A world under forest canopy for which we seldom pause to watch
|||||||||||******||||||*******|||||||||||
‘Nonsense’ Questions
(A book review)
(A book review)
Books are in some way like films. They can be thrilling. Certain books can be mind-boggling. Still others can be hilariously funny, simply informative, thought provoking and what not. But few books can be profoundly transforming to the person who reads it. I read one of such books - Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science by Richard DeWitt. For me it meant more than that of an introduction to the evolution of scientific thought or underpinnings of philosophy of science. The book was a chilling revelation that shook my very conception of ‘knowledge’, ‘facts’ or ‘evidences’ that we use to conceive of the world and beyond. It tells us that our perception of the world- scientific evidences and facts that we considers as absolutely real- are a part of a jig-saw puzzle or a belief system. New knowledge created within in such a belief system will tend to marvelously fit the jig-saw of our worldview until certain observations or patterns emerge which cannot be no longer explained within the present jig-saw puzzle. Such inconsistencies lead to an entirely new paradigm and everything becomes obvious within the new jig-saw puzzle and old ones are rejected as entirely fallacious. This concept of scientific revolution is not at all a novel one- Kuhn has meddled with it before. But Richard Dewitt in his book shows why observers in Aristotelian times had every reason to believe that earth was flat, it was the centre of the universe and the universe was like a sphere and everything in it revolved around the earth and so on. It is amazing to read that how beautifully their models of planetary motions fitted to their understanding of their times and how accurately they could predict (with complex models) the planetary motions.
Dewitt depicts this transformation beginning with Aristotelian worldview to the Newtonian worldview, and relativity theory and ending with quantum theory. Thus, the book never ventures out of the realm of physics to tell the tale. In earlier times I was never able to comprehend and enjoy physics the way Dewitt stunningly presented the subject in the book. Philosophy of science and well known theories of physics becomes palatable and admirable in view of simple and considerate language the author used to make his point.
The most profound realization the book gives is that we can never say what we conceive is absolutely real or true. It is liable to change and in future it is even possible that most of our cherished theories and beloved concepts will turnout to be absolutely false.
Then what will happen if atoms and electrons are not going to be real. Then how will we be able to explain the technologies we developed based on such very basic concepts. If gravitational force is not real how will we account for the various concepts we faithfully built uponit. How can aircrafts fly if our understanding of motion and air is false. If so, how aeronautic engineers’ designs of supersonic planes can move elegantly in air. If Darwin’s compelling evolutionary theory is going to be refuted what biologists will do to account for ‘tree of life’ on earth and what will happen to those cherished theories, explanations and evidences. If such things ever going to happen it would be extremely astonishing and revolutionary. There is no doubt in that science will be able to give alternative explanations. The dilemma here is: principles we use to develop a gadget or thing are later end up as false even though the system itself will keep on working unhindered. Or is it that philosophers are wacky bunch of people and their subject itself is weird to ask such ‘nonsense’ questions. After reading Richard Dewitt I feel otherwise.
Dewitt depicts this transformation beginning with Aristotelian worldview to the Newtonian worldview, and relativity theory and ending with quantum theory. Thus, the book never ventures out of the realm of physics to tell the tale. In earlier times I was never able to comprehend and enjoy physics the way Dewitt stunningly presented the subject in the book. Philosophy of science and well known theories of physics becomes palatable and admirable in view of simple and considerate language the author used to make his point.
The most profound realization the book gives is that we can never say what we conceive is absolutely real or true. It is liable to change and in future it is even possible that most of our cherished theories and beloved concepts will turnout to be absolutely false.
Then what will happen if atoms and electrons are not going to be real. Then how will we be able to explain the technologies we developed based on such very basic concepts. If gravitational force is not real how will we account for the various concepts we faithfully built uponit. How can aircrafts fly if our understanding of motion and air is false. If so, how aeronautic engineers’ designs of supersonic planes can move elegantly in air. If Darwin’s compelling evolutionary theory is going to be refuted what biologists will do to account for ‘tree of life’ on earth and what will happen to those cherished theories, explanations and evidences. If such things ever going to happen it would be extremely astonishing and revolutionary. There is no doubt in that science will be able to give alternative explanations. The dilemma here is: principles we use to develop a gadget or thing are later end up as false even though the system itself will keep on working unhindered. Or is it that philosophers are wacky bunch of people and their subject itself is weird to ask such ‘nonsense’ questions. After reading Richard Dewitt I feel otherwise.
1 comments:
Good post.
Post a Comment