OUT OF THIS WORLD

Once a week, at my local Physics and Astronomy department, a group of physicists get together in their lunch break for a discussion about some topic related to the Philosophy of Science. For the past two weeks the discussion has been about a group of scholars that is organized by John Brockman who would like to see themselves as the new intellectuals. They promote themselves as well as their own views and opinions on various issues through the website www.edge.org. They call themselves the Third Culture:

“The third culture consists of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are.”

In 1959, C.P. Snow wrote of two cultures: the literary intellectuals and the scientists, and claimed that, during the 1930s, the literary intellectuals took over as “the intellectuals,” marginalizing the scientists. He later predicted the emergence of a third culture that would close the communications gap between the literary intellectuals and the scientists.

John Brockman does not claim that his third culture is the same as the one predicted by Snow. This new third culture is not one where the literary intellectuals are communicating with the scientists, rather the scientists are communicating directly with the public. Brockman sees science as the dominant factor in today’s public culture. Science is the big story and the achievements of the third culture will affect the lives of everybody on the planet and shape the thoughts of their generation.

He has a point. Science and technology are becoming more and more central in everyday life and everyday discussions. So many of the issues that concern us today involve science. But what Brockman and many of his third culture members do not seem to recognize is that there is more to these issues than science alone. The neglect of all things non-scientific is a common result of materialism and reductionism, two favourite persuasions of many a modern scientist.

The methodology of modern science does not allow for anything non-material. This approach has produced some excellent results and science has gone quite far with it. Yet, this in no way implies that there is nothing beyond matter and that science holds the answer to everything. Believing that matter is all that exists is just that, a belief, and it is a belief that seems to be growing in popularity. Once you accept this belief, then it naturally follows that science can, in principle, reveal all truths and resolve all issues. Human beings become nothing more than complicated organic machines to be understood through their genes. Human society is nothing more than the struggle for survival of the fittest. The universe is just another big machine with no intrinsic meaning or purpose. Want to know something, anything? – Ask a scientist. The scientist is God.

If we are not yet prepared to accept the axiom of materialism, then we ought to be careful about appointing a scientist with the job of “rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives” and “redefining who and what we are.” Else we might find that there is no longer any deeper meaning to our lives, beyond genes, atoms or subatomic particles.

If we assume for a moment that there is more to life than matter alone, it follows that there is more to life than modern science can understand or explain. Many of the issues that the scientific intellectuals of Brockman’s group would like to influence will contain elements that are completely outside the realm of modern scientific thought. Issues such as global warming, cloning and abortion, though centred about scientific questions, are entangled in ethical problems that go far beyond science. No amount of hard scientific investigation is going to tell you whether an action is right or wrong, good or bad, because ethics and morals are not a part of current scientific thought.

Now, more than ever, science students need to get a basic education in philosophy and theology, especially topics such as the philosophy of science, ethics, and religion. In this way, they can learn to understand the limitations of the scientific method and appreciate other approaches to knowledge. They may still choose to believe in materialism, but perhaps less fanatically, and with more tolerance and appreciation for those who don’t. They would also be a little more qualified to speak on issues that go beyond science, and be more attentive to the views of philosophers and theologians. Then the gap between the two cultures could finally close and the true third culture will lead the way.