Theoretical
thinking is a feature of science and there are today many sciences. At school we typically study physics,
chemistry and biology; then there are also subjects such as psychology and
mathematics. Each of them investigates its
own irreducible terrain of reality in which certain properties and laws that
form a basic kind of functioning of the objects and events in our experience
are grouped together. Mathematicians,
for example, focus on numbers themselves, not on counting particular objects,
but investigating numerical properties as they can be understood in isolation
from the objects of ordinary experience.
In biology we investigate generative (living) systems that reproduce and
go through cycles of development. In
physics the focus is on the interactions of energy that are presupposed in
living organisms, but also on physical forces such as gravity and
electromagnetism. We can see that theory works by isolating aspects of the
world in order to produce explanations [add examples]. This characterises
science and cuts across the division of so-called ‘natural’ and ‘social’
sciences.[1] We can also see that the explanations
produced give us a model of the world that is different from what we directly
perceive. From this we conclude that
theoretical thinking has the character of analysis, of identifying and
distinguishing things, of taking things apart in thought. In theory we view reality from an abstract
perspective such as that of physics; we may start with the fullness of our
experience of reality but we find a point of entry that directs us to certain
features that are of specific interest.
So we might have a flower in front of us and our point of interest is in
the psychological benefits of having flowers in a hospital environment, or our
point of interest may be in its economic value and role in a particular
economy, or we may be interested in the flower from a more strictly biological
perspective its processes of growth, maturation, reproduction etc. In each approach there is a human busy in the
activity of selecting particular features of an object for further
investigation. In this act of thought we
leave behind, though only in our thinking and explaining, the fullness of
reality as we usually experience it and investigate an isolated part of
it.
It takes considerable training to achieve this ability
to select a relevant viewpoint to guide our investigation into some matter or
other, and yet as a learnt human skill it becomes part of the scientist’s
second nature and so easily passes unnoticed.
However, if we step back from this activity and ask ourselves how the
resulting analysis and explanation relates to the results of other sciences
with their different points of interest, and how these in turn relate to the original
fullness of reality that we confront in our everyday experience then we face a
perplexing philosophical problem of unity and diversity. We can unpack this by
asking two distinct questions: How do all these perspectives relate to each
other? And then: Can they all be united into a single understanding of
reality? But these questions cannot be
answered by theoretical thought alone even though it is awakened by them. They
are questions that sit on the very boundary of theoretical thought, or we could
say at its limits. Here it is
appropriate to say that philosophy should proceed with a sense of wonder.
[1]I say
so-called ‘natural’ because social sciences such as sociology, economics,
history and so on can hardly be said to investigate non-natural aspects of
reality. These sciences investigate
properties and processes that are just as much part of our world as those
studied by the ‘natural’ sciences. It is
only a certain kind of philosophical prejudice that elevates the ‘natural’
sciences to a level of ‘real’ or ‘hard’ science as opposed to ‘soft’ sciences. This is another result of reductionist
thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment