Process, Insight, and Empirical Method
An
Argument for the Compatibility of the Philosophies of Alfred North
Whitehead and Bernard J. F. Lonergan and Its Implications for
Foundational Theology.
A
Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Divinity School, The
University of Chicago, for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
December 1983
Thomas Hosinski, C.S.C.
Chapter I:
Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s Interpretations of Empirical Scientific
Method and Philosophic Method [continued]
The Method of
Empirical Science and Philosophy
In order to begin formulating my
major thesis at the end of the present chapter, and to prepare for the
task of Chapter II, I must now outline the relation between empirical
scientific method and philosophic method as Whitehead understands that
relation. To introduce this discussion it will be convenient to
consider first Whitehead’s treatment of the relationship between science
and philosophy, which involves two distinct topics. The first is the
role of philosophy in providing the rational grounding of the
fundamental assumptions of science. The second is the role of
philosophy in relating what we know through the sciences to our other
modes of experience and reflection, which involves discovering the
limitations of scientific abstractions. After discussing each in turn,
I will discuss the relation between scientific and philosophic method in
Whitehead’s thought.
The Grounding of the
Fundamental Assumptions of Science
As I noted above the whole
enterprise of science is founded upon three basic assumptions: that
there is an order of nature to be discovered; that causality is a real
part of nature and our experience; and that the method of induction
allows us to trace causal connections. Science itself, as David Hume
demonstrated so well, cannot provide the reasonable ground for these
assumptions; they remain, so far as Hume and his intellectual offspring,
the positivists, are concerned, matters of “faith.”
For one example of
Whitehead’s treatment of this problem and of Hume’s arguments, see
Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York:
Macmillan, 1926), Chapter III, pp. 62-76, esp. pp. 75-76. (Hereafter
cited as SMW.)
But this leaves science in an insecure, weakly-founded position, and
Whitehead finds this eminently unsatisfactory. For these basic
assumptions of science do in fact have metaphysical implications, and to
regard them as simply matters of “faith” is to be at the mercy of
assumptions which have not been made explicit and not subjected to
criticism. This leaves the foundations of science unilluminated by the
light of reason. “No science can be more secure than the unconscious
metaphysics which tacitly it presupposes.”
[AI, IX, v, p. 154.]
If the foundational assumptions of
science as a whole are left in an unarticulated, reasonably ungrounded
state, the whole of science is insecure. If, as seems to be the case,
science itself cannot reasonably justify these fundamental assumptions,
then it is the task of philosophy, specifically metaphysics, to do so,
precisely because the implications of these ultimate assumptions of
science are metaphysical in character. Correlatively, any philosophical
analysis which cannot provide or discover a reasonable ground for these
fundamental assumptions of science, assumptions which scientists
continually make and upon which they depend in the conduct of their
inquiries, thereby reveals its inadequacy and must be overlooking some
crucial piece of evidence in experience.
This is the constant
theme of Whitehead’s criticism of positivism. See Thesis, pp.
17-23.
Therefore, the reasonable grounding of the practice of induction, the
notion of causality, and the trust in the order of nature constitutes
one major area in the relationship of science and philosophy. General
scientific method presumes the reality of order and causality and the
validity of inductive reasoning, and it is the task of philosophy to
exhibit that these presumptions are reasonable.
“The Theory of Induction,” Whitehead
observes, “is the despair of philosophy—and yet all our activities are
based upon it.” [SMW, II, p.
35.]
The problem of “the rational justification of this method of Induction”
[SMW, II, p.
62],
is one of philosophy’s unsolved inheritances from the seventeenth
century, unsolved because of the power of David Hume’s analysis and
criticism.
Whitehead repeatedly
states that, given certain uncriticized metaphysical positions, Hume’s
criticism constitutes the major stumbling block to a rational
justification of induction. See, e.g., SMW, III, pp. 63, 75-76.
Whitehead is convinced that the only way of overcoming Hume’s criticism
is by recourse to a metaphysical analysis, specifically an ontological
analysis, which will reveal the shortcomings of the notions and
presuppositions upon which Hume based his arguments.
My point is, that the very baffling
task of applying reason to elicit the general characteristics of the
immediate occasion, as set before us in direct cognition, is a necessary
preliminary, if we are to justify induction; unless indeed we are
content to base it upon our vague instinct that of course it is all
right. Either there is something about the immediate occasion which
affords knowledge of the past and the future, or we are reduced to utter
skepticism as to memory and induction.
[SMW, II, p. 64]
Whitehead is saying, in short, that it is impossible to give a
reasonable ground for the practice of induction, so central not only to
scientific method but also to the conduct of our everyday lives, unless
we can say just what it is about the immediate occasion which allows us
to make inductive judgments.
In other words,
Whitehead is arguing that the resolution of the epistemological problem
of justifying induction is subsequent to and dependent upon a prior
ontological analysis of the immediate occasion.
What is necessary is an ontological analysis of the immediate occasion
which will reveal those general characteristics of the occasion upon
which inductive reasoning is based. “We must observe the immediate
occasion, and use reason to elicit a general description of its
nature. Induction presupposes metaphysics.
[SMW, III, pp.
64-65. Whitehead’s italics.]
What this metaphysical analysis must uncover specifically is some basis
for knowledge of the past and future.
See SMW, III,
p. 65: “You cannot have a rational justification for your appeal to
history till your metaphysics has assured you that there is a history to
appeal to; and likewise your conjectures as to the future presuppose
some basis of knowledge that there is a future already subjected to some
determinations. The difficulty is to make sense of either of these
ideas. But unless you have done so, you have made nonsense of
induction.”
