On the Limits of Scientific Knowledge
By Ben Williams
Introduction
Most of us have seen the picture below. Some see an old woman, her head nestled downward within a thick fur coat, others see a young lady,
face turned away. With a little practice, one can switch between the two perspectives.
The question of this year's essay-Are there limits of scientific knowledge?-can also be seen in two different ways:
Perspective #1: Can science and the scientific method tell us a story that perfectly explains everything that is happening in nature?
Perspective #2: Does scientific knowledge, as a way of knowing, in itself, have limits or shortcomings? In other words, as we live and interact
with nature from day to day, can scientific knowledge be limiting?
Although perspective #1 seems like it might be a fun exercise, the answer to this question seems of relatively little consequence to how we
live, because it attempts to only explain the world around us.
Perspective #2, however, seems more relevant to how we move forward, relate to, and live within nature. I have chosen to address this year's
essay question looking through the lens of perspective #2. From this point on, whenever I talk about scientific knowledge and/or its limits,
I will be doing so from this perspective.
Throughout the course of this essay, I will look at two different limits of scientific knowledge. In a sense, both limits can be avoided but
often are not.
Limit #1: Scientific knowledge does not apply itself without our help
"It is not the same to talk of bulls as to be in the bullring." -Old Spanish Proverb
Science and technology play an enormous role in the constant shaping of our world. We must admire the technological feats that allow us to
board a commercial airliner and be halfway across the world in less than a day; or the technologies that allow us, here in Flagstaff, to enjoy
a pineapple grown far, far away; or the countless miracles of modern medicine that permit us to live through once formidable conditions like
appendicitis, polio, and malaria; or this computer that I use to type. On many levels, the world we live in today is the result of scientific
and technological discoveries.
Yet, as we look more closely, isn't it hard to ignore the great poverty of our world, affecting not just those with little monetary wealth, but
also the "richest" among us here in the United States? It is easy to see that even here in our country, where there is more than enough food,
water, and shelter, many people sleep cold and hungry on the streets. Why is it that, in a nation that spends more money than any other nation
on nutrition and exercise research, our people struggle more than any other developed nation with obesity, addictions, and a general sense of
well-being? When we have long had the scientific knowledge and technology to reach the moon, why are we seemingly unable to live sustainably
in the small patch of forest that surrounds our mountain town?
Clearly, science plays a large role in our modern world. Few would argue that a world without the technologies given to us through science would
be a nice world to live in. Yet, more people seem to be questioning the nature of the role that science should play in a healthy world. As we
move deeper into this age of scientific dominance, we are encouraged to think that solely by acquiring scientific knowledge, we will be just
fine. Yet, by nature, science can only explain why certain phenomena occur. What remains-the application of this knowledge-is something that
science cannot do for us.
Much of the knowledge I have received at NAU and through my work at the Center for Sustainable Environments (CSE) has been science-based. Yet,
as I learn more and more about how our environment works and how potential solutions might also work, I see a wide gap between what we know
(even the simplest bits of our knowledge) and what we do or how we live. So, although this way of observing and explaining our world may not
in itself be limiting, our difficulty in applying much of our scientific knowledge makes this, as things stand today, limiting.
Limit #2: Overly-narrow scope of what is accepted as scientific knowledge
Although I am often immersed in a scientific atmosphere, I also have begun to see, primarily by reading about and being immersed in other
cultures, that the rigid and conventional scientific approach we tend to exercise isn't always the best option for all circumstances. There
seems to be a language spoken among the scientific community, and while the language itself is not inherently a problem, not being able to speak
other languages certainly can be. The following example illustrates this concept more thoroughly:
Today's nutrition scientists have found that the traditional staple foods of many Native American tribes-corn, beans, and squash-when combined,
provide a protein source that is both nutritionally complete and easily used by the human body. These tribes, of course, couldn't have possibly
known the value of combining these foods in modern scientific terms. But, it is also very unlikely that they arrived at that combination of
foods by mere chance. Although these people certainly didn't have the type of knowledge or the research capabilities that we have today, and
although they didn't speak the same language of science that scientists today speak, in a sense they were scientists nonetheless. Much of what
they learned as their diet evolved was systematic and was gained through "observation and experimentation". Their laboratories were their
individual lives, their experiments were their individual and collective experiences and sensations they felt when eating certain foods, and
their data were the conclusions they came to, and, more importantly, the change in behavior that followed and was passed down to future
generations. Their science certainly didn't quantify data in the same manner as we often do today, nor was it produced in ideal or precisely
replicable environments, nor did it get hung up on complex explanations of why certain foods made one healthy or unhealthy. Yet, at the same
time, their conclusions contributed in meaningful ways to their lives and their relationship with nature. These conclusions were passed from
generation to generation as a way of living, not merely as thoughts or knowledge or theories. In addition, these ways of living can often be
understood and validated through our modern scientific lenses. It is a huge mistake to ignore these lessons-lessons learned by people before
us-just because we don't yet have the scientific language to explain them. In the end, their scientists and our scientists learned that this
combination of foods was healthful for humans. The difference was the story they told along the way, the scientific language they spoke, and
their willingness to be open to perhaps a less rigid type of science.
I am not suggesting that science as it is practiced in our society should become more lax or less precise and accurate; however, when there is
such a strong disconnect between what we know and how well we apply even the simplest of this knowledge, at what point do we acknowledge that
we might benefit from introducing other ways of knowing, such as those exercised by the Native Americans, into our lives, simply as an addition
to our current ways? Because scientific practices today often focus on parts while failing to see the whole, continuing to use these practices
exclusively will limit the scope of what we can see and change.
Moving beyond these limits and ending the paradigm wars
The limits of scientific knowledge discussed above are by no means new ideas. Thomas Kuhn suggested that rigid, well-defined ways of knowing
could be limiting. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn describes a general pattern of scientific change, where explorations in a
given field begin with a collision of different perspectives. Eventually one approach is successful in resolving a concrete issue, and
investigators concur in pursuing that approach, or paradigm. If this newly accepted paradigm is unsuccessful in solving future problems over
time, a competing successful paradigm may emerge. Kuhn stresses that getting stuck in one paradigm while other investigators are stuck in another
creates problems:
- First, different paradigms are not readily comparable with respect to magnitude or value because the languages they use to describe nature cannot be easily translated into one another.
- Second, scientists and others in different paradigms will see different things when looking in the same places.
- Third, different paradigms often have different criteria for success, giving different values to questions and to potential answers (Kuhn, 1969).
Today's world is clearly in need of help. Climate changes threaten us and other species, wars continue to be waged among peoples, and the lifestyles many of us live are unsustainable, environmentally and otherwise.
In his book, Words Aptly Spoken, Bob Moorehead shares his thoughts about our time in history and our need for changes:
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time.
We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness...
We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years.
We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space.
We've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less...
What better time than now to examine what else we might do to change our way of thinking and living? In recent years, there has been increasing effort to move beyond the limits of scientific knowledge and improve the state of our world. Since 1990, the Mind and Life Institute has gathered periodically to share insights and move forward. This group organizes dialogues between Western scientists and the Dalai Lama to work toward a deeper understanding of different ways of knowing and probing the nature of the mind, emotions, nature, and reality. Generally speaking, the Dalai Lama and Eastern practitioners lack explanations for some natural phenomena, while Western scientists see and value the ways in which the Easterners live and relate to nature, although, as scientists, they cannot explain those ways of living and relating (Kabat-Zinn, 2005).
Hopefully, efforts such as these will continue to build momentum. Hopefully, while we still have the chance, we can continue moving beyond the limits of scientific knowledge, ensuring that this world will be one that our children and their children can enjoy as much as we do.
Download Essay:
Ben Williams - On the Limits of Scientific Knowledge
