eddington agrees that there are two kinds of worlds—the familiar one of actuality and that of physics, their only connection is through the human mind, which can appreciate both the solidity of the object world and the metaphysics perceptible only to mathematics. Scientist, Sir James Jeans, concluded that if the universe is one of thought, then its creation must be an act of thought. As an act of imagination or the Logos, the universe is thought up into existence by the shaping of the void. This idea is validated by Einstein’s matter-tensor, which demonstrates the mathematics whereby substance (mass-energy) can be accounted for by pure non-Euclidean geometry, i.e. the shaping of the void. [9]

Nearly 85 years have passed, since the Cambridge Club theorized the existence of the world as a function of mind. In the meantime many more sophisticated mathematical theories of the nature of the Universe have been presented. Super String Theory and M Theory, an advanced version of string theory, may successfully merge general relativity and quantum mechanics, and hold out the hope that humankind is closer now to really understanding the deepest laws of the universe, though actual experimentation to verify their findings is still beyond the pale of science. According to Greene, string theory holds that there is one fundamental building block of the multidimensional universe; that is the string.[10] The wealth of particle species simply reflects the different vibration patterns that a string can execute, just as a string on a violin or cello can vibrate in many different ways, producing a full range of sounds. Greene writes:

Metaphorically, the different notes that can be played by a single species of string would account for all of the different particles that have been detected. At the ultramicroscopic level, the universe would be akin to a string vibrating matter into existence.[11]

Perhaps as today’s more controversial but promising Matrix theory suggests, zero branes are the ultimate building blocks.[12] This would not seem to change the latest theory that matter emerges from a series of vibration patterns, perhaps now shaped in the void by a master musician playing his cello, to build on the metaphor begun by Jeans.

The wonders of the universe, in particular, the remarkable arrangements of ‘carbon and oxygen nuclear resonance’ offer astronomer and historian, Owen Gingerich, evidence of some grand design and designer. He recognizes nevertheless that there will always be scientists who think science teaches that the universe itself suggests no point to existence and those detractors will say, when faced with the transcendent possibility; “since we are contemplating them, those details could be no other way.” For Gingerich it is not a matter of scientific proofs and demonstrations, but of making sense of the astonishing cosmic order that the sciences repeatedly reveal and even more so the remarkable evidences of design in the biological realm. As Jeans did before, Gingerich concludes: “A common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a super intelligence. (…) in other words, the heavens do declare the glory of God,” and bowing to the skeptics he adds: “but only to the prepared mind.” [13]

Gingerich further observes that humankind does its best to create a picture that makes sense when all the pieces of the puzzle are not at hand.  He maintains that the same principle should hold for faith in a powerful Consciousness beyond the capacity for humankind to grasp, but for which nature gives astounding and ample evidence. In light of the rapidity with which modern society is consuming nature and its resources, Gingerich concludes that unless society learns the message of servanthood and sacrificial love that a transcendent belief in the meaning the cosmos conveys, humankind may be doomed as a species.

To those skeptics who fail to recognize that a deeper understanding of the universe can lead to a more effective environmental policy, Brian Greene offers his own experience. Comparing himself with Camus who chooses the hapless but courageous Sisyphus as his hero, Greene chooses the courageous scientists Newton, Einstein, Neils Bohr, and Richard Feynmam to be his heroes. In so doing he begins a journey, the destination of which, would enable him to begin to assess life and the universe on all possible levels, not just those accessible to the frail human senses.[14]

There are many thoughts to be considered that seem related to this tour through science in search of meaning. Certain ideas might have a positive influence on postmodern society and its “nobodies,” by enticement towards a more meaningful sense of personhood. Some ideas follow directly from the most recent studies of the universe. Others derived from time honored wisdom gain modern relevance because of these discoveries. The humility that comes from recognizing that humankind’s material conception of the world is only a glimmer of reality, gives renewed validity to earlier views on the importance of transcendent thinking for a more holistic approach to resolving issues pertaining to  sound policy making in light of humankinds roles and place in the universe.

Increasingly thinkers are questioning the efficacy of narrow empirical perspectives on the world and the efficacy of policies derived from them to bring about the public good.  There is reconsideration of the value of the type of science that eliminates from its structure the consideration of “being” and the essences of things.  And there is an affirmation of the usefulness of ideas derived from the study of the humanities, including philosophy its metaphysical ideas and ethics; and including religion and the intuition that brings human consciousness into some awareness of the essence of existence and the arts—music, literature, and poetry.

