Re: Prigogine & Co.

        Yes, my last post was misleading.  By natural science I really
meant to say physics and chemistry.  Clearly, the appearance of life on
Earth, and probably elsewhere throughout the universe, introduced
animation into the cosmos.  All the biological sciences deal with an
intensely animate nature, a nature becoming steadily more complex and
versatile over hundreds of millions of years.  It is also possible that
the particles of quantum physics and the atoms and molecules of chemistry,
which alone make life possible, are themselves a form of proto-life.  My
full embrace of materialism forces me to believe, without being able to
prove or demonstrate, that the cosmos is a single great unified entity,
all parts necessary to and implicit in the whole.  For thirty years and
more I have called my personal religion the Service of Being, by which I
mean all being.  I think we owe an almost filial piety to rocks and stars,
as well as to fish and trees.

        But I also believe that with the emergence of Homo sapiens in
eastern Africa, and perhaps long before that, our part of the cosmos at
least experienced a tremendous leap forward in complexity, as life-forms
evolved that were capable of consciousness, deep memory, reasoning,
tool-making, cooperation, and culture far beyond anything hitherto known
in the history of life and matter.  The real (or apparent?) liberation of
will from instinct and even experience multiplies the possibilities for
such creatures geometrically, not to mention for all the rest of creation
within their power.  Although these creatures are still made of flesh and
blood, atoms and molecules, and, of course, quarks, they are at least as
different from fish and trees as fish and trees are different from viruses
and crystals.  The sciences that account for simpler levels of existence
do not become irrelevant, but new sciences are needed to grapple with this
very different realm of being, and metaphors, analogies, and alleged
correspondences between human and non-human nature must be used sparingly,
cautiously, and with full respect for the magnitude of the differences.
My reading of intellectual history over the past 400 years suggests that
nearly all previous efforts to establish a consilience of natural and
social science have essentially failed.

        All that said, I will contradict muself enough to add that the
findings of the life sciences persuade me that Homo sapiens is a single
species of relatively recent geological origin, which has globalized the
Earth and now needs to live together in peace, unity, justice, and
sister-brother-hood under the rule of a common law and a universal
prohibition of the exploitation of "man by man."  For its own sake and
from reverence for all being, that new world order must also conserve the
planet and the solar system, which have given us our very breath.

        Warren


On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Trichur Ganesh wrote:

> Nature, I argue, is not "inanimate", and here is the place where I
> disagree with Wagar.  Why should nature be considered a lifeless domain
> - even if some 'natural scientists' see it that way?  Why should social
> scientists see nature as inanimate and find 'animateness' only in human
> beings?  I find this a really forced separation and hence cannot help
> disagreeing with Wagar's perspective.  Ganesh.
>
> Shelton Gunaratne wrote:
>
> > At 08:32 PM 6/18/2003 -0400, wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> >> My point is that social scientists should be not just wary, but
> >> absolutely reluctant, to seek confirmation of their findings in the
> >> realm
> >> of the natural sciences.  The essential difference remains that
> >> natural
> >> scientists deal with inanimate stuff, and social scientists deal
> >> with
> >> animate us, i.e., human beings.  The gulf is measureless.
> >>
> >> Warren
> >
> >
> > I agree with Warren that social scientists should be careful when
> > applying
> > the principles of physics (Newton) or chemistry (Prigogine).
> > However,  nomothetic
> > social science has emulated Newtonian mechanics for more than 150
> > years. Is
> > Warren suggesting that we should discontinue any relationship with
> > hard
> > sciences and go back to establish the supremacy of philosophy?
> > Prigogine
> > suggests (as does Wallerstein, I believe) that philosophy can lead the
> > hard
> > sciences. Let's not forget the interdependence of all living things
> > (as Buddha
> > propounded). Systems theory implicitly affirmed a major element of
> > Buddhist
> > philosophy.
> >
> > --Shelton
> >
>