2. THE FALLACIES OF SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING
The Limits to Analytical Knowledge
The scientific method consists of four basic steps. The first is to consciously focus
one’s attention on something and to observe and examine it mentally. The second step is
to use one’s powers of discernment and reasoning to set up a hypothesis and formulate a theory based on these observations. The third is to empirically uncover a single principle
or law from concurring results gathered through analogous experiences and repeated
experimentation. And finally, when the results of inductive experimentation have been applied and found to hold, the final step is to accept this knowledge as scientific truth and
affirm its utility to mankind.
As this process begins with research that discriminates, breaks down, and analyzes, the
truths it grasps can never be absolute and universal. Thus scientific knowledge is by
definition fragmented and incomplete; no matter how many bits of incomplete knowledge
are collected together, they can never form a complete whole. Man believes that the
continued dissection and deciphering of nature enable broad generalizations to be made
which give a full picture of nature, but this only breaks nature down into smaller and smaller fragments and reduces it to ever greater imperfection.
The judgment by man that science understands nature and can use it to create a more
perfect world has had the very opposite effect of making nature incomprehensible and has drawn man away from nature and its blessings, so that he now gladly harvests
imitation crops far inferior to those of nature.
To illustrate, let us consider the scientist who brings a soil sample back to the
laboratory for analysis. Finding the sample to consist of organic and inorganic matter, he
divides the inorganic matter up into its components, such as nitrogen, potassium,
phosphorus, calcium, and manganese, and studies, say, the pathways by which these
elements are absorbed by plants as nutrients. He then plants seeds in pots or small test
plots to study how plants grow in this soil. He also carefully examines the relationships
between microorganisms in the soil and inorganic soil components, and the roles and effects of these microorganisms.
The wheat that grows of its own accord from fallen seed on the open ground and the
wheat planted and grown in laboratory pots are both identical, but man expends great time, effort, and resources to raise wheat, all because of the blind faith he has in his own
ability to grow more and better wheat than nature. Why does he believe this?
Wheat growth varies with the conditions under which the wheat is grown. Noting a
variation in the size of the heads of wheat, the scientist sets about to investigate the cause.
He discovers that when there is too little calcium or magnesium in the soil within the pot, growth is poor and the leaves whither. When he artificially supplements the calcium or magnesium, he notes that the rate of growth increases and large grains form. Pleased with
his success, the scientist calls his discovery scientific truth and treats it as an infallible
cultivation technique.
But the real question here is whether the lack of calcium or magnesium was a true
deficiency. What is the basis for calling it a deficiency, and is the remedy prescribed
really in the best interests of man? When a field really is deficient in some component,
the first thing done should be to determine the true cause of the deficiency. Yet science
begins by treating the most obvious symptoms. If there is bleeding, it stops the bleeding.
For a calcium deficiency, it immediately applies calcium. If this does not solve the problem, then science looks further and any number of reasons may come to light: perhaps the over-application of potassium reduced calcium
absorption by the plant or changed the calcium in the soil to a form that cannot be taken
up by the plant. This calls for a new approach. But behind every cause, there is a second and a third cause. Behind every phenomenon there is a main cause, a fundamental cause, an
underlying cause, and contributing factors. Numerous causes and effects intertwine in a
complex pattern that leaves little clue as to the true cause. Even so, man is confident of
the ability of science to find the true cause through persistent and ever deeper
investigation and to set up effective ways of coping with the problem. Yet, just how far
can he go in his investigation of cause and effect?
There Is No Cause-and-Effect in Nature
Behind every cause lie countless other causes. Any attempt to trace these back to their
sources only leads one further away from an understanding of the true cause.
When soil acidity becomes a problem, one jumps to the immediate conclusion that the
soil does not contain enough lime. However this deficiency of lime may be due not to the
soil itself, but to a more fundamental cause such as erosion of the soil resulting from
repeated cultivation on ground exposed by weeding; or perhaps it is related to the rainfall
or temperature. Applying lime to treat soil aciditythought to result from insufficient lime
may bring about excessive plant growth and increaseacidity even further, in which case
one ends up confusing cause with effect. Soil acidity control measures taken without
understanding why the soil became acidic in the first place may be just as likely to
prolong acidity as to reduce it.