Vaclav Havel’s observation that the present environmental crisis is one of the human spirit is a call to look not only to philosophy but questions the very notions of knowledge and the nature of man.  Havel enquired whether the essence of the environmental crisis is related to the loss of respect for the order of existence in which humankind is not the creator, but a mere component of its mysterious meaning or spirit. He also poses the question whether the crisis is not the logical consequences of the conception of the world as a complex of phenomena controlled by certain scientifically identifiable laws: a “conception that does not question the meaning of existence and renounces any kind of metaphysics or any kind of metaphysical roots of its own.” According to this line of thinking the only option for humankind is change in the sphere of the human spirit. He writes: “Only humankinds’ understanding of its place in the universe will allow the development of new models of behavior, scales of values, and objectives in life and through these means finally bind a new spirit and meaning to specific regulations, treaties, and institutions.”[15]  Havel’s view has not really been explored. Yet his is the basis for a vision of modernity that would seem to offer the best hope for human survival.

What then would such an approach to another vision of modernity imply?  . First, that is should be drawn with understanding of the workings of the universe and realization of the mysteries that defy the capacity of the human mind to understand. It demands then, that in sincere humility, one seeks wisdom and rejects the idea that scientific thinking is the only valid source of knowledge.  It requires a renewed sense of the purpose of human life and concomitantly, profound reconsideration of the notion of happiness. Overall it requires fundamental change in the global mindset—a rejection of life vestured in materialism and an acceptance of the need to follow the leadings of Nature in work and life choices. On the basis of these considerations a new vision of modernity might be drawn.

Serious examination of his view would offer new directions for thinking about the environment, the purpose of human life and the relationship of humankind to nature.  It might remind the policy maker that the environment has intrinsic and inherent value in addition to instrumental value.  And that these values attached to the environment, as many like minded souls have pointed out, are essential for the survival of the human race.

The apparent failure of efforts by states and other institutions to put in place programs to significantly arrest the degradation of the world’s social and natural environments cannot be ignored. It is an urgent call to stir the world’s market place of ideas with reconsiderations about the meaning of life and the importance of virtue-based happiness. This implies appreciation of ethical norms and serious thinking about how these can come to play in policy making. An intellectual and moral renaissance is necessary for humankind to identify and bring about its common good. Effective protection of the environment and a real reduction of poverty, in all its forms, would be part of such a renaissance.

Political economist Michael Watson advanced this argument in pointing to the distinction Aristotle drew between chrematistics and oekonomie.  The former, a utility based system, means that the decision to engage in economic activity is reduced to calculations of costs and benefits relative to market price. And the explanation of why individuals engage in economic activity tends to rely on utilitarian theories of decision making.  Chrematistics reflects the reality of modern global economic decision making, whereby the success of a state is measured in terms of increases or decreases in GNP, the eradication of poverty is determined by how many dollars a day to which a poor man has access, and the well being of the environment can be guaranteed by advances in technology.

The word oekonomie elicits fresh consideration of the discipline of economics as practiced today in light of the meaning of the concept as it was first used.[16]  Appropriately, the word economics is etymologically related to the metaphor of ‘house.’ Derived from Greek oikonomia, the word oikos, eco means house and combined with nomus meaning management, economics refers to the science of management of the house, habitat or home. According to this perspective political economics, or economics of the polis cum society, should embrace not only quantitative changes in production, commerce, and quality of life indicators as measures of progress, but finds these in the context of a society’s institutions, moral and ethical values, as well as cultural norms.  Economics is in this perspective a holistic multidisciplinary exercise in the interest of humankind and society.  This approach takes into account a complex of objective and subjective elements in managing a society.

A value based tradition of classical political economy would clearly add extra dimensions to the debate.  It provides contextual explanations of why people engage in particular forms of economic activity.  The classical economists were concerned with the values that were generated in and through the process of production and saw this as social process and that the value was the relationship between the people.[17]

Presently economics is a largely an exercise of chrematistics, the measurement and exercise of commerce, in the notion of Aristotle.  Its policies are constructed on analysis based on statistical indicators and quantifiable data. It is a very limited science in comparison to the original idea of the exercise of oikonomus.  Information generated by the artifice of abstract quantitative statistics and models revealing simplified generalizations on macro behaviours of complex societies differ in so many basic ways from the realities of individual societies reflecting different cultures and manners of functioning.[18] Modern economics is steered by an ideology of utilitarian calculus.  The ‘management of the house’ cannot be effectively achieved according to this calculus alone.

