Think Free

Leave a comment

Who’s got the power?

The Power of Choice

The Power of Choice: Simon Greening via Flickr

Way Back

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle defined power in a way that remarkably prefigures Sir Isaac Newton‘s three laws of motion.

Aristotle says power is

  1. The agent causing a change in something
  2. The ability or potential in an object enabling it to act
  3. The ability in an object to remain unchanged

Image – Wikipedia


In the social sciences and political life power usually means the ability to make decisions that influence, regulate or coerce.¹

For democratic countries political power is limited to the extent that the next elected representative has the ability to change or modify a set of power relations, as we see with US President Trump trying to unravel or remedy, depending on how you look at it, many of former President Obama’s initiatives.

But power goes far beyond big politics and weighty issues. It is found in the doctor’s office, the workplace, the schools and our neighborhoods. And thinkers like R. D. Laing suggest that power manifests within family dynamics.

Oliver Twist – Wikipedia

A Little Theory

Different cultural critics hold diverse views of power and how it is best applied. From Machiavelli to Marx, power is always present. But just how it is interpreted is a uniquely human act.

Postmodern and other social thinkers often overlook the fact that power, as a noun, is ethically ambivalent. Both good and bad can things be modified by the adjective “powerful”—for example, powerful love and powerful hate.

The 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that knowledge gained from philosophical understanding creates power. Hobbes added that such power should be applied in ways good for the Commonwealth. His argument is echoed in the G-8 countries’ rationale behind military strikes against the enemies of democracy and freedom. In Catholicism, this is called the “Just War.

Good and Evil – Wikipedia

Michel Foucault says power is embedded in our social relationships but he doesn’t emphasize an ethical dimension to power. Rather, Foucault sees power as an ongoing struggle of competing intentions.

To some observers, it is almost as if Foucault portrays ethics and morality as historically relative products of social power.

If true, good and evil are not absolute, timeless and universal truths. They are relative to a given social time and place. That is, good and evil are social constructions.

However, Jules Evans argues that Foucault’s later work, such as The Care of the Self (1984), reveals a developing interest in an ethic of wellness. As Foucault says:

Perhaps I’ve insisted too much on the technology of domination and power. I am more and more interested…in the mode of action that an individual exercises upon himself by means of the technologies of the self.²

Whether or not Foucault’s interest in wellness was purely intellectual or, perhaps, an emerging practical concern remains open to debate.

Anthropology, Depth Psychology and Religion

Supernatural – Juliana Coutinho via Flickr

Terms like mana, numinoustapas and orenda refer to a form of magical, mystical or spiritual power originating from beyond the realm of scientific predictability.

In keeping with Max Weber‘s idea of charisma, individuals with a lot of social power may possess, command or mediate a good deal of spiritual, otherworldly power.

I think Weber’s concept of charisma is important because, for some, it links spiritual and political power.

Science vs Religion

Power ON – Wikipedia

Another central question is whether or not a given set of otherworldly powers are good or evil. This issue was once of great importance. It is now pretty well passed over by the media and most everyone else.

In its place we have the popular mindset of “health” and “illness.” In a nutshell, science and technology have moved in where religion and ritual once held sway.

So the 21st century mass murderer is “mentally ill” and not “possessed by Satan.”

At least, this is how the courts see it. And they, to return to our initial topic, have the power

¹ See my highlights at LINER for some recent distinctions in the ongoing dialog about power:

Hard Power –

Soft Power –

Smart Power –

² Michel Foucault, lecture given in 1982 cited in Jules Evans, “Philosophy as a Way of Life,” Eurasian Home Analytical Resource, August 15, 2007.

³ Most traditional theologians would say the courts only hold as much power as God permits, God being the bearer of all power.