Induction, as Whitehead understands it, is essentially the tracing of
connections from past to future,
See ibid.:
“You will observe that I do not hold Induction to be in its essence the
derivation of general laws. It is the divination of some
characteristics of a particular future from the known characteristics of
a particular past. The wider assumption of general laws holding for all
cognisable occasions appears a very unsafe addendum to attach to this
limited knowledge. All we can ask of the present occasion is that it
shall determine a particular community of occasions, which are in some
respects mutually qualified by reason of their inclusion within that
same community.” Whitehead later elaborates this position in PR,
II.9.v-viii (M, pp. 303-316; C, pp. 199-207).
and if metaphysical analysis of the general characteristics of the
immediate occasion cannot reveal the bases in the occasion upon which
such reasoned connections rest, then induction cannot be reasonably
justified.
Whitehead’s concern to justify
induction by providing an adequate metaphysical analysis of the
immediate occasion leads directly to several of the major developments
in his metaphysics, and while a discussion of these developments must be
deferred to Chapter III, it would be helpful to summarize where and how
far this concern to justify induction led him. First of all, the
inadequacies of the classic analyses of reality must be exhibited. In
Science and the Modern World Whitehead undertakes this in a
critique of the classical notions of matter and “simple location,” as
well as the notions of substance and quality. In the course of this
critique he formulates his profound and powerful analytic tool, the
concept of “the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.”
[SMW, III, pp. 66-82.]
Having illustrated the inadequacies
of the classic analyses of reality, Whitehead proceeds to develop his
own description of the processes which constitute the ultimate units of
reality.
In SMW this is
done in the course of Chapters IV-XI, pp. 83-258.
Both the critique of the classical concepts and the refinement of his
own description continue in Whitehead’s later writings.
For the critique of
the classical notions see PR, Index (C. ed.), entries “Simple
location,” “Substance-quality,” and “Matter”; AI, Index, same
entries; and MT, VII, “Nature Lifeless,” pp. 127-147. In a sense
the constructive task of developing and refining an adequate analysis or
“conception” of the immediate occasion (the “actual entity” of PR) is
the subject of the whole of PR (see Whitehead’s remark in PR,
“Preface,” [M, p. viii; C, p. xiii]: “The positive doctrine of these
lectures is concerned with the becoming, the being, and the relatedness
of ‘actual entities.;”); it is also the major task of AI
(primarily II-III, pp. 103-238) and MT.
The particular concern to discover the reasonable ground for induction
and the broader concern to construct an adequate description of the
ultimate units of reality both lead Whitehead into an extensive analysis
of “social environment” and the order of nature,
[See PR, II.9.v-viii (M, pp. 303-316; C, pp. 199-207), but also
the whole of PR, II.1-4 (M, pp. 62-197; C, pp. 39-129); and
AI, VII-IX, pp. 103-159; XI-XIV, pp. 175-219.]
because the connections between occasions which are the necessary basis
of inductive reasoning are revealed by metaphysical analysis to be
inherent processes of relatedness or relativity in actual occasions. In
other words, in order to provide a reasonable ground for induction one
must produce an adequate ontology, a description of the most general
characteristics of actual occasions. This ontology will also have to
illustrate the ground in actual occasions for our “trust” that there is
an “order of nature;” it will have to illustrate the essential
connectivity of things that inductive reasoning assumes is present and
tries to trace. Finally, because inductive reasoning assumes that the
ordered connectivity of things is causal in character, Whitehead’s
concern to ground induction and our trust in order also leads him to a
major reformulation of the notion of causality in an extensive debate
with the philosophical analysis of David Hume
To consider only PR,
see Index (C. ed.), entries “Hume,” “Causal Efficacy, perception in the
mode of,” and “Causality (Causal efficacy): doctrine of.” Most of
Alfred North Whitehead, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New
York: Macmillan, 1927; New York: Capricorn Books, 1959 [hereafter cited
as S] is devoted to an analysis of perception and causality; and
these topics are also discussed extensively in both Ai and MT.
As this brief survey reveals, it can be concluded that Whitehead’s
concern to ground the fundamental assumptions of scientific method is
responsible for the development of a considerable part of his
philosophy.
Discovering the Limitations of Science
If one of the major tasks of
philosophy is to exhibit that the presumptions underlying the practice
of science are reasonable, another of its major tasks is to exhibit that
the application of scientific generalizations has a reasonable limit.
This task constitutes the second major topic in the discussion of the
relation between science and philosophy in Whitehead’s analysis. He
summarizes his understanding of this task by saying that “philosophy is
the critic of abstraction.
SMW, V, p. 126. See also
SMW, IV, pp. 85-86; IX, pp. 203-204; MT, III, iii, pp.
48-49; FR, p. 86. For a detailed analysis see Bernard M. Loomer,
“The Theological Significance of the Method of Empirical Analysis in the
Philosophy of A. N. Whitehead,” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Divinity
School, University of Chicago, 1942), pp. 44-63.
In order to understand what Whitehead means by this statement, we must
begin by discussing his understanding of “abstraction.”
Abstraction, as the word is being
used in this context, is a characteristic of thought.
In Whitehead’s
philosophical analysis “abstraction” also has more general meanings.
