by Tom KandoAs I promised, I am sharing with you further details of David Deutsch’s marvelous book - The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations that Transform the World . Last time, I summarized his main thesis. Today, I want to tell you about his attitude, his background and his love for the Enlightenment.
1. Deutsch's erudition
The author sometimes reads like a know-it-all who pontificates ex cathedra. He seems to say that we should just accept his views; his authority (which is EXACTLY what he preaches against throughout his book). For example, he tells us several times that the “Spaceship Earth” metaphor is an error, as are the concepts of the biosphere and a sustainable planetary environment. He calls these ideas “parochial.” He never equivocates, when telling us which ideas and philosophers are right, and what and who is wrong. For instance, Plato? Somewhat of a dufus who largely misunderstood Socrates.
No wonder that some reviewers have accused him of chutzpah, of being a know-it-all.
But I, for one, have been won over to his side. That is because his arguments are often so intelligent and sophisticated that (1) I either don’t understand them (as when he covers Quantum Theory and the mathematics of Infinity, or (2) they CONVINCE:
For example, he repeatedly reminds us that gravity does not exist (112, 345), and this is backed up by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (107), which has been proven.
Another misconception which he convincingly corrects is the oft-heard fasehood that the Roman numerical system could not multiply and divide (and, I might add, that it did not know the concept of zero, which is supposed to have been invented by the Mayans). I have often wondered how a civilization could engineer better aqueducts than we can in the 21st century, with such a deficient mathematical system.
Deutsch also points out that the transition from a "tallying" numerial system to a universal arithmetic originated in India, and Arabs only transmitted it to the West.
Another error according to the author, is our mis-interpretation of Darwin's (originally Herbert Spencer's) expression "survival of the fittest" (91): Genetic evolution does not necessarily favor the optimal adaptation of a species, and therefore its survival, but the maximal spread of a mutation through a species population - for better or for worse for the species itself. That said, Deutsch is very much a neo-Darwinist.
2. Deutsch is a disciple of Karl Popper
Throughout the book, and especially in Chapter 12 (“A Physicist’s History of Bad Philosophy”), it is clear that Deutsch approves of no other philosopher more than Karl Popper, the great 20th century Austro-British philosopher. Deutsch studied under Popper, who clearly seems to be his principal mentor. Deutsch builds upon Popper. It was Popper who first repudiated straight empirical observationist/inductivist science. Instead, he advocated a method based on the falsifiability and refutability of hypotheses and theories. Central to science, according to Popper, is criticism, and this carries over into the social and political realm: Popper was an ardent supporter of liberal democracy based on social criticism. The object of the political process, he argued, is not to attempt the creation of a perfect utopia a la Plato’s Republic, but the removal of bad government. These ideals are only possible in dynamic, open societies such as those which emerged in the West from the Enlightenment onward.
3. The Uniqueness of the Enlightenment
Deutsch doesn’t mince words as to when and where the “Beginning of Infinity” started: It occurred during the European Enlightenment; of the 17th and 18th centuries. Only then did our species embark on the trajectory of GOOD EXPLANATIONS, a trajectory towards potentially infinite scientific and moral progress.
For most of the 100,000 years that Homo Sapiens has existed, we have stagnated. There were occasional advances, such as fire, the wheel, and agriculture, but by and large there was no progress. Human knowledge consisted of “rules of thumb,” which could be useful, but fell short of good explanations. The chief reason for stagnation was that knowledge was based on authority. If one asked “why is this true?” The answer was “take my word for it.”
Since the Enlightenment, this is no longer the case. Progress became possible after authority began to be questioned. This, then, can change the Universe.
Here, the historian in me becomes a little squeamish about some of Deutsch’ strong assertions: According to the author, all earlier starts towards scientific progress were either not truly scientific, or they were aborted. ONLY the 17th-18th century Enlightenment is the real thing. The Neolithic Revolution? A dead-end. Ancient Greece (Pythagoras, Euclid, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), same thing: no thrust towards UNIVERSAL explanations.
Deutsch even dismisses the French enlightenment’s contribution, accepting only the English part of it (66). Gratuitously, Newton is accepted as central (as he should be, of course), but Descartes and Voltaire are not, and if a Frenchman is accepted (E.g. Condorcet) he is conveniently described as an Englishman “in spirit.” Laplace and other French scientists? Never mind. This is a ludicrous bit of “parochialism,” and I dwell on it because I have long felt that Anglo-Saxon chauvinism needs to be counterbalanced by French chauvinism (of which I am a guilty).
Deutsch does recognize some mini-enlightenments which were, alas, aborted. For example 15th century Florence under Lorenzo de Medici. This came to a crash at the hands of the monk Savonarola.
I would like to suggest one more mini-enlightenment which Deutsch forgot: The 18th century American Founding Fathers - including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamiltion. After all, what better example is there of an effort to eliminate a bad government in favor of a better one?
But not to quibble: Deutsch is absolutely right that the Enlightenment was the pivotal turning point in human progress. Most knowledge prior to that consisted of rules of thumb, i.e. non-explanatory human knowledge (94). Its quintessential idea is that progress is both desirable and attainable (133). It is the beginning of a scientific revolution based on the search for UNIVERSAL explanations, a revolution which continues to gain momentum even three and half centuries later.
