I am going to type a passage below (and I apologize for the length of it), but remember reading it about two years ago and being irritated with it. It demonstrates the problem that I see with Natural Science.
"Consider speculative thinking. It requires a seculative organ (such as the human brain) composed of billions of neurons each composed of thousands of molecules composed of atoms. But the size of an atom is fixed by three basic quantities: the electron's mass, the strength of the interaction that can bind it to a nucleus, and the value of the quantity(called Planck's constant) that sets the scale for quantum theory phenomena. So the properties of the particles and the laws that govern their behavior set a minimum size for atoms and thus for a speculating organism. Because it is small, a butterfly can be beautiful, but it cannot be given to speculation; a person can be both. Organisms large enough to speculate are allowed by nature even though, because of their complexity we could not predict their existence from a chain of deductons starting with quarks and electrons. Chance and time have conspired to create this world from what the contituents, interactions, and rules of nature permit." The Particle Garden by Gordon Kane (pg. 6)
Now I do not want to argue about Dr. Kane. Nor his book. What I want to do is suggest that notice be paid to the argument/position that the above paragraph presents. While I am highly interested and agree in the immense value of studying quarks etc.... as a philosopher I will not agree that speculative thinking beings (translate: rational animals --> humans) are such due to the three quantities mentioned in the third sentence.
Further, even if we notice that the human brain has x-number of molecules on average, this does not prove conclusively that this number equals a being of rational thought. It could provide a necessary condition in one genus of beings, but it does no more than that.
One of the reasons that I am skeptical about natural science's conclusions is that sometimes universal constants are derived from experiement and hypothesis, but although they seem practically absolute, it doesn't always work out that way. For example, I am aware that there is presently some dispute about the speed of light - once touted as the one ultimate constant in the universe.
I've also noticed that natural scientists are rather condescending (not on this website - I'm talking in real world) towards philosophers. Philosophers are viewed as "wackos" and folks "with their head in the clouds." Its a stereotype that has lasted since Thales in ancient Greece, of course. And granted, there are many showmen and playactors in the field of philosophy (as in any field, I might add). However, I don't believe that natural science oversees any of the other sciences per se. Philosophically (via philosophy of mind, epistemology, metaphysics, etc.) G. Kane's above position does not conclude the way it, on appearances, seems that it does.
"Consider speculative thinking. It requires a seculative organ (such as the human brain) composed of billions of neurons each composed of thousands of molecules composed of atoms. But the size of an atom is fixed by three basic quantities: the electron's mass, the strength of the interaction that can bind it to a nucleus, and the value of the quantity(called Planck's constant) that sets the scale for quantum theory phenomena. So the properties of the particles and the laws that govern their behavior set a minimum size for atoms and thus for a speculating organism. Because it is small, a butterfly can be beautiful, but it cannot be given to speculation; a person can be both. Organisms large enough to speculate are allowed by nature even though, because of their complexity we could not predict their existence from a chain of deductons starting with quarks and electrons. Chance and time have conspired to create this world from what the contituents, interactions, and rules of nature permit." The Particle Garden by Gordon Kane (pg. 6)
Now I do not want to argue about Dr. Kane. Nor his book. What I want to do is suggest that notice be paid to the argument/position that the above paragraph presents. While I am highly interested and agree in the immense value of studying quarks etc.... as a philosopher I will not agree that speculative thinking beings (translate: rational animals --> humans) are such due to the three quantities mentioned in the third sentence.
Further, even if we notice that the human brain has x-number of molecules on average, this does not prove conclusively that this number equals a being of rational thought. It could provide a necessary condition in one genus of beings, but it does no more than that.
One of the reasons that I am skeptical about natural science's conclusions is that sometimes universal constants are derived from experiement and hypothesis, but although they seem practically absolute, it doesn't always work out that way. For example, I am aware that there is presently some dispute about the speed of light - once touted as the one ultimate constant in the universe.
I've also noticed that natural scientists are rather condescending (not on this website - I'm talking in real world) towards philosophers. Philosophers are viewed as "wackos" and folks "with their head in the clouds." Its a stereotype that has lasted since Thales in ancient Greece, of course. And granted, there are many showmen and playactors in the field of philosophy (as in any field, I might add). However, I don't believe that natural science oversees any of the other sciences per se. Philosophically (via philosophy of mind, epistemology, metaphysics, etc.) G. Kane's above position does not conclude the way it, on appearances, seems that it does.