There is the “abstraction” involved in conscious sense perception; see
PR, II. 7.i-iii (M, pp. 238-248; C, pp. 157-163). There is also
the “abstraction involved in the creation of any actuality”
(“Mathematics and the Good,” section xiii, IS, p. 203.) This
latter sense of “abstraction” refers to the selectivity and emphasis
involved in the concrescence of an actual entity, the particular
combination of positive and negative prehensions by which the entity
defines and realizes its subjective aim and which results in the
uniqueness of the actual entity.
Because our thinking is never able
to grasp the fullness of a concrete actuality, we abstract from it
certain aspects or characteristics to serve as the data of our thought,
while ignoring or neglecting other aspects. This simplification of the
complex reality of our experience enables us to deal with it much more
easily for whatever purpose we have in mind. It is the purpose we have,
or the context of our thought and action, that determines the kind of
abstraction we will make. The same concrete actuality can give rise to
a wide variety of abstractions, but none of them, nor even all of them
taken together, can be exhaustive of the concrete actuality.
“We experience more
than we can analyse. For we experience the universe, and we analyse in
our consciousness a minute selection of its details.” MT, V, p.
89. See also AI, IV, iii, p. 52: “. . . all points of view,
reasonably coherent and in some sense with an application, have
something to contribute to our understanding of the universe, and also
involve omissions whereby they fail to include the totality of evident
fact. The duty of tolerance is our finite homage to the abundance of
inexhaustible novelty which is awaiting the future, and to the
complexity of accomplished fact which exceeds our stretch of insight.”
Thus abstractions are at once extremely useful and extremely dangerous
for our thought. They are useful because they enable us to make
progress in our understanding of experience; they are dangerous because
we have a tendency to forget that they are abstractions and, impressed
with our success in dealing with our experience in terms of our
abstractions, a tendency to mistake the abstractions for the concrete
actuality.
These general remarks can be
illustrated by considering the case of the special sciences. The
special sciences have as the object of their inquiry “nature” or “the
universe.” None of the special sciences has as its goal the
understanding of our immediate experience of nature in its entirety;
rather each of the sciences tries to understand the interrelationships
among a limited group of aspects of that experience. Every special
science abstracts from the immediate concreteness of the experience of
nature and deals with only some aspects of that experience, neglecting
or ignoring all other aspects which for its purposes are considered
irrelevant. As the history of modern science testifies, confining
attention to a particular group of abstractions in this way can be very
advantageous and can lead to the successful discovery of new knowledge
in scientific thought.
[See SMW, IV,
p. 85.]
It is here, however, that the
dangers of abstraction begin to make themselves manifest. Whitehead
summarizes these dangers in what he calls “the Fallacy of Misplaced
Concreteness,”
[SMW, III, pp. 74-76; IV, p. 85.]
the mistaking of the abstraction for
the concrete actuality. A clear example of this error can be seen in
the Newtonian cosmology of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
One of the fundamental abstractions which made possible the great
advances in physics and mechanics in these centuries was the concept
Whitehead calls “simple location,” conceiving “this bit of matter
occupying this region at this durationless instant.”
MT,
VII, p. 146. See also
the more thorough discussion in SMW, III, pp. 67-75, and IV, p.
84, where Whitehead gives the following definition of simple location:
“To say that a bit of matter has Simple location means that, in
expressing its spatio-temporal relations, it is adequate to state that
it is where it is, in a definite finite region of space, and throughout
a definite finite duration of time, apart from any essential reference
of the relations of that bit of matter to other regions of space and to
other durations of time. . . . This idea is the very foundation of the
seventeenth-century scheme of nature.”
This concept of “nature at an instant”
[MT, VII, p. 145], or as Whitehead calls it
elsewhere, “the individual independence of successive temporal
occasions”
[PR, II.5.iii (M, pp. 207-208; C, p. 137).],
was the common presupposition of the science of this time and its
employment led to success in the attempt to arrive at a fuller
understanding of the mechanics of the universe. It led to such great
success that it was forgotten that this concept is an abstraction
neglecting many aspects of reality; thinkers assumed that this concept
was an adequate description of reality. The success was so blinding
that all overlooked the fact that this abstraction could not begin to
account for other abstractions or concepts which were equally crucial to
the same scheme of dynamics and physics. If the doctrine of simple
location is “the final real fact,” if we can adequately understand
reality by conceiving of “nature at an instant” without reference to any
other instant, any other bit of matter, or any other region of space,
then, Whitehead asks,
What becomes of velocity, at an
instant? Again we ask—What becomes of momentum at an instant? These
notions are essential for Newtonian physics and yet they are without any
meaning for it. Velocity and momentum require the concept that the
state of things at other times and other places enter into the essential
character of the material occupancy of space at any selected instant.
But the Newtonian concept allows for no such modification of the
relation of occupancy. Thus the cosmological scheme is inherently
inconsistent.
[MT, VII, p. 146.]
In other words, by falling into the fallacy of misplaced concreteness,
by taking the abstraction for the reality, Newtonian cosmology
overlooked evidence about aspects of reality that the abstraction of
“simple location” ignored, even evidence presented by other abstractions
within its own physics.
There is a broader, more general
example of this danger of abstraction for our thinking. Because of the
impressive success of scientific abstractions, there has been a tendency
since the seventeenth century to generalize these abstractions into
philosophical interpretations of all reality, to expand the application
of the scientific abstraction far beyond the context of its origination.
Certain scientific abstractions, ignoring multitudinous aspects of
reality for the sake of a limited context of inquiry, were (and in some
cases still are) taken to be applicable to all reality without
modification. For example, the Newtonian physics and cosmology—once
certain difficulties were resolved which had caused Newton to appeal to
the necessary existence of God—was expanded without criticism into
philosophical interpretations claiming to be adequate descriptions of
reality, and the philosophies known as mechanism, determinism, and
materialism were born. This, too, is an example of the fallacy of
misplaced concreteness, ignoring the contextually limited application of
scientific abstractions and uncritically assuming they can be applied
universally as an adequate description of reality.