In the next part of my review, I will tell you about the author's critique of various philosophies, his conception of the human mind, the Universe, his values and politics, and his vision of the future - all topics of central importance to me personally. leave comment here
6 comments:
Hello Tom:
I am enjoying Deutsh's work based on your skilled summary/interpretation of it-I plan or reading the book later this year. I think that this author has some really good ideas. I am relieved that we can finally get out of theorizing around postmodernism and other paradigms that essentially derive from the very frame that they are supposed to liberate us from. I think that "The Beginning of Infinity" by Deutsh allows a new way of seeing that breaks more traditional scientific frames and enables us to look outside as well as think outside of the box and see evolution as composed of our creativity and evolution of thought. It is amazing to me that we still lack so much knowledge and insight about the world. For instance, I was told some time ago that the color red, was discovered about 1000 years ago...Not sure. But the fact that our perception of what can be seen is incomplete means that we can not reach 100% empirical truth about anything. Also, I believe that the structure or form that our society has taken is at its last stage of linear grwoth and will change into something else, especially as Americans are running out of money and the divide between rich and poor makes social relationships more strained and uneven between and even within social classes.
Thanks for sharing this wonderful book and bringing in new ways of thinking. I am enjoying this and happy to learn about something that fits well with my interests in philosophy and human evolution.
Gail Wallace-
Gail,
thank you for your incisive comments. Sometimes you really hit the nail on the head, as in this well written commentary.
I wish more people would react like you - showing interest in a subject that may seem esoteric, but should in fact be important to all of us.
Tom, I agree with you. This subject is of great importance. Our world is on the verge of a paradigm shift. It is exciting to see the gradual changes that go into creating shifts in human experience, thinking, evolution, etc.,. I am happy that I am able to read your interpretation of this fascinating topic and hopefully, we will get into some heated debates as others share their reactions/input later.
Thanks,
Gail
I have just begun reading Deutsh. In the early going at least, I find myself reacting as you have but even more strongly, to his assertion that...
"For most of the 100,000 (sic) years that Homo Sapiens has existed, we have stagnated." AND, "Since the Enlightenment, this is no longer the case."
Tallis, in Aping Mankind, makes ample use of a concept that I have employed for a long time; "Scientism". In years past I used this idea to refer to the misuse and abuse of the method and meaning of science. It is only in the past decade, as I have contemplated the practical problems that confront the human enterprise beyond the nuclear holocaust of my youthful imaginings, to polluted oceans, climate, economics, human freedom, dignity, love and the construction of meaning in general -- that that I have come to realize the problem runs deeper.
The confounding of Darwinian timescales lies at the core of the misunderstanding. From an evolutionary standpoint, our rise to consciousness, and thereafter, the continuation of our faculty for producing a sense of time and causation, was predicated upon our collaborative construction of storied pasts and imagined futures. The ability is what makes possible the emergence of our selves -- You, I, We and Them.
Our penchant for constructing our webs of shared meaning was "selected for" over 200,000 years ago. History, in which stories become rendered as artifacts imbued with widely shared meanings, begins between 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. This dating can be argued but we are still talking about historical humanity in terms that are orders of magnitude shorter than evolutionary humanity.
The assumption made in Scientistic belief is that our instrumentalization of the world is what accounts for our success. Deutsh suggests that a mere 500 - 300 years ago, historical humans made a great leap in their ability to get their explanatory schemes unstuck and increasingly "right" going forward, "infinitely". (The voice of the Pragmatists, I think.)
But if evolutionary man was "selected for", why should we think that short-lived historical man has gone evolutionary selection one better though "right thinking method" self-improvement program?
The teleological thinking that brings us to such a conclusion is upside down. The human faculty for behaving with agency in the context of a symbolic web is not realized by design. It is a process rooted in the emergence of shared belief produced as we call each other into existence. This belief is irreducible. It is the mythic glue brings us and holds us together in a storied moral relation amongst our collaboratively constructed selves. From the standpoint of Scientistic thinking, this web of shared belief is insubstantial, immaterial and superstitious.
At bottom our awareness of self, others and the world is based in unreasonable belief, and when we deconstruct that belief, a moral mythology, the entropy of the system that is us, increases.
By what measure can explanations be said to be "better"?
By their efficacy of course, but efficacy to what end? Are the best ends those that enable us to affect the world and ourselves more powerfully? Technology what end?
Maybe a better end is to promote a superstitious sacred mythology that runs contrary the evidence presented by selish-gene believers, of an unreasoned and unreasonable responsibility amongst ourselves and with the world. This is not a job for scientifically "better" explaining in which one thing leads to another. It is a philosophical task in which we must assert the meaning of right and wrong.
Whether the disciples of Scientism claim to know the truth or merely to know what works in truth, their method provides no insight into determining what roads we should take going forward and what roads we should not take.
I thank Marc for his words.
As usual, he provides a fantastic comment. A true intellectual. Which also means that, while I am smart enough to understand him, he is over 99% of people’s head.
I can’t do justice to this comment, but to say that:
(1) I agree that there is a perverted form of true science which we can call “scientism.”
(2) I understand that Marc disagrees with Deutsch about the allegedly unique value of the Enlightenment.
(3) Marc doesn’t accept Deutsch’s unequivocal statement that the types of explanations typical of the Enlightenment are absolutely “better.”
(4) Humans may be a select breed but, according to Marc, not necessarily the way Deutsch sees it...
What I like the most about the book is his optimism about the future of the world through the power of knowledge. Wow.
But cannot knowledge also be used to destroy? He has the insurmountable task of proving that problems, when solved, will make things better.
In theory, I guess, that's true. That 'bad explanations' are at the core of our troubles. I think he over-estimates the average person's ability to think logically. But as a philosophy it’s very appealing.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!