The quest to reestablish the relevance of human values, virtue, high meaning, and responsibility in public spheres of decision making, whether political, economic, or social, can thus be advanced by reexamining the dimensions of morality that have been variously introduced and discussed by philosophers and religious thinkers in many places around the globe over the course of history. Most common among these dimensions are human interactions, motivations, and a sense of meaning in life. For example, in the midst of the horrors of World War II, when asked to speak to soldiers on public morality, the Christian thinker and philosopher, C.S. Lewis stated that morality, whether on the scale of the individual, the community, the nation, or the world, involved a combination of:

1. Equity and harmony between actors;
2. Inner virtues of the actors; and
3. A sense of general purpose for human life.

Failure to recognize that these three dimensions are interdependent hobbles even the best-intended actions or national policies. Initiatives, undertaken to ensure fair play and harmony in interpersonal or international relations cannot promote mutual respect or meet demands of an untoward situation if the agent’s greed, cowardice, and/or self-conceit operate to prevent their actualization. And, without some sense of high purpose or vision, it is unlikely that the necessary changes in the motivational psyche can be easy or natural. Some sense of purpose for moral behavior is essential to the successful implementation of policies promoting the common good and respect for nature.[19]

This approach to morality provides a convenient framework for organizing the search for effective public policies aimed at securing the public good. Such an approach would come to grips, for example, with the problem of welfare policy, social scientist, Michael Ignatieff has written about in his book The Needs of Strangers. He writes:

“The political arguments between right and left and over the future of the welfare state which rage over (…) old people’s heads almost always take their needs for granted.  Both sides assume that what they need is income, food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, then debate whether they are entitled to these goods as a matter of right, and whether there are adequate resources to provide them if they are .   What almost never gets asked is whether they might need something more that the means of mere survival.[20] […] A decent and humane society requires a shared language of the good.  The one our society lives by—a language of rights— has not terms for those dimension of the human good which require acts of virtue unspecifiable as a legal or civil obligation.  A theory of human needs is a particular kind of language of the human good”[21]…

Ignatieff’s proposition is a project beyond empiricism.  It can be explored in moral philosophy.  Empathy and understanding of human nature and needs can certainly go a long ways to making the most effective use of resources for health care that would include the training of nurses and doctors in the art of sympathy, compassion, and the language of hope.  This approach can be envisaged to meet the three criteria set forth for moral decision making, by Lewis.  It would require equity between the actors in terms of mutual respect between subjects and policy makers; intellect governed by the heart on the part of the decision makers; and a clear sense of direction towards the total well being of individuals in society.

Evidence of the existence and practical importance of higher meaning is to be found in the timeless import of religion as well as literary and philosophical work inspired by transcendent vision. For example Hinduism, an ancient faith practiced by nearly a billion people in India, emphasizes the separation of soul and body, the latter being ephemeral and mortal, while the soul is immortal, imperishable, and all pervading. The soul is the cause, the manifestation, as well as the support of the universe; changeless, and indestructible. Realizing the allness of soul as the causation of the universe is seen as the illumination of divine light inside of oneself. Such realization is the ultimate outcome of total immersion in spirit and meditation. The Vedas and Upanishads expound and clarify this as the ultimate “truth”. The seer, perfecting his efforts, receives ” enlightenment”, by means of an inward journey, an experience recorded in many other religions over the centuries.[22]

Alexis de Tocqueville, reflecting on the materialist tendencies of the American culture in the 1820’s, observes that while a belief in materialism is probably the most rational to the human being, a belief in the super sensual and immortal principle is indispensable to humankind’s greatness. However tenuous that belief might be, the body and its wants, consciously or unconsciously, become secondary to the immaterial nature of man.[23] This conviction, according to Tocqueville: “would give a lofty cast to the believers’ opinions and tastes, to bid them tend with no interested motive, as it were by impulse, to pure feelings and elevated thoughts.” Tocqueville finds mere belief in the separation of soul and body—the former surviving the latter—, was enough to give Platonic philosophy the sublimity which distinguishes Plato’s work, while the works of his professed materialist contemporaries, have not reached to the 19th century in meaningful form. Moreover, he observes that the greatest number of the most famous minds in literature and arts adhere to some doctrine of spiritual philosophy. [24]

Tocqueville finds relevance in these observations for politicians as well. Decision makers are under obligation to behave as if they themselves believe and to scrupulously conform to moral principles in the management of public affairs, in order to teach the community at large to know and to observe individual and civic virtues.[25]

In general, a glimpse of reality is offered in the timelessness of transcending ideas. Aristotle’s esteem for powers of music seems to be shared by certain contemporary scientists discovering the intellectually stimulating qualities of Mozart symphonies. Such discoveries, and others, bear out today what Aristotle surmised thousands of years ago, when human intelligence had a more instinctive sense of Nature. The human mind is altered by music, perhaps bringing it closer to the never-ending symphonies of the strings and branes of the universe lead by the baton of a master Consciousness.