See SMW, III,
pp. 81-82. See also Ian G. Barbour’s treatment of this issue
(influenced by Whitehead), Issues in Science and Religion
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966 , pp. 35-37, 56-60.
Stephen Toulmin has developed a similar critique, though on different
grounds than Whitehead, of the generalized application of scientific
theories beyond the limited context of their origination. See his
“Contemporary Scientific Mythology,” in Alasdair MacIntyre, ed.,
Metaphysical Beliefs (London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 3-71.
It is the function of philosophy,
Whitehead argues, to serve as the critic of abstractions. This function
involves two tasks: exhibiting the limitations of scientific
abstractions, and completing them by bringing them into relation
with abstractions from other types of inquiry and with more concrete
“intuitions” of reality.
[Philosophy’s] function is the
double one, first of harmonizing [abstractions] by assigning to them
their right relative status as abstractions, and secondly of completing
them by direct comparison with more concrete intuitions of the universe,
and thereby promoting the formation of more complete schemes of thought.
. . . Philosophy is not one among the sciences with its own little
scheme of abstractions which it works away at perfecting and improving.
It is the survey of sciences, with the special objects of their
harmony, and of their completion. It brings to this task, not only the
evidence of the separate sciences, but also its own appeal to concrete
experience. It confronts the sciences with concrete facts. [See SMW, V,
pp. 126-127.]
By confronting the sciences with concrete fact, philosophy carries out
its two-fold task.
First, by calling attention to those aspects of experience neglected by
the abstractions, philosophy illustrates the limited character and scope
of application of scientific abstractions. This has the effect of
counteracting the misunderstanding that can arise from their ~~proper
application. For example, confronting the Newtonian analysis of reality
with the concrete facts which its abstractions ignore, allows us to see
the Newtonian concepts for what they are, not adequate and exhaustive
descriptions of reality, but limited abstractions useful for particular
purposes, notions which have grasped the truth in a limited fashion, but
which have a limited scope of application.
“Thus the criticism of
a theory does not start from the question True or false? It consists in
noting its scope of useful application and its failure beyond that
scope. It is an unguarded statement of a partial truth.” AI,
XV, i, p. 221. See also FR, pp. 49-54, where Newton’s theory is
criticized in exactly this way. Further critiques of Newton’s
abstractions can be found in SMW, III-IV, pp. 71-108; AI,
IX, vii, pp. 156-158; MT, VII-VIII, pp. 127-169; and PR,
II.2.iii-II.3.iii (M, pp. 108-147; C., pp. 70-96), which is a sustained
critique of Newton’s cosmology.
Awareness of these limitations ought to prevent the thinker from
uncritically assuming that such notions capture the full reality of
experience. In other words, awareness of the limited scope of
application of such abstractions ought to prevent one from falling into
the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, from declaring with scientific
dogmatism that the final real facts are independent bits of matter
occupying these regions at these durationless instants. Thus philosophy
acts as critic of scientific abstractions, preventing a cosmology from
being built upon generalizations with too limited an application, too
narrow a base of evidence.
See FR, pp.
76-78. It ought to be noted that Whitehead leaves room for a mutuality
of criticism; science can serve as a critic of a proposed
metaphysical-cosmological scheme of interpretation. In addition to
ibid., see AI, IX, iii, p. 146.
At the same time often by showing how one set of scientific abstractions
fails to account for the presuppositions of other scientific
abstractions, philosophy also tries to harmonize all scientific
abstractions into a consistent unity. Similarly, by means of the
function we have just discussed, philosophy also acts as critic of any
philosophical interpretations of reality founded uncritically upon these
abstractions.
For example, see
Whitehead’s criticism of materialism and deterministic mechanism in
SMW, V, pp. 109-138. The criticism is developed by confronting
these philosophical interpretations with evidence—more concrete
“intuitions” of reality--provided by poetry.
Philosophy, however, does more than
simply point out the limitations of scientific abstractions; it also has
the task of “completing” them “by direct comparison with more concrete
intuitions of the universe, and thereby promoting the formation of more
complete schemes of thought.” Whitehead’s argument here is asserting
that all scientific abstractions, even taken together, are neglective of
some important aspects of reality. Hence we must consider other sources
of evidence to determine what it is in nature, in the experience of
reality, that science is ignoring. This is the reason for his appeal to
British romantic poetry. The great poets provide “more concrete
intuitions of the universe.” By comparing scientific abstractions with
these more concrete intuitions we can formulate a more complete
understanding of reality.
[See SMW, V, pp. 121, 122, 126.]
Thus by comparing scientific
abstractions with evidence drawn from other human inquiries, from
poetry, art, and religion, Whitehead maintains that scientific
abstractions can be completed and brought into harmonious relation with
intuitions of other aspects of reality not considered in the sciences.
This ought to result in modes of thought “more faithful to the
complexity and multifariousness of our actual experience. In our
attempt to understand the reality in which we live and are enmeshed, we
cannot afford to ignore any possible source of evidence: “The rejection
of any source of evidence is always treason to that ultimate rationalism
which urges forward science and philosophy alike.”
[FR, p. 61. See also SMW, IV, pp. 85-86, and “Preface,”
pp. ix-x.]