Related » Counter-discourse, Discourse, Poststructuralism

 Two Concepts of Polarization (

 The last sacred kings (

 What are your desert island philosophy essays? (

 If Time Is Money, They’re Both Lies (

 Porn stars go mainstream (


Leave a comment

Phrenology – A case of science overextending itself

Self-portrait as phrenology illustration

Self-portrait as phrenology illustration by obscure allusion / Jason Priem

Phrenology is a word popularized by Johann Caspar Spurzheim (1776-1832) to describe a pseudo-scientific theory developed by Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828).

Gall hypothesized that different brain regions are responsible for specific functions. Today, the details are debated but this model is generally accepted.¹

So for Gall, a stronger trait or ability allegedly corresponded with more developed brain regions, while weaker traits or abilities coincided with less developed brain regions.

From there, he proposed that different abilities and tendencies are linked to the size and shape of the human skull.

Gall believed the skull would exhibit measurable bumps over larger, well developed brain regions, making his theory not only scientific but practical. Heads can be measured. And from those measurements, different treatments could be implemented.

This theory fell into disrepute around the 1900’s. Contemporary researchers highlight the importance of learning, stimulation, nutrition, attitudes, beliefs, as well as the density and differentiation of neural pathways in relation to brain performance and abilities.
Embed from Getty Images
Colour etching by W Taylor satirising the work of Franz Joseph Gall and Johann Spurzheim, proponents of phrenology, showing a doctor examining a patient’s head, whilst other patients with variously-shaped craniums await inspection.

Much like modern computer processors, bulk size doesn’t necessarily matter. Complexity does. Also, recent concepts like plasticity and epigenetics further discredit older, fully deterministic brain theories. In other words, genes matter but other factors come into play.

Perhaps because phrenology could easily be abused, it’s not well-known today. Hitler and the Nazis, for instance, used something similar to phrenology to try to separate Jews from non-Jews.²

Today, phrenology is sometimes upheld by sociologists and historians as an example of all that can go wrong when scientism (pseudoscience) masquerades as science.

“Raoul Hausmann was one of the leading members of the Berlin Dada movement… [his] most well known [work} is Spirit of Our Time. Finished in 1921.” – via Utopia/Dystopia

Wikipedia puts it well:

Phrenology is…based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules. Although both of those ideas have a basis in reality, phrenology extrapolated beyond empirical knowledge in a way that departed from science.

Some writers at web sites like Mad In America zealously argue that all of contemporary psychiatry is pseudoscience and profit mongering. I think this is an extreme, polarizing view and not really helpful toward better integrating good science and good spirituality.

Quick Historical Outline


Among the first to identify the brain as the major controlling center for the body were Hippocrates and his followers, inaugurating a major change in thinking from Egyptian, biblical and early Greek views, which based bodily primacy of control on the heart.


This belief was supported by the Greek physician Galen, who concluded that mental activity occurred in the brain rather than the heart, contending that the brain, a cold, moist organ formed of sperm, was the seat of the animal soul—one of three “souls” found in the body, each associated with a principal organ.


Phrenology came about at a time when scientific procedures and standards for acceptable evidence were still being codified. In the context of Victorian society, phrenology was a respectable scientific theory.


Phrenology was mostly discredited as a scientific theory by the 1840s.


In Belgium, Paul Bouts (1900–1999) began studying phrenology from a pedagogical background, using the phrenological analysis to define an individual pedagogy. Combining phrenology with typology and graphology, he coined a global approach known as psychognomy. Bouts, a Roman Catholic priest, became the main promoter of renewed 20th-century interest in phrenology and psychognomy in Belgium.


During the 1930s Belgian colonial authorities in Rwanda used phrenology to explain the so-called superiority of Tutsis over Hutus.


Phrenology was one of the first to bring about the idea of rehabilitation of criminals instead of vindictive punishments…


In psychiatry phrenology was proposed as a viable model in order to reform the disciplinary field.

