The Decline of Scientific Rationalism

During the later part of the 20th century, most sophisticated westerners have worshipped at the alter of scientific realism which is the belief that knowledge is obtained through objective empirical observation of physical phenomenon. The prevailing view of scientific realists is that the world is out there for us to study independent of our perception and understanding. And, our goal is to understand it as it exists. Things like shared understanding are meaningless because they cannot be studied objectively as independent empirical phenomenon. We have, very grudgingly, allowed other forms of knowledge such as intuition, interpretation, transcendentalism and the like. We have even explored parapsychological phenomenon. Yet we value scientific realism the most and even subject other forms of knowledge to the standards of scientific realism. Most people in the 20th century frame of mind would argue the indisputable observation that scientific realism does yield more reliable truth. But that observation fails to recognize that this epistemology yields certain kinds of truth, usually physical or natural, while failing miserably to make any progress at all on other kinds of truth. Scientific realism does not tell you how to prevent wars. It does not tell you how to live. It does not tell you how to define goals or determine what to strive for.
Scientific realism is the dominant epistemology of the 20th century because we value the truths that it yields and ignore its vast deficiencies. In all fairness I would readily concede that scientific realism has been an enormously productive epistemology. The advances in knowledge provided by the scientific method are unparalleled in history, and not even on the same scale as previous attempts to understand our world. The problem is that the enormous productivity of scientific realism has led us to the erroneous belief that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge that is worth anything. And once we begin (as we will in the next century) to value other kinds of knowledge, scientific realism will gracefully recede to its rightful place in our worldview.
I titled this essay "The decline of scientific rationalism" which the astute observer may see as an oxymoron. Indeed it is. Science is empirical and inductive. Mathematics is rational and deductive. Science and mathematics are, indeed, two different worldviews, two different epistemologies. If the ideal mathematician offers a proof of some kind and you ask to see the data, the ideal mathematician will look at you like you are from Mars. (I hope we don't have interplanetary travel in the next century, or I will have to edit these essays for political correctness). On the other hand, if the ideal scientist offered proof of a claim and said "I didn't really collect data, I just reasoned out what would happen" he or she would be completely discredited. (I realize that this is exactly what Einstein did, but most scientists would never get away with it.) Nonetheless, I use the phrase scientific rationalism for the reductionist pursuit of the laws of nature (rationalism) driven by observation (empiricism) which, indeed, has been the dominant epistemology of the 20th century.
Several things have already happened that will undermine our belief in scientific rationalism and open up possibilities for new dominant epistemologies in the 21st century.
Perhaps the biggest failure of 20th century epistemology is that it has given us enormous power to control nature. This control of nature allows us to modify our environment in ways that would be inconceivable to previous generations. And, yet, with this enormous power we have no idea what to do with it. There is absolutely nothing in the scientific method that will give you the slightest hint regarding what you should do with the knowledge you have gained. Knowledge for knowledge sake has always been the battle cry of the scientific rationalism. Ideal mathematicians point to the fact that Marconi would never have been able to invent the wireless radio if imaginary numbers had not been discovered by mathematicians a generation earlier. Mathematicians justify their pursuits with the belief that all mathematics will eventually be used. Yet Stanislaw Ulam, a world class mathematician of the world war II era points out that over two hundred thousand new theorems are being proven every year and the likelihood that they will all be used is infinitesimal.
Knowledge for knowledge sake has created an imbalance in our worldview. Human knowledge should progress evenly on all fronts. When our understanding of the physical universe far surpasses our understanding of ourselves a great disequilibrium occurs. It isn't as though we don't need to know all this stuff. It is simply that there are other things we need to know in order to make sense out of all this physical knowledge we have gathered.
I was speaking to a paleontologist the other day and asked if humans would still be around in a few million years. He replied "I hope not, or all our theories would be wrong!"
Scientific method has been extremely productive. And it has improved the human condition. But we have put scientific understanding far in front of understanding the human condition and caused a great epistemological disequilibrium. It is likely that this disequilibrium will begin to correct itself in the next century.