Between

Science never includes and understands but between. Before it and after it reigns an inexpressible including realm. Science understands in the 'middle'. The 'extremes' are evanescent. The scientific totality is thus not an absolute totality. Such a claim was formerly asserted by naive metaphysic assertions of scientism. Its fundamental error was to succumb to the illusion of self-sufficiency by ignoring the ecosystem of the science, an including always included by a broader including. Science occupies an immense space, undoubtedly. But this space itself is still placed in a bigger space. Science does not forget that its coherence functions like an insular coherence in the middle of other possible coherences. Science is a logically and rationally coherent construction which holds its truth and its certainty of this coherence itself. This certainty is however only internal. It affects only an insular content. This one remains to some extent 'floating' like a bubble in a more including possibility.

These conditions of possibility of science escape science. This including space that science presupposes without being able to found it constitutes the originating postulate of science. Science is not only hypothetical-deductive in its process, it is hypothetical-deductive in its constitution. The scientist, as Einstein says, is animated by the belief in the internal harmony of our world. He's making a kind of act of faith in the order of the universe without being able to justify it.

What science does not lodge and what, on the contrary, lodges science... First, science itself. The conditions of possibility of science are beyond the science. Why is something as a science possible? The most incomprehensible, notes Einstein, is that science is possible.

Secondly, the reason. Science is never but the reason made up at a given time. What founds this made up reason is the constituent reason, i.e. the absolute requirement itself of non-contradiction, of totality and of coherence.

Thirdly, the act of being i.e. the irreducible factitiousness of being… Science necessarily begins from a `there is' that it does not create. But how can you explain and understand that ‘there is’ something rather than nothing as Leibniz wonders.

Fourthly, the rationality of the reality. Every thing is not possible. All things are not possible together, anywhere, at any time, nor anyhow. The universe is governed by laws without these laws science would be impossible. This `pressure' determines an order of being and successions. Beings and phenomena are determined. Even `chance' is determined, if you consider that there is not only the space of the (random) play, there are not only the rules of the game but basically the rules which govern the possibility of the game itself! Without the belief in the internal harmony of our world, according to the word of Einstein, science could not be possible.

Science proceeds only by buckling loops. However it cannot buckle itself onitself. The logical-material totalizing leaves indeed a triple 'there is' which founds it but that it cannot found in return.

There is a logical totality, a logical order, a rational necessity, determinism, structure, laws… Why is order rather than disorder?

There is space, time, matter, nature… Why is there something rather than nothing?

There is science, structural intelligibility, analytical and synthetic possibility of the spirit… Why is science possible?

 
goto