¹ Neurologists differ on how:

  • different combinations of the brain occur and affect functioning
  • much of the brain we use
  • the brain is linked to the rest of the nervous system, surrounding organs and microorganisms (e.g. bacteria).
  • sex differences affect brain functioning

² Josef Mengele, a sadistic and cruel doctor at Auschwitz, wrote a dissertation on “differing Lower Jaw formations and Racial differences.” See

Related » Face Reading, Social Darwinism

 Russia’s Duma Begs TV Stations Not To Encourage End of the World Hysteria (

 From the Bookshelves: States of Delinquency: Race and Science in the Making of California’s Juvenile Justice System by Miroslava Chávez-García (

 The Many Ways Science Has (Wrongly) Assessed Your Personality (

 Use your head when buying a conversation piece (


Wave-Particle Duality – Micro concept with macro implications

The wave-particle duality refers to a contradiction that arises when we try to understand the nature of light.

Girls demonstrating wave-particle duality.

Girls demonstrating wave-particle duality by James Guppy via Flickr

Light can be either a wave (energy) or particle (matter), depending on the way we observe and interpret it. Some even try to combine the concepts of energy and matter to say that light is a “wavicle.”¹

Albert Einstein had this to say:

It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.²

Philosophers of science believe the duality is created by the way we use language. And the apparent conflict might be reconciled if we consider what language is and does.

Language, they say, not only describes but also influences our understanding of things spoken and written about. So with a kind of circularity, the way we describe our world in turns shapes our worldview.

Consider the moon, for instance. To an Apollo astronaut it is something to travel to, orbit and possibly walk on. For an ancient Roman, the moon might be seen as a somewhat mysterious place where the goddess Luna resides or as an aspect of the pagan goddesses Diana or Juno.

In ancient Iran, the moon was believed to be “The Great Man” who periodically incarnates on Earth. And in the recent past, the moon was whimsically said to be made of blue cheese.

In each of these examples, the words and the semantic context within which the occur shape the understanding of the thing described. We have to keep this is mind not only when studying myth and religion but in any aspect of life—ancient or modern. Culture isn’t just created. It also creates.³

We can overcome the wave-particle duality by realizing that it is informed by the way we categorize reality, but this might be a hollow victory because it doesn’t tell us much about the actual essence of light, energy or matter—or even if these phenomena have a true ‘essence.’

At some point language becomes inadequate. And many believe that sciences, which also use symbol systems like mathematics and physics, are equally as imperfect to the task of describing reality.

From this, the holistic thinker Peter Russell argues that we should not confuse the proverbial map (scientific concepts and theories) with the thing mapped (alleged fundamental aspects of creation).

The debate about describing vs the described can get pretty complicated. Some maintain that language is, in fact, adequate and an integral part of reality. Others say this argument falls short when we consider how meanings have changed throughout history.

Is truth always relative or is there something absolute, essential or permanent in our world? These basic questions may seem abstruse. But the way we unconsciously answer them in our daily assumption/decision making process no doubt informs many aspects of life.

So I think it’s better to be aware of our uncertainties and biases. Question everything. That way we don’t put the world – and other people – in an artificially small box. When people try to do that, what we’re really seeing is a picture of their provincial outlook.


² Follow this link for a good, brief history »

³ That’s why many poststructural social thinkers argue that power is creative, not just repressive.

Related » George Berkeley, Brahman, Albert Einstein, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Poststructuralism, Erwin Schrödinger, Semiology, Tao, Thomas Young

Leave a comment

Particles – “I want to be a particle of your light”

A general view of ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) cavern and detector during a behind the scenes tour at CERN, the World’s Largest Particle Physics Laboratory on April 19, 2017 in Meyrin, Switzerland.

In physics a particle is defined as a tiny unit of matter. But what is matter?

Subatomic physics discoveries along with the development of semiotics (the study of signs) have thrown the entire notion of matter into question.

Erwin Schrödinger, an Austrian physicist, saw the particle as a standing wave, which is a relatively stable energy pattern. For others, particles are seen as wave packets of energy.

Particle physicists also hypothesize what the media has sensationalized as the “God Particle.”¹ If its existence is confirmed, the God Particle apparently would resolve some of the inconsistencies found in theoretical physics.

Time to step back and think intelligently, something that some scientists fail to do. My main beef with the claims of some researchers rests on the problem of subjectivity.

How may we confirm the independent existence of something when the longstanding debate about subjectivity (biased observation) vs. objectivity (unbiased observation) is unresolved, and might always be?

An example of simulated data modelled for the ...

An example of simulated data modelled for the CMS particle detector on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Here, following a collision of two protons, a is produced which decays into two jets of hadrons and two electrons. The lines represent the possible paths of particles produced by the proton-proton collision in the detector while the energy these particles deposit is shown in blue. (Wikipedia)

Physicists play a high priced game and convince a good number of people that they’re getting at some basic truth when arguably they’re just fabricating a historically relative worldview.

As any sociologist worth his or her salt with note, scientists carry out experiments within a given framework that, consciously or unconsciously, not only advance knowledge but also reinforce and legitimize beliefs about (a) how best to proceed and (b) what our world is all about.

So alleged high-tech “confirmations” run the risk of becoming, at bottom, a biased way of saying that a particular truth game is the truth game.

But science is no abstract game. It’s a human enterprise that takes money to operate. The general public is easily enchanted by glimmering machines and Photoshopped lab results. And this popular enthusiasm probably makes it easier for scientists to get funded.²

Not that I’m a Luddite, dead against anything new. Physics, of course, can be theoretically useful and reap many practical rewards. Our limits as a species should not deter us from exploring and developing new ideas. However, we would be wise to remember that ideas like the God Particle are culturally relative stories and certainly not the whole story.

¹ Many scientists, themselves, see this as an irresponsible metaphor for the hypothesized Higgs Boson particle.

² I have no data on this but it seems like common sense. Science exists in society. If nobody in society is interested in something, chances are funding won’t happen. Enthusiasm can have a ripple effect throughout the whole system.

† Title quote from Bruce Cockburn, “Hills of Morning” from the True North album Dancing in the Dragon’s Jaws. One of the things I like about Cockburn’s “peak period” lyrics is his intelligent mix of science and spirituality.

Related » Democritus, David Hume, Philipp Eduard Anton Lenard, Particle-Wave Duality, Thomas Young

 Lithuania joins CERN as associate member (

 Clash of the particle people (

 Physicists find new particle with a double dose of charm (

 CERN’s LHCb experiment announces observation of a new particle (

 Can World’s Largest Atom Smasher Solve the Universe’s Deepest Mysteries? (


Looking through a glass darkly – The paranormal, normal and bias

The Latin prefix para means beside or beyond. Like the word supernatural, paranormal refers to any phenomenon that eludes explanation through normal science or conventional wisdom.

Paranormal can be a misleading term because what is ‘normal’ is open to debate and subject to change.

At what precise point, for instance, does intuition or insight become as ESP or clairvoyance?

Funnily enough, the US courts still provide an option for placing the right hand on the Bible while taking oath—and the Bible is a book that invites believers to enjoy eternal rest in the paranormal realm of heaven.

Image: Wikipedia

Likewise, more recent versions of the American psychiatric diagnostic manual (DSM-x) accept religious beliefs that include the paranormal, providing the religion is well established and actively practiced within a given culture. Individual beliefs, however, are far more suspect, which speaks volumes about the psychiatric worldview.

Traditional religious persons tend to be wary of the paranormal, saying that it deals with magic, evil spirits, the occult, divination and demonic realms. Heaven, on the other hand, is said to be a faith-based concept denoting God‘s realm. So traditionalists tend to use the word supernatural instead of paranormal, as if that resolves all ambiguity about what is good and not good in the uncharted world of the spirit.