Right after the war, I used large quantities of sawdust and wood chips in my orchard.
Soil experts opposed this, saying that the organic acids produced when the wood rots
would most likely make the soil acidic and that to neutralize it I would have to apply
large quantities of lime. Yet the soil did not turn acid, so lime was not needed. What happens is that, when bacteria start decomposing the sawdust, organic acids are
produced. But as the acidity rises, bacterial growth levels off and molds begin to flourish.
When the soil is left to itself, the molds are eventually replaced by mushrooms and other
fungi, which break the sawdust down to cellulose and lignin. The soil at this point is
neither acidic nor basic, but hovers about a point of equilibrium.
The decision to counteract the acidity of rotting wood by applying lime only addresses
the situation at a particular moment in time and under certain assumed conditions without
a full understanding of the causal relationships involved. Nonintervention is the wisest course of action.
The same is true for crop diseases. Believing rice blast to be caused by the infiltration of rice blast bacteria, farmers are convinced beyond a doubt that the disease can be
dispelled by spraying copper or mercury agents. However, the truth is not so simple.
High temperatures and heavy rainfall may be contributing factors, as may the overapplication of nitrogenous fertilizers. Perhaps flooding of the paddy during a period of high temperature weakened the roots, or the variety of rice being grown has a low
resistance to rice blast disease.
Any number of interrelated factors may exist. Different measures may be adopted at different times and under different conditions, or a more comprehensive approach applied. But with a general acceptance of the scientific explanation for rice blast disease comes the belief that science is working on a way to combat the disease. Steady improvement in the pesticides used for the direct control of the disease has led to the present state of affairs where pesticides are applied several times a year as a sort of panacea. But as research digs deeper and deeper, what was once accepted as plain and simple fact is no longer clear, and causes cease to be what they appear.
For instance, even if we know that excess nitrogenous fertilizer is a cause of rice blast
disease, determining how the excess fertilizer relates to attack by rice blast bacteria is no
easy matter. If the plant receives plenty of sunlight, photosynthesis in the leaves speeds
up, increasing the rate at which nitrogenous components taken up by the roots are assimilated as protein that nourishes the stem and leaves or is stored in the grain. But if cloudy weather persists or the rice is planted too densely, individual plants may receive insufficient light or too little carbon dioxide, slowing photosynthesis. This may in turn cause an excess of nitrogenous components to remain unassimilated in the leaves, making
the plant susceptible to the disease.
Thus, an excess of nitrogenous fertilizer may or may not be the cause of rice blast
disease. One can just as easily ascribe the cause to insufficient sunlight or carbon dioxide,
or to the amount of starch in the leaves, but then it turns out that to understand how these
factors relate to rice blast disease, we need to understand the process of photosynthesis.
Yet modern science has not yet succeeded in fully unlocking the secrets of this process
by which starch is synthesized from sunlight and carbon dioxide in the leaves of plants.
We know that rotting roots make a plant susceptibleto rice blast, but the attempts of
scientists to explain why are less than convincing. This happens when the balance
between the surface portion of the plant and its roots breaks down. Yet in trying to define
what that balance is, we must answer why a weight in-equilibrium in the roots as
compared with the stalk and leaves makes the plant susceptible to attack by pathogens,
what constitutes an “unhealthy” state, and other riddles that ultimately leave us knowing
nothing. Sometimes the problem is blamed on a weak strain ofrice, but again no one is able to
define what “weak” means. Some scientists talk of the silica content and stalk hardness,
while others define “weakness” in terms of physiology, genetics, or some other branch of
scientific learning. In the end, we gradually fail to understand even those causes that
appeared clear at first, and completely lose sight of the true cause. When man sees a brown spot on a leaf, he calls it abnormal. If he finds an unusual bacteria on that spot, he calls the plant diseased. His confident solution to rice blast disease is to kill the pathogen with pesticides. But in so doing he has not really solved the problem of blast disease. Without a grasp of the true cause of the disease, his solution cannot be a real solution. Behind each cause lies another cause, and behind that yet another. Thus what we view as a cause can also be seen as the result of another cause.
