Empirical Knowledge Is Limited

[ethos 0]

Empirical Knowledge Is Limited

 

In the past two hundred years, there have been unprecedented achievements in material science and technology. Unfortunately, we have become hypnotized with the power acquired from moving matter. When we attempt to derive world views –– mechanistic world views and so on –– from simply moving matter and claim that empirical knowledge actually presents a real picture of the way things really are, we create more ignorance than knowledge. Pervasive world views today put too much emphasis on empirical knowledge.

 

The normal method for understanding things, empiricism, is very useful for understanding inferior things only. The simple reason being that you cannot empirically study something unless you can do something to it. You cannot “do something” to superior things because that access is not there. When you say at what temperature water boils or metal bends you can speak with precision. If you couldn’t speak reliably, how could an airplane fly? Every time one takes off it would be anyone‘s guess where it would go –– up, down, sideways or whatever. But in fact, when we deal with physical objects we can speak with precision. Therefore we can have machines. We can speak accurately when dealing with physical objects because we can manipulate them. But, since we cannot control others precisely, we cannot predict their behavior.

 

There is no strict science of behavior the way there is a science of, say boiling water. This is because of a rudiment called free will. Water cannot decide, “Well, I’m just not going to boil today. I‘m not into it.” A machine can‘t say, “Get your dirty hands off me. I’m tired, I‘ve worked enough.” Physical objects don’t have free will, but living beings do. Therefore, there is always that variable which cannot be consistently predicted. Now, imagine even greater living entities who are far superior to human beings. You can‘t do anything with them.

 

Therefore, if you say that everything must be empirically demonstrated, two big problems arise. First, you limit yourself to understanding inferior things only. By prior assumption, nothing can be real or true unless it can be manipulated. Obviously, it’s a very obnoxious, ridiculous assumption to make. But this is the accepted standard. Secondly, the assertion contradicts itself. If nothing is real unless it can be empirically demonstrated, how will you empirically demonstrate that statement? You can‘t. Therefore, if the statement is true, it‘s not true because it can‘t be empirically demonstrated. That‘s not very good science.

 

viewpoints presented are taken from

lectures given by Hridayanada das Gosvami