Psychology 115a

Professor Lappin

September 13, 2000

Are You Sure?

Jacob Bronowski’s message in The Ascent of Man helps to pull the ideas in The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination from an abstract level to one that affects us all. While the paper obviously cannot focus on the movie because we only saw a short clip, the movie answers what Bronowski only subtly explained in the book: Linus Pauling’s question, "OK, why should I care

. . . how the world is really put together?" (118). Because, he says, we are people first and then scientists, and the way we view the world affects how we go about our scientific pursuits. He uses the poignant example of the Nazi philosophy in the 1930’s and early 1940’s; the Nazis were certain that they held the absolute truth, and with that power, they destroyed millions of lives. Only by admitting that we will never know anything with complete certainty can we avoid such awful mistakes of pride. Understanding Bronowski’s arguments then becomes critical not only for the philosophers, theoretical scientists or mathematicians, but for each and every one of us.

Bronowski’s first lectures reveal that "the division between man as a receiver of sensations, and man as a thinker, an actor in the world, is mistaken" (93). He begins with eyesight, because it is our main way of perceiving the world. The link between what images run before our eyes and what we see is not that of a projector screen. We do not have apparatus delicate enough to see in that way. Instead, our mind knows the general way in which things present themselves in nature, and it translates the spots of light into images, especially searching to make lines and curves. His discussion of sight is important because it mirrors the way our imaginations, though not physical, are limited to creations that could be perceived by our senses. Sight determines a large part of how we view the world and how science has evolved. Our imaginations spark the creativity necessary for science and determine how we respond and create a world of our own to present to others. Thus realizing that we are limited in our perception and in our formulation of ideas is a big step to working past the narrow way in which we define reality.

Symbolic systems play an enormous role in how we define reality. I have heard said in the past that one does not "know" something definitively unless one can put that idea into words. While we may have a innate sense of how the world works, language, mathematics, and other such systems put these ideas into a standard format that can be examined by all who have learned the algorithms. While such standardization has been a huge advancement for civilization and helps us interact with others, we must realize, Bronowski points out, that no such system will ever be adequate to express everything contained within the reality around us.

Using language as his first example, Bronowski discusses the way in which every sentence, no matter how simple, will always contain ambiguities. We cannot detach our speech from the context, gestures, or tone with which we speak. In interpreting speech, other people search for the real, hidden meaning, and even our knowledge of this fact affects what we say and how we say it. The simplicity of the system is therefore wrecked. We know that language has not answered the question of finding and defining truth, because in any sentence, we look for the truth behind the words. Language, as any other system, will only ever be a tool for gaining and expressing more knowledge.

Mathematics, too, will never encompass all truths, as Kurt Gödel proved in 1931. (I find it ironic to say "proved" while discussing the fact that nothing is known for certain.) Any such system based on certain axioms will fall short, because there will always be some true statements that it cannot prove true. To do so, it would have to contain an infinite number of axioms, which we cannot obtain because we are, as Bronowski keeps reminding us, limited creatures in a limited world. In addition, there is the problem of self-reference. To encompass all truth, one would have to use the system to prove the system, which would result in an endless loop. It would be like saying that the system is true according to itself - and what credibility would that have? Only by always going outside of any system can we see its truth or falsity.

Science today struggles constantly with the frustration of unsolvable mysteries. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, for instance, proved that we will never be able to say both where an electron is located and with what velocity it is traveling. Even more confusing is Einstein’s theory of relativity, which has completely overthrown the world of physics. Besides destroying the older ideas of Newtonian physics, Einstein brought with his new physics ideas that are inexplicable, almost unfathomable even in our imagination. He took physics into a theoretical realm, and helped to carry it away from the idea that we can understand completely how physical bodies move and work. By throwing a curve into straight-forward science, he helped Bronowski’s cause of showing people that definite, closed theories will not adequately describe our world.

Science cannot be "cold and calculating" nor define reality as a whole. We feel something intuitively that reveals how the world functions - something that can never be defined by a set of principles. Knowledge advances when people use that intuition to try and open up a piece of the world. However, Bronowski says, science can only ever deal with one small part of reality that it tries to suspend and separate from the rest, and we know that life is completely tied together. Our science is only made up of "interpretations of natural phenomena," and will never be able to define nature itself.

Bronowski makes a simple but profound statement in the last chapter that helps to tie his previous ideas into the world of scientific discovery: "To go looking for the truth only has a point if the truth has not already been found" (121). Here, once again, he shows why a narrow mind-set about truth confines people and keeps them from excelling to higher levels. He explains that truth cannot be viewed as an object to be attained and then coveted, but rather it is a constant search for something nebulous that we, as limited beings, will never fully attain.

Many may take this idea that no one can uncover the ultimate truth as a reason to surrender and cease all scientific pursuits. Bronowski has no intentions of the sort. He believes strongly in the progress of mankind and is an obvious supporter of intellectual discoveries. He only reminds us of our limitations to assure that we will avoid the arrogance and self-righteous attitude that arises from the belief of absolute knowledge. Such a close-minded attitude, besides being dangerous, makes for poor science, because creativity, daring, and the testing of known limits are at the root of discovery. If we believe we know everything, we will not go beyond that box we have set up for ourselves, and, ironically, through the feeling of infinite wisdom, we limit ourselves even further.

We are physically limited, mentally limited, and therefore limited in the systems which we can produce to describe reality. We should not be disheartened by this fact, though, because everything we know is the same way, and only God (or some such infinite being) can transcend all limitations. From Oedipus Rex to the Tower of Babel to Hitler, stories and reality have reminded us about the danger of trying to "play God" - to strive for the infinite or believe that we have attained it. Rather than begrudging or denying our limitations, we should know them well so that with that unbiased knowledge we can go out and seek to learn more about the world. Truth will never be fully grasped, and scientists will always have more to learn, but the chase will keep us infinitely fascinated forever.