Similarly, what we think of as an effect may becomethe cause of something else. The rice plant itself may see blast disease as a protective mechanism that halts excessive plant growth and restores a balance between the surface and underground
portions of the plant. The disease might even be regarded as a means by nature for
preventing the overly dense growth of rice plants, thus aiding photosynthesis and
assuring the full production of seed. In any case, rice blast disease is not the final effect,
but merely one stage in the constant flux of nature. It is both a cause as well as an effect.
Although cause and effect may be clearly discernible when observing an isolated
event at a certain point in time, if one views nature from a broader spatial and temporal
perspective, one sees a tangled confusion of causalrelationships that defy unraveling into
cause and effect. Even so, man thinks that by resolving this confusion down to its tiniest
details and attempting to deal with these details at their most elementary level, he will be
able to develop more precise and reliable solutions. But this scientific thinking and
methodology only results in the most circuitous andpointless efforts.
Viewed up close, organic causal relationships can be resolved into causes and effects,
but when examined holistically, no effects and causes are to be found. There is nothing to
get ahold of, so all measures are futile. Nature has neither beginning nor end, before nor
after, cause nor effect. Causality does not exist.
When there is no front or back, no beginning or end, but only what resembles a circle
or sphere, one could say that there is unity of cause and effect, but one could just as well
claim that cause and effect do not exist. This is my principle of non-causality.
To science, which examines this wheel of causality in parts and at close quarters,
cause and effect exist. To the scientific mind trained to believe in causality, there most
certainly is a way to combat rice blast bacteria. Yet when man, in his myopic way,
perceives rice disease as a nuisance and takes the scientific approach of controlling the
disease with a powerful bactericide, he proceeds from his first error that causality exists to subsequent errors. From his futile efforts he incurs further toil and misery.
The Limits to Analytical Knowledge
The scientific method consists of four basic steps. The first is to consciously focus
one’s attention on something and to observe and examine it mentally. The second step is
to use one’s powers of discernment and reasoning to set up a hypothesis and formulate a theory based on these observations. The third is to empirically uncover a single principle
or law from concurring results gathered through analogous experiences and repeated
experimentation. And finally, when the results of inductive experimentation have been applied and found to hold, the final step is to accept this knowledge as scientific truth and
affirm its utility to mankind.
As this process begins with research that discriminates, breaks down, and analyzes, the
truths it grasps can never be absolute and universal. Thus scientific knowledge is by
definition fragmented and incomplete; no matter how many bits of incomplete knowledge
are collected together, they can never form a complete whole. Man believes that the
continued dissection and deciphering of nature enable broad generalizations to be made
which give a full picture of nature, but this only breaks nature down into smaller and smaller fragments and reduces it to ever greater imperfection.
The judgment by man that science understands nature and can use it to create a more
perfect world has had the very opposite effect of making nature incomprehensible and has drawn man away from nature and its blessings, so that he now gladly harvests
imitation crops far inferior to those of nature.
To illustrate, let us consider the scientist who brings a soil sample back to the
laboratory for analysis. Finding the sample to consist of organic and inorganic matter, he
divides the inorganic matter up into its components, such as nitrogen, potassium,
phosphorus, calcium, and manganese, and studies, say, the pathways by which these
elements are absorbed by plants as nutrients. He then plants seeds in pots or small test
plots to study how plants grow in this soil. He also carefully examines the relationships
between microorganisms in the soil and inorganic soil components, and the roles and effects of these microorganisms.
The wheat that grows of its own accord from fallen seed on the open ground and the
wheat planted and grown in laboratory pots are both identical, but man expends great time, effort, and resources to raise wheat, all because of the blind faith he has in his own
ability to grow more and better wheat than nature. Why does he believe this?
