Science aims to explain physical phenomena by using different levels of explanation, from top-down reductionism to bottom-up synthesis. These approaches are examples of consilience, or the "jumping together of knowledge", which is a key principle of pragmatism. Consilience is reached when different levels of explanation support one another without contradiction, and this helps to build a coherent and robust understanding of the world.
At the level of direct human experience, objects like automobiles can be explained in simple terms, but professionals like mechanics and engineers use more sophisticated terminology to describe and explain these objects. Similarly, chemists and physicists use still more sophisticated terminology. From a pragmatist perspective, this is because the appropriate level of explanation depends on the context and purpose of the explanation. For instance, when explaining how a car works to someone who wants to buy it, a layperson's explanation might be sufficient, but a more detailed explanation might be necessary for someone who wants to fix or design a car.
However, when it comes to agents like human beings, many people question the appropriateness of reductionist explanations of the human condition. This is where pragmatism can provide useful insights. Pragmatists recognize that different levels of explanation can coexist and complement each other, and that the appropriate level of explanation depends on the context and purpose of the explanation. Therefore, there is no single "correct" or "better" level of explanation. Instead, all levels of explanation can be correct and useful in different contexts.
For example, some people are put off when scientists attempt to explain the qualitative experience of "love" in chemical or biological language, as they feel that this diminishes the significance and richness of the experience. However, from a pragmatist perspective, this is a contextual error. Love can be understood at different levels of explanation, from the level of direct human experience, to the physical level, to the neuro-biological level. Therefore, it is not a matter of which level of explanation is "better" or more "correct", but rather which level of explanation is most appropriate for the context and purpose of the explanation.
In conclusion, the relationship between science and direct human experience is complex and multifaceted, and requires a pragmatic approach. The fallacy of deductionism would have it that reductionism amounts to a diminishment or deduction of human experience but by recognizing the importance of context and purpose in choosing the appropriate level of explanation, we can build a more coherent and robust understanding of the world, without diminishing the richness and complexity of human experience.
Produced by Clint Warren - Aided by ChatGPT
Comments