Many who have had unusual experiences or who believe they have psi abilities probably do not report these for fear of repercussions. They would not want to be ridiculed, bullied, harassed, stigmatized, marginalized or perhaps, worse, rough-handled by a medical establishment that leans toward what C. G. Jung called “medical materialism.”¹

Vallisca Paranormal Journalism

Vallisca Paranormal
Journalism: billnwmsu / Will Murphy

We can only wonder just how many genuine paranormal encounters go unreported. But one thing seems pretty clear: The data is questionable.

Social credibility bias, misreporting and unreliable statistics compel us to ask whether ‘normal’ and ‘paranormal’ are relative instead of absolute categories. Just as postmoderns deconstruct the idea of the ‘natural,’² the difference between normal and paranormal is relative to cultures and subcultures.

Cultural biases can be subtle but also pervasive. Bias often goes unrecognized because we are blind to our prejudices, expectations and limitations. And despite what many will say on either side of the fence, this happens with both kinds of believers—believers in the paranormal and believers in the normal sciences.³

¹ Things may be slowly changing for the better. But Jung speaks clearly about mid-20th century biases. See p. 143.

² This approach was popular in the mid-1980s and 90s, just before widespread acceptance of the LGBTQ community.

³ Some call for a new kind of relational science that could be applied to paranormal accounts. See, “Daniel Siegel in conversation with Paul Zak” on Vimeo and

† Re title:

Related » Atlantis, Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, Dreams, Empath, Guiley (Rosemary Ellen), Luke Skywalker, Randi (James), Remote ViewingScience journalism faces media changes, emerging discoveries, SeerTalbot (Michael), Tarot, Watts (Alan)


Ants in the Anthill – What’s Missing in the Multiverse?

Image via Wikipedia

Most of us have probably heard the term multiverse. But what is it?

Well, that might depend on who you are and how you look at things.

In the most general sense, the multiverse is a hypothesis that describes many possible universes that may or may not interpenetrate one another. But as we shall see, there are a few twists to its meaning.

A Little History

As early as 1923 H. G. Wells wrote the novel Men Like Gods, portraying a multiverse theory and a “paratime” machine.¹

In 1952, the Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger said his equations seemed to depict different histories that are “not alternatives, but all really happen simultaneously.”²

In the 1960s and 70s the idea of parallel universes hit the radar with paranormal writers like Jane Roberts and science fiction TV shows like Star Trek TOS. This cosmological innovation never went away.

Since then, more philosophers and scientists have championed and critiqued the notion that our universe exists with others.

Stephen Hawking may not believe in God but he believes in a multiverse. And in sci-fi and fantasy, the idea grows with a vengeance.³

Myth, Philosophy and Science

Depending on how one interprets the meaning of the word, the multiverse arguably crops up in Celtic myths about the otherworld. For instance, in Pagan Ireland the afterlife region of sidh closely resembles earthly life. And every November 1st, during the festival of Samhain, spirits from both worlds apparently mingle.4

Level 2 multiverse

Level 2 multiverse (Photo: Wikipedia)

In philosophy, Leibniz (1646-1716) argues that God conceived of many possible worlds but only created the best of all possible worlds.

In New Age literature Jane RobertsSeth Books advance the notion that parallel universes not only exist, but interact.

For Roberts, the soul observes a person’s experiences in many universes. So on a higher level, the oversoul learns from different lives in the multiverse.

Roberts also says we can be influenced by our other selves in parallel universes. For example, The EDM musician in universe A may connect with her other self as an astronaut in universe B, along with her vocation as a psychological time traveler in universe C. Her mind-expanding experiences as an astronaut (B) and time traveler (C) could influence her musical creativity in A.

The possibilities of a multiverse are enjoyable to think about. But we have no way to empirically demonstrate our beliefs and suppositions. This is one of the greatest critiques of multiverse theory. Fascinating speculation, yes. But the multiverse is not scientific because, detractors say, we cannot prove it.7

Image via Wikipedia

What’s Missing in Mainstream Theories?

My critique of mainstream multiverse theory – as we usually find it through places like Flipboard and Feedly – is that it rarely accounts for heavenly and hellish dimensions.

