Nomulous Blog

This is a school essay. It may seem weird that I would write like this on my personal blog, but now you know why. Also, I know rationalism is usually presented as opposed to empiricism, that is, thinking philosophers vs. experimenting scientists, etc., but in school we were pretty much talking about rationalism vs. Dostoevsky-style “irrationalsim”.

The most important tenet of science and rational thought was famously uttered by the Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, and still holds together the foundations of rational knowledge today: “I know that I know nothing.” At first glance, the importance of this statement is easily overlooked, or even passed off as a pretentious oxymoron without any true meaning. However, any rational mind would beg to differ; it is the only thing that draws the line between science and every other belief system known to human kind.

If one were to question an atom of belief of any kind, say for example that the sky is blue, they would have every right to suggest the possibility that we live in a computer program (à la Matrix), that the sky does not really exist, and therefore cannot possibly be blue. A scientist, who would, of course, be more specific, perhaps saying that the matter which forms the atmosphere of planet Earth reflects a majority of photon beams of a certain frequency range (around 606-668 THz), would have no trouble countering this argument. The solution is no simpler than to instead make the abstract statement, “if we are indeed living in a universe as it is perceived by our senses, then the sky is blue.” This, although it is not all-encompassing, deals with the possibility that we are all dreaming, that our senses deceive all of us, et cetera.

Alas, this tool does not take into account the infinitely improbable possibility that the data collected is wrong, and the sky is actually yellow. A better example of this would would be a known chemical reaction, such as the mixture of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and vinegar (acetic acid), which forms a bubbling concoction of water, carbon dioxide, and sodium acetate. This reaction has surely been observed thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times, and has always produced the same result. However, this knowledge is still perhaps incorrect; it is possible (but infinitely improbable), that mixing baking soda and vinegar sometimes produces solid steel, but that this has simply never been observed or recorded. Thus, chemistry, or any other science for that matter, can only present its analysis of something as theory, such as the theory of evolution or the Big Bang theory, as likely as that theory is to be correct. If, somehow, the aforementioned reaction was observed to have produced solid steel, the “theory” behind mixing baking soda and vinegar (not to mention many, many of the fundamental principles of physics and chemistry) would have to be revised. In fact, this sort of thing happens every time there is a new scientific discovery, albeit on a much less drastic scale. New theories are formed, old ones disproven. Science upholds the principle set out by Socrates so long ago by taking nothing for granted. Admitting that nothing is impossible does not make any knowledge invalid, it only adds an invisible layer of abstraction to every piece of knowledge in every field of study. This layer is “invisible” because if you ask a chemist what happens when mixing these two kitchen staples, he or she is unlikely to begin the response with “Well, if you assume that we are not in The Matrix, that we are not all dreaming, that the data gathered in the world’s chemistry labs is an accurate representation of reality…”

This, in the end, is what conquers the arguments against rationalism in general. An “anti-rationalist”, if you will, would perhaps begin an argument with questioning the very nature of the universe: does it really abide by a certain set of laws, or are some things completely random and unexplainable? What if fairies control everything from la-la land? Well, although a true scientist would never rule out these possibilities, they are not, of course, part of scientifically accepted theory, because the general pattern of all experimental data does not suggest these things. However, a rationalist never uses thought as a concrete source of information, that is, until the layer of “ifs” added on top of it. Then, it becomes objective, undeniable truth. What other school of thought is there? Irrationalism? Saying things that don’t make sense?

Descartes tried to assume nothing, not even his own existence, but in the end he became frustrated and jumped to conclusions. Spinoza did the same. As later scientists recognized, this was the wrong way to go about things, and he should instead have simply taken these assumptions into account within his philosophy. Although any scientist would love to, there is simply no way of knowing whether our senses deceive us completely, as they are our only form of “communication” with the world around us.

In the end, the mistake that is made in attempting to criticize science is what it means to people in the first place. The very word “science” is egregiously misinterpreted and misrepresented every day. It is not a “narrow minded” way of looking at things, always under a microscope or in a test tube, it is not a set of fundamental beliefs. There is good science and bad science, but, in its true form, it is the search for truth; whatever is true is adopted as “scientific” truth, whatever “science” holds (including that important layer) must be true. Labeling it “science” gives many people who do not understand it the opportunity to claim it is one of many sources of knowledge, though it is really the sum of all things known to be true.

Perhaps the Moon really is made of cheese, but unfortunately every single rover or testing device we’ve put up there mistakenly had space dust smeared across its sensors?