Wheat growth varies with the conditions under which the wheat is grown. Noting a
variation in the size of the heads of wheat, the scientist sets about to investigate the cause.
He discovers that when there is too little calcium or magnesium in the soil within the pot, growth is poor and the leaves whither. When he artificially supplements the calcium or magnesium, he notes that the rate of growth increases and large grains form. Pleased with
his success, the scientist calls his discovery scientific truth and treats it as an infallible
cultivation technique.
But the real question here is whether the lack of calcium or magnesium was a true
deficiency. What is the basis for calling it a deficiency, and is the remedy prescribed
really in the best interests of man? When a field really is deficient in some component,
the first thing done should be to determine the true cause of the deficiency. Yet science
begins by treating the most obvious symptoms. If there is bleeding, it stops the bleeding.
For a calcium deficiency, it immediately applies calcium. If this does not solve the problem, then science looks further and any number of reasons may come to light: perhaps the over-application of potassium reduced calcium
absorption by the plant or changed the calcium in the soil to a form that cannot be taken
up by the plant. This calls for a new approach. But behind every cause, there is a second and a third cause. Behind every phenomenon there is a main cause, a fundamental cause, an
underlying cause, and contributing factors. Numerous causes and effects intertwine in a
complex pattern that leaves little clue as to the true cause. Even so, man is confident of
the ability of science to find the true cause through persistent and ever deeper
investigation and to set up effective ways of coping with the problem. Yet, just how far
can he go in his investigation of cause and effect?
There Is No Cause-and-Effect in Nature
Behind every cause lie countless other causes. Any attempt to trace these back to their
sources only leads one further away from an understanding of the true cause.
When soil acidity becomes a problem, one jumps to the immediate conclusion that the
soil does not contain enough lime. However this deficiency of lime may be due not to the
soil itself, but to a more fundamental cause such as erosion of the soil resulting from
repeated cultivation on ground exposed by weeding; or perhaps it is related to the rainfall
or temperature. Applying lime to treat soil aciditythought to result from insufficient lime
may bring about excessive plant growth and increaseacidity even further, in which case
one ends up confusing cause with effect. Soil acidity control measures taken without
understanding why the soil became acidic in the first place may be just as likely to
prolong acidity as to reduce it.
Right after the war, I used large quantities of sawdust and wood chips in my orchard.
Soil experts opposed this, saying that the organic acids produced when the wood rots
would most likely make the soil acidic and that to neutralize it I would have to apply
large quantities of lime. Yet the soil did not turn acid, so lime was not needed. What happens is that, when bacteria start decomposing the sawdust, organic acids are
produced. But as the acidity rises, bacterial growth levels off and molds begin to flourish.
When the soil is left to itself, the molds are eventually replaced by mushrooms and other
fungi, which break the sawdust down to cellulose and lignin. The soil at this point is
neither acidic nor basic, but hovers about a point of equilibrium.
The decision to counteract the acidity of rotting wood by applying lime only addresses
the situation at a particular moment in time and under certain assumed conditions without
a full understanding of the causal relationships involved. Nonintervention is the wisest course of action.
The same is true for crop diseases. Believing rice blast to be caused by the infiltration of rice blast bacteria, farmers are convinced beyond a doubt that the disease can be
dispelled by spraying copper or mercury agents. However, the truth is not so simple.
High temperatures and heavy rainfall may be contributing factors, as may the overapplication of nitrogenous fertilizers. Perhaps flooding of the paddy during a period of high temperature weakened the roots, or the variety of rice being grown has a low
resistance to rice blast disease.
Any number of interrelated factors may exist. Different measures may be adopted at different times and under different conditions, or a more comprehensive approach applied. But with a general acceptance of the scientific explanation for rice blast disease comes the belief that science is working on a way to combat the disease. Steady improvement in the pesticides used for the direct control of the disease has led to the present state of affairs where pesticides are applied several times a year as a sort of panacea. But as research digs deeper and deeper, what was once accepted as plain and simple fact is no longer clear, and causes cease to be what they appear.