Heaven, hell and additional in-between realms, I would argue, play a huge role in our day-to-day lives and should figure prominently in multiverse theory.

We might call these oft overlooked aspects vertical instead of the more commonly described horizontal dimensions. After all, most spiritually aware people say that they feel heaven above and hell, below.

An Analogy

To help bring this back down to Earth, consider an analogy:

Some scientists, oblivious to genuine religious or spiritual experience, seem like ants trying to map out the world from the height of a few millimeters. The ant can’t see what the human being sees.

The ant may know about anthills, but it knows little about mountain peaks; river valleys; streams; oceans; the rich colors of the Earth’s topography; waves on water; blue skies, sun and cloud; moon and stars; Andromeda…

So an ant’s theory is pretty ant-like. Not at all like a human being would comprehend the world through the five senses.

Image via Wikipedia

From this analogy, we can say that those with genuine spiritual sensibilities take the observable universe as a bit of an anthill. There’s a lot more to consider. And that’s why so many current cosmologies fall short.

Hope Springs Eternal

There is hope, however. Recent trends like String and M-Theories seem to be heading in the right direction. These theories point to higher dimensions that interact with dimensions found in simpler multiverse theories.

So different interpretations for the word multiverse might someday coalesce. Instead of merely being the stuff of science geeks and sci-fi fans, the idea of the multiverse may soon reap practical benefits.8  

Related » Black Holes, Numinosity , Intercession


² I’m linking to my highlighting and notes at Diigo so more relevant info that didn’t make this entry is easily found.

³ Some feel that sci-fi and fantasy is nature’s way of acclimatizing us to new ideas and cosmologies that initially seem too far-fetched, especially with ETs and UFOs.  For examples in sci-fi, fantasy, TV and movies, see:

English: Level II Multiverse: every disk is a ...

Level II Multiverse: every disk is a bubble universe. Universe 1 to Universe 6 are different bubbles, with distinct physical constants that are different from our universe. Our universe is just one of the bubbles. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Wikipedia outlines more examples of the multiverse in myth and religion, see But these examples interpret the meaning of multiverse differently than, say, a contemporary physicist would. The difference, without getting too complicated, is that a physicist’s definition is usually closer to the idea of parallel universes. The other interpretation is about layers of reality (or higher and lower dimensions) that saints and mystics can consciously experience in the here and now. See, for instance, the Hindu idea of lokas.

5 The satirist Voltaire (1694-1778) lampooned Leibniz’s view in Candide, with a witty critique of apathy and clerical hypocrisy.

6 (a) Some wonder if David Bowie really was The Man Who Fell To Earth. Could simultaneous experiences in other places have informed his work here?

(b) In the 1980s something strange happened with my Dual turntable, a popular brand of record players. It was a long time ago and, to be honest, I can’t remember exactly. But this is a true story: In one instant the machine was revolving at 33 rpm and the next instant the dial was at 45 rpm, without my touching it. It just instantly changed, as if a TV channel had been changed from universe A to universe B. There was no visible acceleration or audible change in sound. Just an immediate, uninterrupted speed change. Next, I looked at the Dual logo and, in my youthful open-mindedness, got the unnerving feeling that the universe was trying to teach me something.

Admittedly it sounds a bit far-fetched. But in an instant I interpreted these events as a kind of holistic teaching. Today, I’m not so sure. Possibly I changed the turntable speed with my hand and, for some reason, momentarily blanked out, forgetting that I had changed it. Then noticing the Dual logo, I might have put these events together into some kind of paranormal teaching about parallel universes. Maybe my brain misfired from fatigue or something else. That’s my skeptical side. But it’s more accurate to say that I don’t what happened. I remember feeling temorarily unsettled afterward, like the underpinnings of all that I believed in were pulled away. Luckily, it was a one-time experience! 🙂

Adherents of multiverse belief might note we can’t prove the idea of love, either. And it’s pretty hard to imagine a world without love.

8 From Wikipedia:

A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within string theory and its higher-dimensional extension, M-theory.