Having seen that the task of
philosophy in Whitehead’s understanding is to point out the limitations
of scientific abstractions, to harmonize them with each other, and to
complete them by relating them to other sources of evidence concerning
the nature of reality, we must now ask, what does Whitehead mean by
“philosophy” and how specifically does philosophy carry out these tasks?
The latter question, a question of method, will be dealt with in the
following section. To conclude this section we must consider what
Whitehead means by “philosophy.”
If philosophy is to be the critic of
abstractions, then it must have a scope of view broad and deep enough to
recognize the limits of applicability of abstractions developed by the
special sciences. It must have at its disposal a wider, more
generalized scheme of thought if it hopes to point out the limits of
applicability of abstractions, if it hopes to harmonize them with each
other, if it hopes to complete them by comparing them with other sources
of evidence so as to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of
reality.
The systematization of knowledge
cannot be conducted in water-tight compartments. All general truths
condition each other; and the limits of their application cannot be
adequately defined apart from their correlation by yet wider
generalities. The criticism of principles must chiefly take the form of
determining the proper meanings to be assigned to the fundamental
notions of the various sciences, when these notions are considered in
respect to their status relatively to each other. The determination of
this status requires a generality transcending any special
subject-matter. [PR, I.1.iv
(M, p. 15; C, p. 10).]
The “wider generalities” which transcend “any special subject-matter”
are the metaphysical categories or “first principles,” general ideas
which are universal in applicability. By “philosophy,” then, Whitehead
clearly means metaphysics or, as he often calls it, “speculative
philosophy.” He argues that “Speculative Philosophy is the endeavor to
frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of
which every element of our experience can be interpreted.”
[PR, I.1.i (M, p. 4; C, p. 3).]
Without such a scheme it would be
impossible for philosophy to act as critic of abstractions.
It is important to understand,
however, what Whitehead means by metaphysical “interpretation.” He is
not saying that metaphysics dreams up its own abstractions and develops
interpretations of reality in isolation from the special sciences.
Rather, Whitehead is arguing that scientific propositions, and even the
most pedestrian of everyday propositions (“there is beef for dinner
today”), have metaphysical presuppositions; these presuppositions
constitute implicit interpretations of reality.
[See PR, I.1.v
(M, pp. 16-20; C, pp. 14-15).]
It is the role of metaphysics to make these interpretations conscious
and explicit, and thus subject to criticism and possible improvement.
“Philosophy does not initiate interpretations. Its search for a
rationalistic scheme is the search for more adequate criticism, and for
more adequate justification, of the interpretations which we perforce
employ.”
[PR, I.1.vi (M, p. 22; C, pp. 14-15).]
Whitehead is convinced that all constructive thought presupposes such a
generalized rationalistic scheme of interpretation.
. . . all constructive thought, on
the various special topics of scientific interest, is dominated by some
such scheme, unacknowledged, but no less influential in guiding the
imagination. The importance of philosophy lies in its sustained effort
to make such schemes explicit, and thereby capable of criticism and
improvement.
[PR, Preface (M, p. x; C, p. xiv).]
Metaphysics, then, does not generate its own data; it is not a special
science, and in a sense it is dependent on the special sciences—as well
as on common human experience and the intuitions of art, poetry,
literature, and religion—for its data.
However, if it is true that
metaphysics depends on the special sciences in this sense, it is equally
true that the special sciences depend on metaphysics. Two quotations
will give a sense of Whitehead’s position on this matter.
We habitually speak of stones, and
planets, and animals, as though each individual thing could exist, even
for a passing moment, in separation from an environment which is in
truth a necessary factor in its own nature. Such an abstraction is a
necessity of thought, and the requisite background of systematic
environment can be presupposed. That is true. But it also follows
that, in the absence of some understanding of the final nature of
things, and thus of the sorts of backgrounds presupposed in such
abstract statements, all science suffers from the vice that it may be
combining various propositions which tacitly presuppose inconsistent
backgrounds. No science can be more secure than the unconscious
metaphysics which tacitly it presupposes. The individual thing is
necessarily a modification of its environment, and cannot be understood
in disjunction. All reasoning, apart from some metaphysical reference,
is vicious.
[AI, IX, v, p. 154.]
. . . the claim of science that it
can produce an understanding of its procedures within the limits of its
own categories, or that those categories themselves are understandable
without reference to their status within the widest categories under
exploration by the speculative Reason—that claim is entirely unfounded.
Insofar as philosophers have failed, scientists do not know what they
are talking about when they pursue their own methods; and insofar as
philosophers have succeeded, to that extent scientists can attain an
understanding of science. With the success of philosophy, blind habits
of scientific thought are transformed into analytic explanation. [FR,
pp. 58-59. Compare
AI, IX, vi, p. 155: “It is one task of speculation to urge
observation beyond the boundaries of its delusive completeness, and to
urge the doctrines of science beyond their delusive air of finality.”]
Whitehead constructs a very powerful argument for the dependence of
science upon metaphysics. He argues first that without a consciously
explicated metaphysics science cannot be sure that in combining various
propositions it is not presupposing inconsistent backgrounds. Science
cannot resolve this problem on the strength of its own categories; what
is needed to determine the sorts of environments presupposed in abstract
statements is “some understanding of the final nature of things.” This
is another way of saying that the various abstractions of the special
sciences cannot be harmonized with any assurance outside of the context
of a metaphysical analysis of reality. Furthermore, the categories of
the sciences, the abstractions which are the fruition of the work of the
sciences, cannot themselves be understood apart from their status within
the scheme of wider generalities being explored by speculative reason.
