Reenchantment»Science Reenchantment Theory,Scientific Naturalism from Prof.David Ray Griffin!Back.
- Science Reenchantment Theory,Scientific Naturalism from Prof.David Ray Griffin.
Prof.David Ray Griffin,one of the cardinal Master of Philosophy and Professor of Claremont School in California,proposed warned us earthlings:
"Modernity,rather than being regarded as the norm for human society toward which all history has been aiming and into which all societies should be ushered--forcibly if necessary--is instead increasingly seen as an aberration.A new respect for the wisdom of traditional societies is growing as we realize that they have endured for thousands of years and that,by contrast,the existence of modern society for even another century seems doubtful...".Below is some brief introduction about the theory related with his terrifying conclusions.This is only a brief introduction,the quoted literature are reference and attributed to its author.
- Disenchantment:its brief history,ironic conclusion of modern science!
At the root of Modenity and its discontents lies what Max Weber(April 21st,1864~June 14th,192) called "the disenchantment of the world.".Prof.Griffin's viewpoint about the disenchantment procedure briefly means,as tips:
1st.Basically,its meaning,what does the "disenchantment of nature" mean?Most fundamentally,Prof.Griffin summarized that "it means the denial to nature of all subjectivity,all experiences,all feelings",wow,this sounds really something terrible,if modern science start from this hypothesis.
2nd.Its history,or the history of modern science,before Weber,Freidrich Schiller used the term "Entgotterung" to describe this procedure,which literally means the dedivinization of nature.Web's term for disenchantment was "Entzauberung",which literally means "taking the magic out"(1).Griffin pointed out that "success of the objectifying,mechanistic,reductionistic approach in physics soon led to the conviction that it should be applied to all of reality.",and he hold a viewpoint that since those pioneers Galileo,Descartes,Boyle,and Newton,the God got drived off,and then thinkers turned this deism into complete atheism,and they got a conclusion belittle the soul of man,which they concluded that "the human soul or mind was first said to be 'epiphenomenal,'which meant that it was real but only as an effect,not as a cause;later thinkers,believing nature should have no idle wheels,denied that it was a distinct entity at all,declaring it to be simply one of the brain's emergent properties."(1)
3rd.Prof.Griffin hold a viewpoint and pointed out some ironic conclusion of modern science and complete of disenchantment,as he proposed that:"The ironic conclusion is that modern science,in disenchanting nature,began a trajectory that ended by disenchanting science itself.If all human life is meaningless,then science,as one of its activities,must have share in this meaninglessness.For some time,many held that science at least gives us the truth,even if a bleak one.Much recent thought,however,has concluded that science does not even give us that.The disenchantment is complete."(2).The most funny deduction from this conclusion of Dr.Griffin is that someone you or me may realize that If science could not even give truth,then...
4th.Prof.Griffin proposed that "The cultural effect of modern science has been to make scientists the only 'acknowledged legislator' of humankind,because its worldview has ruled out the posibility that metaphysics,theology,or poetry woulds have anything to add."(3).Then in the world where science declared it effective,most funny deduction from this conclusion can be deduced.
Griffin pointed out that "The modern consensus then,as reflected in the preceding quotations,has been that science and disenchantment go hand in hand.On the one hand,it is assumed,science can only be applied to that which has already been disenchanted,which means deanimated.To deanimate is to remove all anima or soul,in Plato's sense of a self-moving thing which determines itself,at least partly,in terms of its desire to realize particular values.On the other hand,it is assumed that the application of the scientific method to anything confirms the truth of the disenchanted view of it,that it can be adequately understood in purely impersonal terms,as embodying no creativity,no self-determination in terms of values or norms,and nothing that could be considered divine."(4).
With above conclusion,Prof.David suggested that there is necessity to make a differentiation between the so called "modern science" and "science as such itself",as he proposed that "Because it has disenchanted the world,many people have become disenchanted with science....Others,however,have distinguished between modern science,which disenchanted,and science as such,which may be open to reenchantment."(5).
- Challenging ideas and Converging Reasons against Disenchantment.