Meaning and purpose in just “being” echoes in the music of nature, as revealed in a story of a small bird, told by genetics professor, Giuseppe Sermonti. “The bird, Cyanosylvia svecica (blue throat) delivers his most artistic song, objectively the most complex, when relaxed in the depth of its bush, poetizing to himself.” The song changes when the bird seeks to secure his own interests, becoming a monotonous repetition of strong strophes and all grace is lost.[26] Purpose thus may just lie in living and moving in consonance with nature and the universe.  Why? Maybe this is just the way it is.

Footnotes

[1] The Scientific Conception of the World. The Vienna Circle in Sarkar, Sahotra, 1996, p. 331; referred to and cited on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle.
[2]  Ibid, 339.
[3] Tomonobu Imamichi, “The Concept of an Eco-Ethics and the Development of Moral Thoughts,” Man and Nature, ed. George McLeon (New York: University Press of America, 1984), 213-14.
[4] Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004) 12.
[5] Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions 290-1. See also remarks on Bertrand Russel’s Theory of Knowledge, ibid, 22-23.
[6] Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 50.
[7] Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, , based on Mein Weltbild, edited by Carl Seelig, and other sources (New York, Bonanza Books, 1984), p. 40.
[8] David Foster, The Philosphical Scientists, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1993) 2.
[9] Ibid, 2-16.
[10] Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, 346-348.  M theory holds that there are 11 dimensions to the Universe.
[11] Ibid., 347.
[12] Ibid., 489.
[13] Owen Gingerich, “Do the Heavens Declare?” in The Book of the Cosmos: Imagining the Universe from Heraclitus to Hawking, D. Danielson ed. (Cambridge MA: Perseus Publishing [2001]522-528.
[14] Brian Greene, Fabric of the Cosmos, 17.
6 Vaclav Havel, “The Challenge of the World,” Is Their a Purpose in Nature? How to Navigate Between the Scylla of Mechanism and the Charybdis of Teleology, Ivan Havel, and Anton Markos eds. (Prague: Vesmir, 2002) 11-13.
16] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, abode is inter alia,  “an abiding-place, a dwelling-place, place of ordinary habitation; house or home …”
[17] Michael Watson, Foundations of International Political Economy, [London: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2005] 31.
[18] There is a growing body of political economists that are taking broader approaches to political economy, offering not only comparative ideological approaches but also reintroducing philosophy and ethics into its discourse.   See, for example, Michael Watson, Foundations of International Political Economy, [New York: Palgrave, 2005].
[19] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001) 69-75.
[20] Michael Ignatieff, The Needs of Strangers, [London: Vintage, 1994] 11
[21] Ibid., 14.
[22] Contribution from Rangaswami Krishnamurti, drawn from the following textual sources; Swami Yatiswarananda, Universal Prayers Selected from Sanskrit Religious Literature, [including the vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata, & several Upanishads], (Madras, India: Ramakrishna Math, 1977); William E. Williams, Unbounded Light-The Inward Journey: 15 Tales of the Inner Light, [book drawn from ancient scriptures; the first tale of Nachiketa is from Katha Upanishad], (York Beach, ME: Nicolas-Hays. Inc, 1992); Swami Nityaswarpananda, Astavakra Samhita, [an exposition of advaita philosophy, i.e., monism, nondualism, abstract doctrine of self realization written in Advaita Ashram, Mayavati Pithoragarh, Himalayas], (Calcutta, India: Indian Press Private Ltd., 1987).
[23] As an example of how tenuous this belief had to be, De Tocqueville offered that belief that the soul passed into the head of a hog.
[24] De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: Everyman’s Library, 1994) 146-147.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Giuseppe Sermonti, “Science With Meaning, Symbol, and Beauty,” Is There a Purpose in Nature, ed. Ivan Havel, 168.

[copyright©barbara.baudot, 2007]