I have by now basically established my position of pluralism, or, perhaps better put, moderate relativism; the best term for it may be perspectivism. However, just as in environmental ethics “misanthropes” are by no means any lovelier than “anthropocentrists,” relativists in the philosophy of science, if they go too far, are in my eyes even less lovable than dogmatic scientism.
Some of the more militant forms of relativism even go so far as to deny scientific progress. In their eyes, science merely keeps jumping back and forth among incommensurable paradigms, and it is impossible to say whether it is approaching truth or not; thus it is also hard to say whether science is in fact progressing or merely spinning in place.
SSK even extends its skepticism to mathematics: is mathematics too merely a social construction, with so-called progress likewise impossible to speak of? On this point I must admit that I am a conservative—our sense of the progress of mathematics is so obvious that I believe no great mathematician could possibly accept the claim that mathematical knowledge is to be put on a par with astrology.
The sense that science is advancing is as real and credible as the sense of the passage of time when people recall past experiences. Of course, under thoroughgoing skepticism, even personal identity is open to question—on what grounds can one prove that the me of now and the me of yesterday are the same me? The thoughts in my mind now and those of the me from ten years ago are probably “incommensurable,” aren’t they? How am I to demonstrate the continuity of my individual self? How am I to demonstrate that I have “grown” over these ten years? … But aren’t those doubts a bit over the top? It is fine to dabble in such metaphysical musing now and then and think about these questions, but if one is sunk in such doubts all day long, that is pretty pointless.
Mathematics is progressing, science is progressing, human horizons are constantly expanding, knowledge is constantly accumulating—these are the clearest impressions one can derive from history. It is beneficial to be skeptical of such intuitions, but to deny them simply because one cannot find a strict proof is irrational and dishonest.
Does acknowledging the progress of science necessarily lead to the arrogance of scientism? To blame the arrogance of scientism on a sense of scientific progress would be lamentable. When a person turns eighteen, a competent mother ought to remind him: “You are an adult now; you are no longer a child. You should no longer be willful and indulgent; you must learn independence, self-restraint, helping the weak, and shouldering the responsibilities that an adult ought to shoulder…” And if we were to say: “Adults are not necessarily any wiser than children; there is no distinction between maturity and immaturity; anyway, ‘anything goes’…” —would that be appropriate? Although in fact adults are indeed inferior to children in many respects, and adults do indeed easily forget many things—such as sincerity, intuition, dreams, passion, and so on—does an adult therefore have the right to evade responsibility and hold himself to a child’s standards?
A mentally healthy adult should face up to his own growth and maturity—I am no longer a child; I have experienced more, I understand more, and my strength is greater; therefore, I must shoulder more responsibility.
Maturity is also something to be proud of, because only with a “sense of pride” can there be a “sense of self-esteem”; and with a “sense of self-esteem” can there be a “sense of responsibility.” If people are not allowed to feel joy and pride at becoming adults, how can we persuade them to take the initiative in shouldering the responsibilities and mission that adults ought to bear?
Of course, unrestrained pride will lead to arrogance, complacency, and contempt for others; this is undoubtedly harmful. But to deny the feeling of pride on that account is madness.
The progress of science is the glory of the human mind, and that sense of glory itself is no sin. So long as we, like those great scientists, always remember to remain humble before the boundless depths of nature, this sense of glory will not degenerate into blind arrogance. On the contrary, this healthy sense of glory will also urge people to place themselves properly, to face squarely the ever-growing power in their own hands, and to shoulder their responsibilities proactively.
June 9, 2006
Plato Cafe
Latest Comments
- yxy
2006-06-18 21:05:27 http://yangxinyu.blogchina.com
Support.
In these past years I’ve debated with some relativist views and felt that their thinking was rather odd. I fairly much agree with your view,
healthy\reasonable\mature\responsible - Gu
My view is relatively complex; I myself haven’t really made much of it clear, and I probably still have many views you would not support. In fact, I myself am also willing to be called a relativist; by relativism I mean something opposed to absolutism, not the kind of relativism opposed to rationalism. But in any case I do not shy away from the word “relative.” At the same time I also do not shy away from the word “faith.” If rationalism is supported by faith, it can still appear quite healthy. Moving toward relativism through science and reason, and then back toward rationalism through religion and faith—that is probably the rather odd path I take…
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply