Bubble

Like a 'bubble' floating on the infinite, such is the scientific reason. Its spherical coherence occupies the vast space of the middle. The extremes are excluded from it. However, it is impossible to reduce them to silence. For instance, which is the reason of the reason? Such a question takes the criticism short. It marks something like an impotent stop because such a question overflows the possibility of the reason itself and opens an infinite gaping. Here the reason is seized of giddiness. However such a question is not irrational. To search for reason can be identified with the reason itself. Why then this impotent giddiness? The reason, indeed, touches here a radical discrepancy. It is questioning of reason ad infinitum, critical and critical of criticism ad infinitum, a conquering possibility infinitely open. At the same time this infinite opening butts against the tautological fence of its proper being: the reason of the reason is the reason. Its being is the reason of its being. The act of its being resists its rational comprehension.

The scientific reason is not able to be identified with the total reason. In fact, it represents only one of the modes of the logos. Also, the total field of the human experiment refuses to be 'buckled' up in scientific totalizing. It remains open on 'other' dimensions than the strict logical-material articulation. Another dimension… Like the act to be. The mystery of our being. The 'fascinosum' and 'tremendum' of the sacral experience. Existential arising. Creation. Infinity. Freedom. Encounters. Value. Love. Beauty. Good. Evil. Time. Eternity. Sense. God…

Science can integrate only the 'same' one. It is its force. But first it is its law. It would deny itself by supporting the 'other' as 'other'. For instance, the strangeness, the freedom, the value, the mystery, the sense, the transcendence… Science is built and added up by postulating a certain space of intelligibility. This space is necessarily totalitarian, coherent, homogeneous, structural, deterministic, objective.

Science cannot affirm beyond itself. Its coherence being internal, and internal only, it avoids relating to the absolute. Its truths are basically hypothetical-deductive, that is conditional, suspended to conditions. If… then… If our universe corresponds indeed to the representations and the theories we can have, then…

Right through this space is governed by one and the same order. It must exclude, expel out of science, as not-scientist, any diversity of different nature. The scientist and philosopher Blaise Pascal speaks about the infinite distance from the bodies to the spirits… and even about a distance infinitely more infinite from the spirits to charity… Inside its space, science is a discursive approach, logically and rationally coherent. This coherence is guarantor of its truth.

Science is not illumination of a transcendent mystery. It is not either a reflection or a photography of reality. It is a 'constructed speech', fruit of a rational work. The truth of this construction comes to it neither from its conformity to the 'real', nor from its practical effectiveness, but of its own progress towards coherence. The scientific reason operates thus, critically, its own validation. Inside its space, science can function validly, independently of a deep gaping which opens behind its materials, its methods and its laws of construction. In short, one can be scientist without metaphysical anguish regarding his scientific discipline. Science can continue to function even when a crisis affects its bases. These gaping is however infinitely relevant.

We know only from the bottom of mystery. Like a raft on the immense ocean of the questions… How far is our epistemological possibility going? Is the universe a system or a scattered plurality? Is the possibility of our knowledge of the universe total or simply regional? Is the universe understandable in a homogeneous or in a heterogeneous way? What is really matter? What is energy? What is space and time? Is time absolutely irreversible? What is necessity? What is chance? Is there only one cosmos or a plurality of worlds? If there is plurality, is it basically complementary or antagonistic? Do anti-universes exist? Are the interactions which we know and which we manage to unify the only interactions? Are the principles of today’s scientific intelligibility absolute or transitory? Is our intellectual space homogeneous? Which is the probability of new epistemological revolutions? Is there only one order of intelligibility or a plurality of orders? Etc, etc.

A crisis affects sciences today. It is especially sensitive in fundamental sciences, namely mathematics and physics. Other sciences, biology for example, function in the space of fundamental sciences. They are to some extent included by them. They thus do not raise the crucial questions. They continue to function like a kind of mechanic, starting from available 'parts', whatever the gaping behind its materials and its laws of construction.

Singular paradox! The more physics becomes 'modern' plus it is affected by an anthropological coefficient, as if a three times secular distance not only brought it back to man but even made it part of its gaping. The image of our world, which according to ptoleme was the center, was put into orbit with Copernicus and and finally relativized with Einstein, the order itself of the cosmos was put off-centre, put into orbit and relativized. Our universe lost its safety measures. It is delivered to risk and adventure. It takes part of a great dramaturgy. It is in exodus.

Science knows today that its coherence functions like insular coherence in the middle of other coherences. It scientifically makes the experiment of its radical incompleteness. Its impossible totalizing can from now on be only out of science.

Unless wanting to be inhuman, science cannot be a finality in itself. It can never be but a way and a means, at service of the means and necessities of man. Science is a tool, a marvellous and effective tool, but a tool only. A tool of service. Under penalty of being the science of nobody for nobody, science remains necessarily a human project. A prestigious and effective project. This project is not absolute but relative. Science is only one project among other human projects. Relative to a space-time of the evolution of humanity. Relative to the world such as it is. Relative to the epistemological and pragmatic possibilities of man.

There is a questioning preliminary to the science and without which science would not question.

 goto