It is essential for understanding the meaning of scientific abstractions
to know the limits of their applicability, and this cannot be determined
apart from the metaphysical scheme of thought. Finally, science cannot
produce an understanding of the methods and procedures it follows. As
we have already seen, the method of discovery science follows
presupposes an ordered universe with causal relations which can be
traced by inductive reasoning. Within the limits of its own categories
science cannot exhibit that these presuppositions are reasonable. The
reasonableness of these basic presuppositions can only be exhibited by
metaphysical analysis. Thus Whitehead concludes that “insofar as
philosophers have failed, scientists do not know what they are talking
about when they pursue their own methods.” In order for science to
understand itself and know the reasonable grounds of its procedures, it
must be given the metaphysical-cosmological understanding of the world
it presupposes. In order to understand the final meaning of its
analysis, it must understand the selectivity of its attention and the
limitations of its abstractions in relation to the most general
characteristics of reality. For the gifts of harmony, completion, and
self-understanding, science needs metaphysics.
The Method of
Metaphysics: Its Relation to Empirical Scientific Method
If we now have some idea of the
tasks of metaphysics as Whitehead understands them, and of the general
lines of how philosophy and science are related, there yet remains one
question to be considered: how does philosophy (or metaphysics or
speculative reason) specifically carry out its task? This is the
question of method.
In Whitehead’s thought, the method
of metaphysics is structurally the same as the method of the empirical
sciences. To be sure, the specific methods used and the data under
consideration are quite different; but the structure of the general
method is basically the same. The basic difference is that philosophic
method has a greater degree of generality. We have seen that the
special sciences operate by limiting their scope of inquiry to a
particular aspect or set of aspects of reality. Their goal is not to
understand immediate experience in its entirety, but to understand the
interrelationships among certain select features chosen for observation,
and dealing with these features necessarily involves abstracting from
the full immediate concreteness of the events under consideration.
Hence there will always be elements of our experience of reality to
which scientific abstractions do not apply. The goal of philosophy, on
the other hand, is “to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of
general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be
interpreted.”
PR,
I.1.i (M, p. 4; C, p.
3). My italics. See also PR, I.1.iii (M, p. 12; C, p. 8);
I.1.iv (M, pp. 14-15; C, pp. 9-10); II.1.ii (M, p. 67; C, p. 42); AI,
XV, iii, p. 222; and Loomer, “Theological Significance,” pp. 5-8.
Since one cannot think without abstractions, every discipline or
inquiry, including metaphysics, deals in them. The statements and
propositions of metaphysics cannot be said to capture the totality of
experience in its concreteness. But because philosophical
generalizations strive to elucidate precisely those aspects of reality
that are always present in all experience, those aspects which can never
fail to be exemplified in any experience, philosophical generalizations
as contrasted with scientific abstractions can be said to be more
descriptive of the concreteness of events. It is true that philosophic
generalities are abstractions, because they abstract from the unique
particularity of individual actualities. Yet, as a system they are the
most concrete of statements, because they attempt to designate those
structures, processes, and relationships without which the unique,
particular, concrete actuality could neither be unique, particular, nor
concrete.
See Loomer’s excellent discussion of this topic; “Theological
Significance,” pp. 5-7.
Thus the major difference between scientific and philosophic method is
that philosophic method aims at a greater degree of generality, which is
to say, a greater degree of concreteness.
Whitehead calls the method
philosophy uses to pursue its goal “descriptive generalization.”
PR, I.1.iv (M, pp.
15-16; C, p. 10); AI, XV, xiv, p. 234.
As I shall attempt to show, it has the same basic structure as empirical
scientific method. The philosopher begins by considering the major
ideas of any of the specialized sciences or, indeed, of any expression
of human experience, such as poetry, art, religion, common sense, the
presumptions we habitually make in conducting our daily lives. These
ideas, concepts, intuitions, and presuppositions are the raw data of
philosophy.
See PR, I.1.ii
(M, pp. 7-8; C, p. 5); AI, XV, viii, pp. 226-228; MT, IV, iii-;-pp.
70-71; FR, pp. 76-78; and Loomer, “Theological Significance,” pp. 30-38.
In dealing with them, the first step of “descriptive generalization” is
equivalent to the stage of observation in empirical scientific method.
One marks out the area of inquiry and tries to observe correlations,
interactions, and relationships. In empirical scientific method the
mind then begins an inductive movement, abstracting from the full
definiteness of the observed events, discarding details deemed
irrelevant, and introducing the notion of patterns in which the observed
events seem to occur. This whole inductive movement of the mind is what
I have called “insight.” In the method of metaphysics, the parallel
movement is the generalization of the abstract ideas, concepts, or
intuitions beyond the restricted group of facts from which they were
derived in order to discover whether they provide generic notions which
can be applied to all facts (or all experience). If these notions can
be generalized beyond the scope and context of their origin, then these
notions have met the first test of applicability.
PR, I.1.ii (M, pp. 7-8;
C, p. 5). Compare FR, p. 85. See Loomer, “Theological
Significance,” p. 12 for examples of Whitehead’s generalizations from
physics and aesthetics. It might be noted in passing that the criterion
of applicability has a different meaning in the method of descriptive
generalization than it does in empirical scientific method. See my
description of this criterion in scientific work, Thesis, p. 14.