These theories require the presence of 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions respectively. The extra 6 or 7 dimensions may either be compactified on a very small scale, or our universe may simply be localized on a dynamical (3+1)-dimensional object, a D3-brane. This opens up the possibility that there are other branes which could support other universes. This is unlike the universes in the quantum multiverse, but both concepts can operate at the same time.

See also, note 4 (above).

 Are You Ready For The Technological Singularity? (

 Humans must urgently colonise new worlds, warns Professor Stephen Hawking (

 Humans have 100 years left (

  Stephen Hawking is about to test his theory that humans must colonize another planet within 100 years(

 Tomorrow’s World returns to BBC with startling warning from Stephen Hawking – we must leave Earth (

 Colonies On Mars: How Human Faces Will Evolve On The Red Planet (

 Disabled teen keen to emulate his hero Stephen Hawking (

 Could robots replace people? Expert claims AI is already ‘better than humans’ (

 Will Intelligent Aliens Actually Give a Shit About Us? (

 For First Time We Have the Technology to Observe Milky Way’s Supermassive Black Hole — “Can Spot a Golf Ball On the Moon” (

Leave a comment

Willard Quine – My unapologetic simplification

Willard Quine (1908-2000) was an influential American mathematician and philosopher who rejected Kant’s analytic-synthetic distinction¹ and advocated a form of holism.

English: The OWNER of this passport picture of...

Passport picture of Willard Van Orman Quine (Photo: Wikipedia)

Quine argues that empiricism contains “two dogmas.” One dogma is the distinction made between intellectual constructs and facts.

The second dogma is reductionism—that is, the belief that naming and meaning are the same.

Quine’s thought has been variously championed and critiqued. It seems that whatever way we look at the issues Quine addresses, we encounter the same problem. Language (and arguably all symbols, to include numbers) has conceptual and descriptive limits. It can never be entirely precise nor complete.²

The relationship between symbols and reality is an age old debate with no definitive answer. The discussion can go along ‘horizontal,’ conceptual lines or veer off into deeper, ‘vertical’ lines (as with Carl Jung‘s view of the archetypal image).

The discussion can also exist in a kind of matrix. That is, one could argue – as I do – that all words carry a potential numinous power. Numinosity isn’t something restricted to religious or mythological symbols.

In sociology, Quine’s thought appears in discussions about reification and also about the relation between scientific truth claims on the one hand, and ideology, the profit motive and social power on the other hand.

Healthcare Costs by Images Money via Flickr

Admittedly this is the briefest of brief sketches about Quine. When it comes to Western philosophy, it seems everyone has their own take on what these complicated thinkers are trying to say.³ My interest in Quine is mostly in trying to get people to think critically about scientific truth claims.

Science is becoming a new kind or medieval-style religion. The initial assumptions, selectivity, biases, interpretations and extrapolations built in to science are so glossed over or taken for granted that the average person tends to see science as “truth” and doesn’t even want to discuss any further.

In other words, science has a pretty firm grip on the minds and actions of many people. Too see this in action, we don’t have to look any further than some of the facile placards in the recent “March for Science.”

Making a religion out of science is misguided, authoritarian and dangerous. I think humanity can do better. So that’s how I justify simplifying Quine. I’m taking a poststructural approach. Something that I think everyone does. Although not everyone might be aware of it (or admit it, if they are).

Image by Becker1999 via Flickr

Need I say more?

¹ Kant devised a distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are said to contain the predicate in the subject. Synthetic propositions do not contain the predicate in the subject. An example of an analytic proposition is, “All squares have four sides.” An example of a synthetic proposition is, “All men are athletic.”

² Along these lines the ancient Greek, Heraclitus, once wrote said that we cannot step into the same river twice. So what is a “river?”

³ Not to imply that Eastern philosophy is necessarily simpler or less open to interpretation. Just look at some of the Buddhist logic schools, for instance.

Related » Science, scientism