Dr.Griffin pointed out very challenging ideas,about the disenchanting march of modernity continued in most areas and countermovement has been occuring in the fields of philosophy,history,sociology and psychology of science and in the sciences themselves.This movement,which has acquired great momentum in the latter half of the 20th century,has cut the tie between science and disenchantment,thereby opening the way for the reenchantment of science.
From his insight and einsicht viewpoint,there are four major reasons why the seemingly necessary connection between science and disenchantment is being broken,briefly they are:a new view of the nature of science, a new view of the origin of modern science,new developments within science itself,and reflections on the mind-body problem.Below is some brief introduction about these four major reasons.
A.A new view of the nature of science:As Prof.Griffin pointed out:"Science as a cognitive system was thought to be essentially value-free,except for those values that are internal to science itself,i.e.,its distinctive way of pursuing truth.But now it is widely held that this separation is not possible and that the social factors affect science essentially,not just superficially.",also he hold that "As alluded to above,the old view,according to which science seeks truth and nothing but truth and alone gives us truth,has been placed in some circles by the opposite view,according to which science neither gives nor seeks truth......Other worldviews,based on equally legitimate interests,are equally valid."(6).
So,Prof.Griffin concluded that:"Rejection of this extreme view does not require a return to the dominant modern view.Recognition that the scientific community seeks truth is fully compatible with the recognition that the truths it seeks are selected according to various interests and prejudices.......Recognition that science has discovered a wide range of truths is compatible with the conviction that a wide range of truths it has not discovered exists,and that its formulations of the truths it has discovered are one-sided,presenting only abstractions from the full truth.Recognition that there must be some truth to the 'modern scientific worldview',which supports and it supported by the select truths of modern science,is fully compatible with the view that other world-view exist that,all things considered,correspond equally well or even better to the full nature of reality..Hence,we do not have to deny that science is capable of discovering truths and that it sometimes does so in order to recognize the various ways and enormous degrees to which the worldview,the methods,and the results of the scientific community at any time and place are products of extrascientific interests and prejudices.It is this recognition that is the main point.It is freeing many people from the assumption that the modern disenchanted worldview is either proved or presupposed by science as such."(7).
The extreme view from Dr.Griffin mentioned,as he pointed above,means "the worldview of science is 'true' in the sense and only in the sense,according to this view,that it works,it.that it is successfully in terms of this particular interest."(8).
B.A new view of the origin of modern science:
The second,Prof.Grffin suggested that reexamining the origin of modern science,surprisingly that there are three major conclusions have reversed long-held assumptions,and how sensibly he briefly listed them as:
(1).First,the atheistic,materialistic worldview of today does not have behind it the authority of the seventeenth-century founders of modern science,such as Galileo,Mersenne,Descartes,Boyle,and Newton.Their mechanistic view of nature was incorporated within a supernaturalistic and dualistic framework that was by no means incidental to them.
Dr.Griffin followed and explained some point that "The mechanistic picture of the human body was used by Descartes,Boyle,and Locke to support the doctrine of an immortal soul:if the mortal,material body is composed of parts devoid of the power of self-motion,obviously something in us is different in kind from matter.The defense of miracles was one of the main motives for mechanism."
(2).Second,Even this particularly mechanistic view,in which(nonhuman) nature was viewed mechanistically,was not the context presupposed by many of the discoveries usually considered to lie at the root of modern science.Harvey was an Aristotelian,and Copernicus,Gilbert,and Newtown thought in terms of a "magical" worldview,in which attraction at a distance was central.
(3).and Third,the mechanistic view of nature was adopted less for empirical than for theological,sociological,and political reasons.
Prof.Griffin also pointed out another extrascientific influences,the masculine science of nature in contrast with the femine or hermaphrodite science of the Alchemists and other Hermeticists.Behind it is the dualism between God and the human soul as subjects,on the other hand,nature as a realm of pure objectivity,with no inherent values,on the other,also provided a neat division of territory between theology and politics on the one hand,and natural science on the other.The implicit pledge by science to be value-neutral and not to deal with theological matter(except perhaps to give indirect support) removed any reason for the State and the Church to take offense at science's conclusions and hence any reason for it to interfere in its activities.(9).