The next moment in Whitehead’s
description of the method of descriptive generalization again parallels
the structure of empirical scientific method. In scientific method the
inductive movement referred to as “insight” leads to the central
creative moment, the stage of hypothesis formulation. In this moment
the scientist formulates a hypothesis to give an explanatory account of
the observed events which first stimulated his or her inquiry, but the
hope is that this hypothesis will also elucidate the occurrence of all
similar events. Here the scientist has formulated an understanding of
the factors which seem to be influencing and governing the occurrence of
the events under investigation. In the method of descriptive
generalization, the movement of generalization leads to the central
creative moment in which, using the several notions which have been
generalized, the philosopher attempts to frame a coherent and logical
scheme of interpretation.
[PR, I.1.i, ii (M, pp. 4-5, 8-10; C, pp. 3, 5-7). Also see
Loomer, “Theological Significance,” pp. 25-30.]
The formulation of this scheme of interpretation is the philosopher’s
understanding of the factors which influence and govern all events, or
every example of experience. It is an attempt to provide an explanatory
description of those factors, processes, and interrelationships that are
always present in all experience. This corresponds exactly with the
development of hypothesis in empirical scientific method, and Whitehead
on several occasions refers to the method of philosophy as being that of
the “working hypothesis.
PR, XV, i, p. 220, and
iii, p. 222. Compare PR, I.1.iii (M, p. 12; C, p. 8):
“Metaphysical categories are not dogmatic statements of the obvious;
they are tentative formulations of the ultimate generalities.” On the
importance of theory or hypothesis in philosophical discussion, see AI,
XV, i, pp. 220-222.
In the general structure of
empirical scientific method, after having formulated an explanatory
hypothesis the scientist then moves toward the third major moment:
testing. The movement consists in deducing the implications of the
hypothetical understanding and predicting what will be observed under
selected circumstances according to the hypothesis. This is the way in
which the hypothesis is prepared for testing, and I have called this
movement “foresight.” There is again a parallel with this structure in
Whitehead’s understanding of the method of philosophy. Whitehead, while
repudiating deduction as the central method of philosophy, does insist
that deduction is an essential auxiliary method by which philosophy
tests the scope (the applicability and adequacy) of its generalizations.
PR, I.1.iv (M, pp. 15-16;
C, p. 10): “. . . in its subsequent development the method of
philosophy has also been vitiated by the example of mathematics. The
primary method of mathematics is deduction; the primary method of
philosophy is descriptive generalization. Under the influence of
mathematics, deduction has been foisted onto philosophy as its standard
method, instead of taking its true place as an essential auxiliary mode
of verification whereby to test the scope of generalities. This
misapprehension of philosophic method has veiled the very considerable
success of philosophy in providing generic notions which add lucidity to
our apprehension of the facts of experience.” See also MT, VI, i,
p. 105: “Philosophy is the search for premises. It is not deduction.
Such deductions as occur are for the purpose of testing the starting
points by the evidence of the conclusions.”
Clearly what he means by this is that the philosopher, working with the
generalizations he or she has woven into a scheme of interpretation,
deduces what this scheme implies concerning every event or every act of
experience. The deduction is the attempt to say just what processes,
interactions, and relationships must (according to the scheme of
interpretation) be present in all experience.
This is the predictive
process in philosophic method, which parallels the function of
prediction in the empirical sciences. See Loomer, “Theological
Significance,” pp. 47-48.
This prepares the way for the empirical testing of the philosophic
scheme of interpretation.
Finally, then, the third moment of philosophic method parallels the
third moment of empirical scientific method: the testing of the
hypothetical scheme of interpretation. Just as the scientist confronts
the hypothesis with the facts of experience in renewed observation, so
too the philosopher must confront the metaphysical scheme of
interpretation with the facts of common human experience in order to
test the adequacy of that scheme. [PR, I.1.i, iii, vi (M,
pp. 5-6, 12-13, 25; C, pp. 3-4, 8-9, 17); AI, XV, vii, p. 226;
FR, III, pp. 85-88.]
The metaphysical scheme of interpreta-tion must not fail to be
exemplified in any and every experience, and so it must be tested
against the experience it attempts to elucidate. Just as in scientific
method the testing results in an inductive judgment concerning the
hypothesis (limited verification, falsification, or the judgment that
the results are inconclusive and further research is necessary), so,
too, in philosophic method the testing will result in some inductive
judgment concerning the imaginatively generalized scheme of
interpretation. This judgment will concern specifically the adequacy of
the scheme of interpretation, and in subjecting itself to this criterion
philosophic method is using an extension of the scientific criterion of
repeatability of performance.
See the multiple discussions of the criterion of adequacy in
PR, I.1 (M, pp. 4-26; C, pp. 3-17). Especially germane is this
statement (M, p. 25; C, p. 17): “. . . we do not trust any recasting of
scientific theory depending upon a single performance of an aberrant
experiment, unrepeated. The ultimate test is always widespread,
recurrent experience; and the more general the rationalistic scheme, the
more important is this final appeal.” See also Loomer, “Theological
Significance,” p. 30, who also regards the criterion of adequacy as an
extension of the scientific criterion of repeatability of performance.
Thus the speculative scheme of interpretation, in science and philosophy
alike, has no valid claim to the name “knowledge” until it has been
empirically tested and judged to be in conformity with observed facts.
A general point to be noticed is
that throughout the first chapter of Process and Reality
Whitehead continually asserts that science and philosophy alike must
subject themselves to the same general criteria: the rational criteria
of coherence and logical perfection, and the empirical criteria of
applicability and adequacy. Furthermore, in his description of “the
true method of discovery,
[PR, I.1.ii (M, p. 7; C, p. 5).]
he indicates that both science and
philosophy at their best use this general method. I conclude, then,
that Whitehead understands the basic method of philosophy, the method of
descriptive or imaginative generalization, to be a more generalized form
of the basic method of empirical science.
