A number of thinkers have observed that the defining trend of modern intellectual development appears to be the coming to know more and more about less and less."
I would say it is the opposite; the theoretical complexes of today can be applied to just about anything, but says very little of value about it.
As you yourself say, modern science often ignores that which makes things meaningful and intelligable, the final cause, and is happy to just describe everything as dead matter and random physical events without any inherent meaning. This explanation covers everything, but gives less information that is useful.
We might agree, me just objecting to your formulation.
As for the analysis of science thinking that it's imposed measurements are the true nature of reality, i think you are spot on.
Black matter is a hilarious example of this, where scientists made calculations of how light should travel through space, found out that they were wrong, and rather than questioning their theory or their calculations concluded that this source of error in the calculations must be something that exists concretly as "black matter".
The same mistake was made in the times when scientist figured there must be a planet Vulcan behind the sun, to explain why their heliocentric calculations had unexplainable errors...
Or as you bring up in the footnote, with quantum mechanics, where we are unable to observe light as a particle and a wave at the same time and our calculations show that the test have random results; we conclude that rather than our measurements or theory being wrong, the measurements perfectly describe a reality which is random; because we could never be wrong right?
It is soothing to see someone else bring this madness up, because few have the methodological prudence to see the stupidity of modern assumptions.
I agree with all those examples. it scandalized people to hear that humility is the greatest boon to critical thinking and intelligence often its greatest obstacle but it's nevertheless true. in the latter case one can always adduce compelling and increasingly esoteric arguments to justify a position that one won't be inclined to question without the first thing, and the points you brought up amply illustrate this.
strictly speaking, I don't know if it is right to say "This explanation [the scientific one] covers everything, but gives less information that is useful" because I really don't think things can be reduced to their so-called "Primary Qualities" and remain what they are any more than the measurement of something can be reduced to the thing being measured. but, as you said, I don't really think we are in disagreement; the question is one of articulation and precise formulation.
A valid point, that science rather than covering everything just defines "everything" as a smaller subset of reality, merely adressing "primary qualities", and ignores the rest. Thus it covers less and less but claims that this lesser portion is all there is.
Sadly the same trend can be seen in modern philosophy, where folks like Quine (may his name be forgotten) "solves" all metaphysical problems through the means of defining "everything" as that which exists, which of course according to him is only the scientific, physical reality.
The problem of knowing the source of phenomena (or our measurements), ie the thing in itself or the Logos, is thus solved by saying that the physical world is the thing in itself.
It is just a method of defining the phenomena as the noumenon. Or saying that the created things is actually the creator. Or simply... it is idolatry, as you brought up in the the text, methodolatry (great word).
The interpretation of the bible that idolatry is the source of all sin is relateable for me. No wonder the modern world looks like it does when people think in this way.
"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."
A number of thinkers have observed that the defining trend of modern intellectual development appears to be the coming to know more and more about less and less."
I would say it is the opposite; the theoretical complexes of today can be applied to just about anything, but says very little of value about it.
As you yourself say, modern science often ignores that which makes things meaningful and intelligable, the final cause, and is happy to just describe everything as dead matter and random physical events without any inherent meaning. This explanation covers everything, but gives less information that is useful.
We might agree, me just objecting to your formulation.
As for the analysis of science thinking that it's imposed measurements are the true nature of reality, i think you are spot on.
Black matter is a hilarious example of this, where scientists made calculations of how light should travel through space, found out that they were wrong, and rather than questioning their theory or their calculations concluded that this source of error in the calculations must be something that exists concretly as "black matter".
The same mistake was made in the times when scientist figured there must be a planet Vulcan behind the sun, to explain why their heliocentric calculations had unexplainable errors...
Or as you bring up in the footnote, with quantum mechanics, where we are unable to observe light as a particle and a wave at the same time and our calculations show that the test have random results; we conclude that rather than our measurements or theory being wrong, the measurements perfectly describe a reality which is random; because we could never be wrong right?
It is soothing to see someone else bring this madness up, because few have the methodological prudence to see the stupidity of modern assumptions.
thanks for the comment.
I agree with all those examples. it scandalized people to hear that humility is the greatest boon to critical thinking and intelligence often its greatest obstacle but it's nevertheless true. in the latter case one can always adduce compelling and increasingly esoteric arguments to justify a position that one won't be inclined to question without the first thing, and the points you brought up amply illustrate this.
strictly speaking, I don't know if it is right to say "This explanation [the scientific one] covers everything, but gives less information that is useful" because I really don't think things can be reduced to their so-called "Primary Qualities" and remain what they are any more than the measurement of something can be reduced to the thing being measured. but, as you said, I don't really think we are in disagreement; the question is one of articulation and precise formulation.
A valid point, that science rather than covering everything just defines "everything" as a smaller subset of reality, merely adressing "primary qualities", and ignores the rest. Thus it covers less and less but claims that this lesser portion is all there is.
Sadly the same trend can be seen in modern philosophy, where folks like Quine (may his name be forgotten) "solves" all metaphysical problems through the means of defining "everything" as that which exists, which of course according to him is only the scientific, physical reality.
The problem of knowing the source of phenomena (or our measurements), ie the thing in itself or the Logos, is thus solved by saying that the physical world is the thing in itself.
It is just a method of defining the phenomena as the noumenon. Or saying that the created things is actually the creator. Or simply... it is idolatry, as you brought up in the the text, methodolatry (great word).
The interpretation of the bible that idolatry is the source of all sin is relateable for me. No wonder the modern world looks like it does when people think in this way.
"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."
Romans 1:24
Beautifully compelling! Once again- Thanks, Max!