Continued elsewhere

I've decided to abandon this blog in favor of a newer, more experimental hypertext form of writing. Come over and see the new place.

Sunday, February 02, 2014

Romantic Science (or, something missing is missing)

This review by Daniel Dennett of Incomplete Nature by Terrence Deacon is interesting in itself, but one passage leaped out at me, where he attempted to delineate a split between reductionists and holists, or Enlightenment and Romantic science:
There are no entirely apt labels for the opposing sides of this gulf… Reductionism, fie! Holism, fie! …“Enlightenment” versus “Romanticism” is pretty close, as the reader can judge by considering what the following team players have in common; on the Enlightenment side: Darwin, Turing, Minsky, Dawkins, both Crick and Edelman (in spite of their antagonisms), Tibor Gánti, E. O. Wilson, Steven Weinberg, Paul and Patricia Churchland, and both Raymond Kurzweil and me (in spite of our antagonisms). On the Romantic side are arrayed Romanes and Baldwin, Kropotkin, Stephen Jay Gould, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, Stuart Kauffman, Roger Penrose, Ilya Prigogine, Rupert Sheldrake, and the philosophers John Haugeland, Evan Thompson, Alicia Juarrero, John Searle, ... Jerry Fodor and Thomas Nagel.
I’m not sure Varela and Gould would appreciate being lumped in with Rupert Sheldrake, and they aren’t around to defend themselves, but never mind. I suppose another label for the gulf would be greedy mechanistic reductionists on one side, vs. those who have some qualms about it. The qualms might be similar, they probably all stem from a sense that viewing minds and organisms as machines leaves out something important – the “aching void” that Dennett refers to. But the things they choose to fill the void aren’t all the same, which is why the lumping is inappropriate.

Romantic science is a recognized thing, but that wiki page makes it seem like a purely historical phenomenon, whereas Dennett recognizes as a living force today. Most remarkably, he says that Deacon’s book has caused him to shift his views in the Romantic direction, to the degree where he is “re-examining fundamental working assumptions”. That I guess is a pretty big deal from someone as prominent as Dennett and someone so identified with straight-ahead materialism.

It reminded me of a similar-but-different dichotomy I came up with the other day, between what I think of as mainstream science, roughly the same as Dennett’s first group, that is, mechanistic and reductionist, and people like Haeckel, D’arcy Thompson, Rene Thom, Buckminster Fuller, Christopher Alexander, and Adrian Bejan whose book instigated the discussion. This group, which probably also includes Prigogine, tend to be more obsessed with form and geometry than mechanism, which gives them a somewhat marginal quality, even when they are obviously right. Their tendency to reinvent metaphysics from the ground up also tends to make them marginalized, even crankish, although their very real achievements undercuts this. I’d say this is a cousin or sub-family of Romanticsm, and driven by some of the same underlying forces. Alexander especially makes this very explicit, that his entire work in architecture, aesthetics, and metaphysics is driven by a need to make a place for what he calls “the quality of life”, which has been exiled from the mainstream mechanical universe.

I guess I need to read Deacon’s book, but my sense is that this dichotomy is never going to be solved or go away. Science by its nature takes a depersonalized (or more precisely, de-subjectivized) view of the universe. Attempts to re-graft subjectivity onto the results of science always seem forced and unsatisfactory. The work of the Romantics, valuable though it may be, has its value in design philosophies or moral philosophies or something else that is on the borders of science but is not itself science. That’s one reason it is attractive, most of us aren’t practicing scientists and are hence are more interested in the consequences of scientific results to our standing in the universe than in the science itself.


jed said...

Actually I think the dichotomy is in the process of going away. One of Alexander's early, central examples is the way we recognize "a circle" even if carelessly drawn in the dust by a child's finger. Obviously a classical / mechanistic definition of a circle won't work here but we are gaining the ability to emulate this sort of human skill through adaptive modeling (statistical learning).

Alexander did not at all like this when I explained it to him.

I expect we'll end up with a unification that disappoints many of the romantics because it has no need for their ineffable qualities, but still works well for all their examples. It will include the mechanistic perspective as a somewhat odd, crippled special case.

Crawfurdmuir said...

Mtraven wrote: "I’m not sure Varela and Gould would appreciate being lumped in with Rupert Sheldrake(...)"

I'm not sure Sheldrake would appreciate being lumped in with Stephen Jay Gould.

They seem to have in common a certain amount of wishful thinking, and a propensity to engage in the moralistic fallacy. Yet from what little I know of Sheldrake, he never deliberately fudged data to support his extra-scientific beliefs.

Gould, to all appearances, did:

And why did he do so? Because he was a Marxist, who "once boasted that he had learned his Marxism 'literally at [my] daddy's knee.'"

As a Marxist, Gould could not admit anything that might even tend to suggest that the inequalities between individuals or the races of mankind originated in innate characteristics. To do so would have contradicted the Marxist orthodoxy that all such inequalities were solely the results of unjust social and economic organization, which both could and should disappear were the society and economy to be reorganized along Marxist lines. He was thus driven to "debunk" Morton's work, even if that involved engaging in a supposedly noble lie in order so to do.

The "International Socialist Review" obituary of Gould linked above is headlined "Stephen Jay Gould: Dialectical Biologist." It reminds me of Sidney Hook's challenge to members of the Frankfurt School to provide "an illustration from any field of a statement that was scientifically true but dialectically false or one that was dialectically true but scientifically false." Hook was never answered. Given Gould's self-proclaimed adherence to the supposed dialectical "laws" (as noted in the ISR article), we may suppose that had he been similarly challenged, in like fashion, he also would not have responded.

Gould's Darwinism ceased operating whenever it came into conflict with his fidelity to Marxism. In the end, he was a charlatan, a worthy successor to Trofim Lysenko, and all the more dangerous to science because he was cleverer and more subtle than Lysenko, and motivated not (as Lysenko was) by fear and toadyism in the presence of a totalitarian despot like Stalin, but rather by his own sincere belief.

Christy Rodgers said...

The one reality science cannot reduce is the only reality we will ever know," says Jonah Lehrer. Reductionism violates aspects of perception and cognition that are central to the human experience - and in fact continue to provide much of what makes human life feel rich and integral. No wonder some scientists are searching for ways to transcend reductionism and still be scientists. As far as the vast majority of human beings who are not scientists are concerned, scientists are increasingly caught on the horns of the "who're ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" dilemma (with thanks to Groucho Marx). A little less epistemological hubris might be healthy. While anti-science forces with a political agenda are a serious concern, not all or even most of those who question reductionism are guilty of terminal woo, closet religiosity or wishful thinking. Nice to hear Dennett being so open-minded.