This conclusion has been made in earlier work. See Rasvihary
Das, The Philosophy of Whitehead (London: James Clarke & Co.,
1937), p. 12; and Loomer, “Theological Significance,” pp. 14-15. See
also PR, I.1.ii (M, p. 8; C, p. 5), where Whitehead explicitly states
that philosophy and the natural sciences both use this method of
discovery.
This, in my judgment, does not mean that philosophy apes or imitates
science. Rather, I understand Whitehead to mean that the general
structure of the method of discovery is the same whenever the human mind
apprehends actuality. How this method is applied specifically in any
inquiry will vary with the goals of the inquiry (that is, it is only a
general method governing the use of special methods). Thus what
Whitehead is describing is the structure of the general method governing
all human attempts to come to cognitive understanding and knowledge.
There is one final question that
arises naturally at this point. If philosophy and science are using the
same basic method, does this mean that Whitehead understands philosophy
to be a science, perhaps the most generalized science? There are a
number of statements in Whitehead’s writings that would lead one to
answer in the affirmative. For example:
Every science must devise its own
instruments. The tool required for philosophy is language. Thus
philosophy redesigns language in the same way that, in a physical
science, pre-existing appliances are redesigned.
[PR, I.1.v (M,
p. 16; C, p. 11).]
That we fail to find in experience
any elements intrinsically incapable of exhibition as examples of
general theory is the hope of rationalism. This hope is not a
metaphysical premise. It is the faith which forms the motive for the
pursuit of all sciences alike, including metaphysics.
[PR, II.1.ii (M, p. 67; C, p. 42).]
Undoubtedly, philosophy is dominated
by its past literature to a greater extent than any other science.
[AI, XV, x, p.
229.]
When one considers these statements and recalls Whitehead’s arguments
that metaphysics harmonizes and completes the sciences, one is tempted
to affirm that in Whitehead’s thought metaphysics is indeed the most
generalized science.
There are, however, good reasons for
rejecting this interpretation of Whitehead’s position. First, there is
Whitehead’s continual insistence that philosophy is the attempt to get
at those aspects of experience that are ignored by the sciences
(foremost among those aspects would be what we mean by the notions of
“value” and “purpose,” as we shall see in Chapter III). Philosophy and
the empirical sciences thus have different goals, different purposes.
The sciences deal with abstractions in the hope of arriving at an
explanatory account of certain limited features of reality. Philosophy,
on the other hand, is charged to deal with concreteness in the hope of
arriving at an explanatory account of how all these abstractions used in
the sciences and in other sorts of inquiry are present in concrete
actuality. There can be no explaining of concreteness, only elucidating
or disclosing.
The explanatory purpose of
philosophy is often misunderstood. Its business is to explain the
emergence of the more abstract things from the more concrete things. It
is a complete mistake to ask how concrete particular fact can be built
up out of universals. The answer is, “In no way.” The philosophic
question is, How can concrete fact exhibit entities abstract from itself
and yet participated in by its own nature?
In other words, philosophy is
explanatory of abstraction, and not of concreteness.
[PR, I.2.i (M, p. 30; C, p. 20).]
[Philosophy] seeks those
generalities which characterize the complete reality of fact, and apart
from which any fact must sink into an abstraction. But science makes
the abstraction, and is content to understand the complete fact in
respect to only some of its essential aspects. . . . A philosophic
system should present an elucidation of concrete fact from which the
sciences abstract.
[AI,
IX, iii, p. 146.]
Whitehead himself, in one of his last published works, briefly draws the
conclusion to which such considerations lead:
. . . consciousness proceeds to a
second order of abstraction whereby finite constituents of the actual
thing are abstracted from that thing. This procedure is necessary for
finite thought, though it weakens the sense of reality. It is the basis
of science. The task of philosophy is to reverse this process and thus
to exhibit the fusion of analysis with actuality. It follows that
philosophy is not a science.
‘‘Mathematics and the
Good, II in Paul A. Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Alfred North
Whitehead (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1941; 2nd ed., 1951 , pp.
666-681; quotation from p. 681. Reprinted in IS, pp. 187-203;
quotation on p. 203. See also MT, IX, p. 172, on the opposite
directions taken in scientific and philosophic inquiry; and see as well
SMW, pp. 126-127.
Whitehead’s position that philosophy
is not a science has one important implication which ought to be drawn
out in conclusion. It is obvious that one of the ways in which
philosophy differs from the empirical sciences is that it cannot
quantify its data and operate upon them by mathematical manipulation.
Instead, it must rely on conceptual analysis for the discovery of
patterns and relations. Likewise, philosophy differs from the empirical
sciences in its mode of verification. Philosophy cannot prove or
validate its hypotheses as the sciences do. Ultimately, philosophical
testing and affirmation rest on disclosure, elucidation, and
self-evidence.
See FR, III, p.
80; PR, I.1.vi (M, pp. 24-25; C, p. 16); MT, III, pp.
48-50, VI, pp. 105-107.
Empirical testing in philosophy is always an appeal to self-evidence as
the philosopher confronts the facts of human experience. Thus although
there is a fundamental similarity of methodical structure
exhibited in scientific and philosophic discovery, it is clear that
science and philosophy are different modes of thought.
Forward to
Lonergan’s Interpretation of Scientific and Philosophic Method:
Philosophical Method
Back to
Table of Contents