C.Recent developments in Science.
Dr.David Griffin proposed that development in quantum theory and its findings brought some interesting results:
1.The dominant interpretation of quantum physics,the Copenhagen interpretation,is limited to rules of calculation to predict the content of observations.In other words,it is a nonrealist,phenomenalist interpretation,in which the attempt to describe what is really going on in the world of subatomic entities,independently of human measurement,is eschewed. Most popular accounts of the implications of quantum physics for our worldview negelect this fundamental point.The phenomenalist descriptions are presented as if they tell us something deep about the nature of reality.
Rejecting the notion that a direct connection exists between quantum theory and mysticism,Ken Wilber argues that quantum theory did nevertheless prompte mysticism,but only indirectly.That is,as these physicists became aware that physical theory gave them only shadows and symbols of reality,rather than reality itself,they became freed from the materialistic worldview and hence open to taking their own conscious experience as real and revelatory.
Griffin raised some challenging questions,that:The question remains whether quantum physics,under a different interpretation,might say something more directly helpful about the nature of reality.
Griffin concluded and proposed that physicists like David Bohm and Henry Stapp seek to develop a realistic(nonphenomenalist) account of the quantum theory.About Enfolds. As Bohm points out in his essay in this volume,in overcoming the dualism between mind and matter this view implies the transcendence of the modern separation between facts and values,truth and virtue.Henry Stapp likewise regards each event as a process of enfoldment:each event enfolds previous events within itself.Griffin proposed that this view,that the events of nature are internally constituted by their appropriations from other things,is the central theme of those who are suggesting that the mechanistic paradigm in science be replaced by an ecological one--a view represented in this volume by Charles Birch,John Cobb,and Frederick Ferre.Griffin suggested and proposed that "The term ecological most readily suggests biology.But it is important to all of these thinkers that internal relations are characteristic not only of living beings but also of the most elementary physical units.For one thing,only when this view prevails will the current drive to make mechanistic explanation ultimate even in the science of ecology be overcome."(10)
About the enfold,then Prof.David Griffin pointed out the necessity of internal relatedness,it is amazing conclusions,that "Because internal relatedness is a necessary feature of subjects,the attribution of internal relations to individuals at all levels is one condition for overcoming an ultimate dualism between subjects and objects;completely overcoming dualism would involve the attribution of other essential features of subjects,such as feeling,memory,and aim or decision,at least in embryonic form,all the way down."(11),to support his conclusions,Prof.Griffin listed evidences like: (1).Daniel Koshland team proved that evidence of rudimentary form of both "memory" and "decision" in bacteria.(2).there is reason now to believe that DNA and RNA macromolecules are not simply passive entities which change as their parts are changed,but that they are active organisms which actively transpose their parts.Going even further,it has been suggested that the Paili Principle provides reason to think of an atom as a self-regulating whole.
Griffin pointed out that genes may included by organism to support his against ontological reductionism of the materialistic worldview.As he proposed "Against the ontological reductionism of the materialistic worldview,according to which all causation runs sideways and upward,from parts to parts and from parts to the whole(with all apparent wholes really being aggregates),there are now developments in science stressing 'downward causation,' from the whole to the parts.One of the most striking developments is evidence that the genes,which neo-Darwinism considers necessarily impervious to influence from the organism as a purposive whole,are in fact influenced by the organism."(12)
This downward causation is very important,as to mind to body downward,as Prof.Griffin proposed that:"this recognition of downward causation from mind to body is aided if materialism and dualism are transcended.Those positions made it inconceivable that subjective purposes,feelings,decisions,and the like could influence the body.But if bodily cells and their components themselves have subjective experience,then downward causation from mind to body is no longer counterintuitive and the recognition of downward as well as upward causation between other levels will be easier."(13)
In this sense,Prof.Griffin affirmed with Sheldrake,that "mechanistic phenomena represent the extreme possibility of habit formation on the part of organisms."(14).
D.Reflections on the Relation between Mind and Matter.