For instance, even if we know that excess nitrogenous fertilizer is a cause of rice blast
disease, determining how the excess fertilizer relates to attack by rice blast bacteria is no
easy matter. If the plant receives plenty of sunlight, photosynthesis in the leaves speeds
up, increasing the rate at which nitrogenous components taken up by the roots are assimilated as protein that nourishes the stem and leaves or is stored in the grain. But if cloudy weather persists or the rice is planted too densely, individual plants may receive insufficient light or too little carbon dioxide, slowing photosynthesis. This may in turn cause an excess of nitrogenous components to remain unassimilated in the leaves, making
the plant susceptible to the disease.
Thus, an excess of nitrogenous fertilizer may or may not be the cause of rice blast
disease. One can just as easily ascribe the cause to insufficient sunlight or carbon dioxide,
or to the amount of starch in the leaves, but then it turns out that to understand how these
factors relate to rice blast disease, we need to understand the process of photosynthesis.
Yet modern science has not yet succeeded in fully unlocking the secrets of this process
by which starch is synthesized from sunlight and carbon dioxide in the leaves of plants.
We know that rotting roots make a plant susceptibleto rice blast, but the attempts of
scientists to explain why are less than convincing. This happens when the balance
between the surface portion of the plant and its roots breaks down. Yet in trying to define
what that balance is, we must answer why a weight in-equilibrium in the roots as
compared with the stalk and leaves makes the plant susceptible to attack by pathogens,
what constitutes an “unhealthy” state, and other riddles that ultimately leave us knowing
nothing. Sometimes the problem is blamed on a weak strain ofrice, but again no one is able to
define what “weak” means. Some scientists talk of the silica content and stalk hardness,
while others define “weakness” in terms of physiology, genetics, or some other branch of
scientific learning. In the end, we gradually fail to understand even those causes that
appeared clear at first, and completely lose sight of the true cause. When man sees a brown spot on a leaf, he calls it abnormal. If he finds an unusual bacteria on that spot, he calls the plant diseased. His confident solution to rice blast disease is to kill the pathogen with pesticides. But in so doing he has not really solved the problem of blast disease. Without a grasp of the true cause of the disease, his solution cannot be a real solution. Behind each cause lies another cause, and behind that yet another. Thus what we view as a cause can also be seen as the result of another cause.
Similarly, what we think of as an effect may becomethe cause of something else. The rice plant itself may see blast disease as a protective mechanism that halts excessive plant growth and restores a balance between the surface and underground
portions of the plant. The disease might even be regarded as a means by nature for
preventing the overly dense growth of rice plants, thus aiding photosynthesis and
assuring the full production of seed. In any case, rice blast disease is not the final effect,
but merely one stage in the constant flux of nature. It is both a cause as well as an effect.
Although cause and effect may be clearly discernible when observing an isolated
event at a certain point in time, if one views nature from a broader spatial and temporal
perspective, one sees a tangled confusion of causalrelationships that defy unraveling into
cause and effect. Even so, man thinks that by resolving this confusion down to its tiniest
details and attempting to deal with these details at their most elementary level, he will be
able to develop more precise and reliable solutions. But this scientific thinking and
methodology only results in the most circuitous andpointless efforts.
Viewed up close, organic causal relationships can be resolved into causes and effects,
but when examined holistically, no effects and causes are to be found. There is nothing to
get ahold of, so all measures are futile. Nature has neither beginning nor end, before nor
after, cause nor effect. Causality does not exist.
When there is no front or back, no beginning or end, but only what resembles a circle
or sphere, one could say that there is unity of cause and effect, but one could just as well
claim that cause and effect do not exist. This is my principle of non-causality.
To science, which examines this wheel of causality in parts and at close quarters,
cause and effect exist. To the scientific mind trained to believe in causality, there most
certainly is a way to combat rice blast bacteria. Yet when man, in his myopic way,
perceives rice disease as a nuisance and takes the scientific approach of controlling the
disease with a powerful bactericide, he proceeds from his first error that causality exists to subsequent errors. From his futile efforts he incurs further toil and misery.
No comments:
Post a Comment