Review: What We Believe But Cannot Prove
Loose Ends, Reviews August 19th, 2007Here is a very quick review of What We Believe But Cannot Prove, edited John Brockman. The book has about 80 scientists and thinkers describing what they believe but cannot prove. Of course, scientists are not normally valued for what they cannot prove because their method is to use an evidence based approach. To be more exact, scientists cannot actually prove anything – they propose and test hypothesises. But to propose a hypothesis in the first place, they require some intuitive insight into the world. This insight can often be incorrect but occasionally they can make a new discovery from a good guess.
The book addresses some of the big questions of philosophy and science. This bridge is allowed since they are guessing future science might be able to provide some insight (and one day may be in the same language game?). For example, the nature of consciousness is one topic that is a border between these two subjects. They also speculate on alien life, the soul, global warming, the creative power of boredom, language, black holes, many universes, moral progress, and many more topics.
One area you might find interesting is Daniel C Dennett speculating that language is a requirement for consciousness while Alun Anderson and Joseph LeDoux guessing that other animals are just as conscious as humans. The last four contributors state a modernist view that humans are getting better (moral, altruistically) or are at least intrinsically good. This is a breath of fresh air from the fog of post-modernism I think exists in current studies of humanities. (I am aware of the difficulty of defining what constitutes improvement.)
My next mini-review will probably be “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” by Milan Kundera. (But any book that mentions Nietzsche in the first line can’t be all bad!)
AC1

August 19th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Sounds good. I’m not commonly found to be in agreement with Dennett, but I would hold a very similar view to his, language if not a prerequisite for consciousness is essential to a higher state of consciousness than non-language.
(This enters into difficult territory concerning the relationship between words and concepts, essential or not?)
This sounds a very interesting and forward thinking book. Quite in tune with my pro-Feyerabend stance that science is not necessarily rationalist/empirical it can and should include anarchistic thinking.
I would be interested in the last 4 chapters also. Are humans improving?
I agree with you the immeasurability of improvement renders this conversation nonsensical but by a small tweak of language games it can be resolved.
I think humans are becoming more liberated and that they are thinking more for themselves. This is a good thing if we aesthetically (and morally) agree that all tryanny is a bad thing.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Instead of ‘improvement’ perhaps we should apply the word ‘progressing’?
“To be more exact, scientists cannot actually prove anything – they propose and test hypothesises.”
I think we are singing from an incredibly similar song sheet here.
Feyerabend is very big on this. And much of my anti-rationalist scepticism is based on this.
The question my branch are asking is: are we (and science) suffering under the tyranny of rationalism and reason?
Is it possible that science as a form of life can use non-rational and non-reasonable methods?
I think at least by discussing it things are progressing in a more enlightened fashion. Perhaps science can yet be saved from itself.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
“I think humans are becoming more liberated and that they are thinking more for themselves.”
Judging by what is usually on TV, I doubt that
Reality tv, etc. Briefly, I think the long term trend for humans and post-humans is positive, but the short term outlook is poor.
AC1