Prof.Griffin pointed out some very basic facts that "The main philosophical reason for rejecting the mechanistic,nonanimistic view of nature is that that view makes the relation between mind and matter problematic."
Then he gave listed out four aspects of this problem,as he proposed:"Four aspects of this problem can be distinguished:the traditional mind-body problems,the problem of mind as the Great Exception,the problem of emergence,and the problem of where to draw the line." or this is also means the four problems aspects of Dualism.
Question 1:"This mind-body problem is due to the conjunction of a directly known fact,an apparent fact,and an inference".Griffin gave explains about these 3 points into some little details:
The directly known fact is that we have,or are,a mind,in the sense of a stream of experiences.As Descartes stressed,if there is one thing I cannot doubt,it is that i am experiencing.
The apparent fact is that the mind and the body seem to interact;that is,the mind seems to be affected by the body and seems to affect it in turn.
The inference is that the human body is composed of things that are devoid of experience.
The resulting problem is comes:how is it understandable that these two totally unlike things appear to interact?
Question 2:Human Mind as great Exception.
"The second problem raised against dualism by some materialists is the implausibility of the idea that everything in the universe except human experience can be understood in physicalistic terms.This is the problem of the human mind as the Great Exception.",Dr.Griffin quoted J.C.C.Smart and commented that This problem is lessened somewhat when dualists extend experience to all animals having central nervous systems,as do many dualists;it is lessened even more if experience is attributed all the way down to the lowest forms of life.
Question 3:Prof.Griffin proposed that the animal central nervous system raised the problem of interaction in a new form,resulting in a third problem,the problem of emergence."Whether the ontological gap is located between the human mind and its body or between an experiencing cell and its insentient atoms,the communication across the gap is equally unintelligible.",and he quoted Smart's question about physical property or entity suddenly arise in the course of animal evolution?
Question 4:about the 4th problem for dualists,about "where to draw the line.",he proposed:"A fourth problem for dualists,if they try to solve the first two by extending experience below the human mind,is just where to draw the absolute line between sentient and insentient things."and concluded that "Drawing the line with Descartes between the human soul and the rest of nature,so that dogs are simply barking machines,was never very plausible,and it became less so with the theory of evolution.But drawing an absolute line anywhere else seems arbitrary,especially in an evolutionary context."
Griffin pointed out that materialism has even more problems than does dualism,because it shares most of the problems of dualism and then adds some of its own.As he pointed:
To begin with the problem it shares with dualism:First,it has not really escaped the problem of emergence which it levels against dualism.About emergence of consicous and other property of thing,in Griffin's discourse, it described that "Things that are nothing for themselves are said to causally produce a thing(a brain) that is metaphysically unique in being not only an object for others,but a subject for itself." This is the materialistic identists belives. "All the other emergent properties(saltiness,etc.) are properties of things are they appear to us from without,i.e.,to our conscious sensory perception.But conscious experience itself is not a property of things as they appear to us from without;it is what we are in and for ourselves.",and "The fact that the thing in question is called a distinct mind by dualists and a brain by materialists is a secondary matter;an absolutely unique type of causal relation is still being posited."
Thus,Griffin pointed out that,besides the problems that identism shares with dualism,materialism even has several of its own:
1st."One is that,while claiming to be empirical,it denies the full reality of the directly known in the name of the inferred.That is,the one thing we know from inside,so that we know what it is in itself,is our own conscious experience......And yet materialists,on the basis of the speculative inference that the human body is composed of "matter" which is in itself devoid of experience,deny that our directly known conscious experience can be a distinct actual thing on the grounds that that hypothesis requires interaction between experiencing and nonexperiencing things."
2nd."A second problem unique to materialism is that,in denying the distinction between the mind and the brain,it gives up the hypothesis that had provided the materialistic or mechanistic view of nature its prima facie plausibility in the first place." and explained this "That is,the mechanistic view entailed a distinction between so-called primary qualities,which were really attributes of physical things,and secondary and tertiary qualities,which were only in the mind,although they might falsely appear to be in nature.Hence,nature consisted solely of quantitative factors,locomotion,and mechanistic causation;all color and smells,all pain and pleasure,all good and evil,and all purposes and self-motion,resided solely in the mind.By having two types of actual things,dualism could deny that these nonphysical qualities exist in nature without making the counterintuitive assertion that they are wholly unreal.But in materialistic identism the modern worldview has lost its mind and must thereby deny that most of the qualities that are immediately experienced are real.They are illusions created by an illusion."
Griffin proposed : the materialistic denial that experience plays a causal role in the world also creates a problem of understanding how experience,and then consicious experience,ever emerged.....Adding further to the difficulties of materialistic identism is the fact that,in rejecting the dualism between mind and body,it necessitates a dualism between theory and practice.
Griffin summarized:"In summary,both dualism and materialism are unintelligible.But if the modern premise that the elementary units of nature are insentient is accepted,dualism and materialism are the only options.This fact suggests that the premise that lies behind the modern disenchantment of the world is false....Accordingly,a strong philosophical argument converges with recent developments in the philosophy,sociology,and history of science,and in science itself,to undermine the basis for the modern disenchantment of the world."(15).
- Introduction of Griffin's theory of Postmodern Organicism.
Based on above mentioned conclusions,Prof.Griffin started introduction postmodern organicism,and pointed it inspired by scientist-turned-philosopher Alfred North Whitehead,and proposed this new organism is a synthesis of the Aristotelian,Galilean(both forms),and Hermetic paradigms.
As Griffin pointed,the Galilean paradigm,in its first form,distinguish abosolutely between two types of primary beings:(1). those that exercised purposive or final causation; and (2).those that did not and could consequently be understood completely in terms of receiving and transmitting efficient causation.
and the Galilean paradigm,in its second form,tried to restore unity to science by abolishing an internalistic psychology of final causes.
Dr.Griffin stated that postmodern organism,distinguish between 2 ways in which primary organism can be organized:
(1).as a compound individual,in which an all-inclusive subject emerges; (2).as a nonindividuated object,in which no unifying subjectivity is found.
....and based on this,Griffin pointed that there "is no ontological dualism", but "there is a duality within science", as there are (1).things whose behavior can only be understood in terms of both efficient cause and their own purposive response to these causes,and (2).things whose behavior can be understood,for most purposes,without any reference to purposive or final causation.
Griffin proposed that "An individual was physical from without to others,but was conscious or mental from within,for itself.From without,it interact with other enduring individuals in terms of efficient causation;from within,it lived in terms of purposes or final causation."...and Griffin proposed "indeed,in a sense higher beings are influenced by more past events than are lower ones".
Thus from this viewpoint,Prof.David proposed we can undertand the modern Galilean paradigm based on study of nonindividuated objects,successful applied to nonindividuated objects,to very low-grade individuals,with low-grade forms of life, but less successful with rats than with bacteria,even less successful yet with humans than with rats. and Griffin pointed out that "This pattern of success and failure of the Galilean paradigm fits exactly what the postmodern paradigm predicts."
With such a background,Prof.Griffin raised out some broader conception of a description of science for a postmodern world,which looser than the modern descriptions.and gave out some wisedom insight tips regarding that:
1st.science with truth and demonstration,where Griffin hold a view that "science involves the attempt to establish truth through demonstration open to experiential replication.What is left out of this account of science are limitations (1)to any particular domain,(2).any particular type of repeatability and demonstration,or (3)any particular contingent beliefs." as Griffin explained that "any activity properly called science and any conclusions properly called scientific must,first,be based on an overriding concern to discover truth....second,science involves demonstration." and he gave detailed explain about this:
which means (1st)."science is not restricted to the domain of things assumed to be wholly physical,operating in terms of efficient causes alone,or even to the physical aspects of things,understood as the aspects knowable to sensory perception or instruments designed to magnify the senses." and ..."Furthermore,the domain of scientific study should not be thought to be limited to regularities,or law-like behavior."
(2nd)."while science requires repeatable experiential demonstration,it does not require one particular type of demonstration,such as the laboratory experiment."....."Recognizing the wide domain of science means recognizing the necessity and hence appropriateness of diverse types of demonstrations,and the artificiality of holding up one type as the ideal.",this obviously give strong support to Topple laboratory based science Down from its seemingly unshakeable authoritative position,and also means the laboratory based experiment demonstration could also be toppled down,and other diverse types demonstrations at least has Equivalent Effectiveness as laboratory based demonstrations.From this conclusion,on the broader sense of science as such,traditional herbology system including the TCM,the Ayurveda and the Arabia herbal medicine,herbology of alchemists,those different demonstration types and validity should be respected,which also means "modern science" and its branch medicine based on physiology could have no sole arbitrary or authority to evaluate these traditional demonstration types.
(3rd)."Besides not being limited to one domain or one type of demonstration,the scientific pursuit of truth is not tied up to any set of contingent beliefs,meaning beliefs that are not inevitably presupposed by human practice,including thought,itself.Science is,therefore,not limited to any particular type of explanation."
Thus continue with it,Prof.Griffin pointed out 5 principles about beliefs.The first 3 principles are related to the crucial issue of causality,and the final two principles are related to science's concern for truth:
1st,"every event is causally influenced by other events."
2nd,"neither human experience nor anything analogous to it is wholly determined by external events;rather,every genuine individual is partially self-determining." and Griffin proposed these 2 principles togethor "provide the basis for a scientific understanding of the activity of scientists themselves in terms of a combination of external and internal causes,which is increasingly seen to be necessary."
3rd."third,every event that exerts causal influence upon another event precedes that event temporally."
4th.that are "the traditional principles of correspondence between statements and objective reality has been subject to a great deal of criticism." and...Griffin pointed out "Science,in this extreme view,is a linguistic system disconnected from any larger world..." and ..."Postmodern organicism rejects this view of language.While language as such does not correspond to anything other than anguage,it expresses and evokes modes of apprehending nonlinguistic reality that can more or less accurately correspond to features of that reality.Hence,science can lead to ways of thinking about the world that can increasingly approximate to patterns and structures genuinely characteristic of nature."
5th."the other traditional principle involved in science's concern for truth is the principle of noncontradiction"(16).
Prof.David Ray Griffin(born August 8, 1939),is one of the worldwide known famous big scholar,is professor of philosophy of Religion at the school of Theology at Claremont.David Ray Griffin is a longtime resident of Santa Barbara,California and was a full-time academic from 1973 until April 2004.In particular,Griffin found Whitehead’s nonsensationist epistemology and panexperientialist ontology immensely helpful in addressing the major problems of modern philosophy, including the problems of mind-body interaction, the interaction between free and determined things, the emergence of experience from nonexperiencing matter, and the emergence of time in the evolutionary process.While on research leave in 1980~81 at Cambridge University and Berkeley,the contrast between modernity and postmodernity became central to his work. Many of Griffin’s writings are devoted to developing postmodern proposals for overcoming the conflicts between religion and modern science. Griffin came to believe that much of the tension between religion and science was not only the result of reactionary supernaturalism but also the mechanistic worldview associated with the rise of modern science in the seventeenth century. In 1983, Griffin started the Center for a Postmodern World in Santa Barbara and became editor of the SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Philosophy between 1987 and 2004.
1,2: see The Reenchantment of science:postmodern proposals,edited by David Ray Griffin.ISBN 0-88706-784-0,published by SUNY press;page.2.1.,p.3,under title "Modern Science and and The Disenchantment of the World".
3,4,5: see ibid,page.6,p.7,p.8.
6,7,8: see ibid,page 8~9~10,under title "II.Reversing Disenchantment:The Converging Reasons.A.A New View of the Nature of Science."
9: see ibid,page 10-13.
10,11,12,13,14: see ibid,page 13-17.
15: quoted of this part,see ibid,page 17-21.
16: quoted of this part,see ibid,page 22-31.under title "III.POSTMODERN ORGANICISM AND THE UNITY OF SCIENCE.".
♥The article and literature was edited by Herbalist of MDidea Extracts Professional.It runs a range of introductions about re-enchantment theory,which from various contemporary great masters of different background,some basic clues of their discussion about the fundamental theory and scientific problems of modernity!
♣ last edit date: