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 II:
The Tenability of Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s Interpretations of
Scientific Method (Continued)
A Comparison of
Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s Interpretations of Empirical Scientific
Method to Those of Karl Popper and Michael Polanyi
Although it would be an interesting
project, my principal purpose in this section is not to argue the
relative merits of Popper’s and Polanyi’s interpre-tations of empirical
scientific method. The nature of my project does not require that I
focus on judging the one to be a more relatively adequate interpretation
of scientific method than the other. Accepting them both as powerful
influences on the contemporary understanding of science and its method,
I merely wish to illustrate that Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s
interpretations of empirical scientific method fall within an acceptable
spectrum of interpretation. In the course of my comparison it will
become clear that Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s interpretations correspond
more closely to Polanyi’s. However, their interpretations also agree
with and include (or could include) the elements upon which Popper
insists.
I shall point out the areas of
agreement and disagreement by comparing all four thinkers simultaneously
as I review the major topics I have discussed concerning the structure
of scientific method and the general method of knowing.
The Structure of Empirical Scientific Method
The first question confronting us
concerns the starting point of empirical scientific method. Popper and
Polanyi both affirm that science begins with problems.
[Compare Thesis, pp. 141-143 and 166-168.]
Whitehead and Lonergan begin their descriptions of empirical scientific
method by saying that observations and descriptions, are the first
moment of that method.
[See ibid., pp. 11-13, 17-18 for Whitehead; pp. 56-58 for
Lonergan.]
This is not a disagreement. Both
Popper and Polanyi would certainly acknowledge that before a problem
could be recognized there must necessarily be observations and
descriptions. Furthermore, Lonergan explicitly states that the outcome
of observations and descriptions are “questions for understanding” or
problems.
[See ibid., pp. 58, 63-64.]
While Whitehead does not explicitly
state that observations and descriptions give rise to problems, this is
clearly implicit in his description of the method. It was to him,
perhaps, something so obvious that it did not seem to call for comment.
If the imaginative generalization or formulation of the hypothesis is
to be equated with the achievement of understanding, then clearly prior
to this second moment there must be something that is not yet
understood, namely, a problem. Thus on this point, that science begins
with problems, all four of our thinkers are in agreement.
There is a disagreement, however,
over the role of observation in empirical scientific method. All four
agree that there are no “pure” observations; that is, they all agree
that observations are in fact “theory-laden”—under the influence of
theory—from the start.
[For Popper, see ibid., p. 142; for Polanyi, pp. 170-171; for
Whitehead, pp. 19-21; for Lonergan, p. 86. See also p. 111.]
Popper, however, concludes from this that observations have no role to
play in the logic of hypothesis formation. More precisely, he concludes
that there is no logic of hypothesis formation at all, and he limits the
role of observation to the critical task of testing hypotheses.
Polanyi, on the other hand, accords two roles to observation. He
agrees with Popper that observation has a role to play in testing; he
insists, however, that observation also has a role to play in arriving
at an hypothesis. The role is to provide the clues which will be
tacitly integrated in the moment of discovery. The disagreement here,
as we have seen, is over the presence of inductive procedure in
empirical scientific method. I shall attend to this issue in a moment,
but first I must note that both Whitehead and Lonergan have analyses of
observation that concur entirely with Polanyi’s analysis. Observation
not only uncovers the problem to be solved and is used not only in the
testing of the proposed solution, but also it provides the clues for the
discovery of the solution.
A major difference between Popper
and Polanyi is over the existence of inductive procedure in empirical
scientific method and, consequently, whether the process resulting in
the formation of hypotheses is part of that method. Popper, on logical
grounds, is convinced that there is no such procedure as induction and
therefore concludes that the process of arriving at an hypothesis does
not belong to the logic of scientific discovery but is a matter to be
relegated to psychology. Polanyi, in contrast, while agreeing that
formal inductive procedure such as that championed by the positivists
does not occur, concludes that an informal procedure of induction does
occur in empirical scientific method. This informal procedure, Polanyi
finds, is at the very heart of scientific discovery. It is here that
Polanyi discovers strong evidence for the personal dimension of knowing
that is ignored by the objectivist account. Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s
accounts of empirical scientific method are in complete agreement with
Polanyi’s on all points involved in this issue. Since it is the central
issue of disagreement between Popper and Polanyi and of such great
importance for how one understands scientific method and knowing, I will
specify the points of agreement between Whitehead, Lonergan, and Polanyi
as against Popper’s interpretation.
Let me begin with the influence of
theory on observation, one of the reasons why Popper denies the
existence of induction. I have already noted that all four thinkers
agree that there is such influence. Popper concludes that hence
scientific method is really deductive in character. Polanyi, Whitehead,
and Lonergan argue—implicitly, in the case of the latter two—that this
conclusion is unwarranted. It is important to take into consideration
the nature of this influence of theory on observation. That influence
is not explicit or formalizable. We have seen that Whitehead
characterizes the influence of theory on observation as a “dim
apprehension” or a vague anticipation. Polanyi speaks of this influence
as a foreknowledge or heuristic anticipation of the solution that cannot
be explicitly stated. As he argues, the paradox of the Meno can
only be overcome by admitting that the knowledge of a problem involves
an inarticulate foreknowledge of the unknown, a dimly intuited
anticipation of the solution, which in fact guides the inquirer toward
the yet unknown. Lonergan, too, stresses the heuristic character of
empirical scientific method, pointing out the ways in which the course
of inquiry is structured by anticipating the unknown. It is significant
that Lonergan also understands the heuristic character of scientific
method to be the answer to the paradox of how a scientist can begin an
inquiry when he or she does not yet know the unknown.
[Ibid., pp. 69-70.]
In sum, Whitehead and Lonergan are in agreement with Polanyi’s analysis
that the influence of theory on observation in the first moment of
scientific method is unformalizable and not explicit. That influence is
dependent upon the anticipatory or intuitive powers of the scientist,
and it draws the scientist along an inductive path, from the particulars
of a problem toward the yet unknown solution. All three men are in
agreement that some account of the formation of hypotheses is necessary
for a full analysis of what is actually done in practicing scientific
method.
Whereas Popper restricts the logic
of scientific discovery to the deductive logic of testing, Whitehead
argues that there are two logics at work in empirical scientific method:
a logic of discovery (which is inductive) and a logic of the discovered
(which is deductive).
[Ibid., pp. 14-15.]
Whereas Popper locates scientific discovery in the testing of
hypotheses alone, Whitehead understands scientific discovery necessarily
to involve the “flight of the imagination” in arriving at the hypothesis
as well as the testing of the hypothesis. In this Whitehead agrees with
the analysis of Polanyi, for whom the discovery of the hypothesis is the
central creative act in scientific method. While Popper admits that
imagination and intuition are in fact the source of most hypotheses and
theories
[Ibid., p. 143.],
he simply refuses to take them into account systematically in his
analysis of scientific method. Polanyi insists that their role is so
significant that to omit them from an account of the knowing process
leads to an essential distortion of knowledge and the process of
knowing. With this Whitehead would undoubtedly agree. Lonergan also
would concur. He notes that “nonlogical” operations are essential to
empirical scientific method, and includes discovery among these.
[Ibid., pp. 62-63.]
Thus Whitehead and Lonergan would both agree with Polanyi that Popper’s
account of empirical scientific method, in omitting the crucial roles of
imagination and intuition in the discovery of the hypothesis, is
seriously incomplete.
While Polanyi, Whitehead, and
Lonergan all speak of “insight” as an integral element of scientific
method, Lonergan’s analysis of insight is perhaps the most helpful in
making clear the difference between these three and Popper. As we have
seen in Lonergan’s analysis, insight is essentially a private and
preconceptual event.
[Ibid., pp. 59-60.]
In Polanyi’s terms, it is a momentary flash of illumination bridging the
logical gap between the problem and its solution. It is the experience
of an inquiring subject dwelling in heuristic tension at the brink of
the logical gap. As such, the experience of insight is the
experience of a person, and it is an experience, not a logical
inference or argument, not a product, but a preconceptual event. It is
the sudden grasp of understanding, and it is private. There is,
however, the urge in the inquirer to formulate this insight, to express
it in public terms so as to show how the insight explains the problem.
While the insight is private and personal, the dynamic of inquiry
compels the inquirer to formulate the insight in such a way that it
becomes public and inter-subjective. Since the hypothesis is the public
formulation of the private insight, both must be taken into account in
describing how a scientist works. To focus attention on the hypothesis
alone while neglecting the process of insight which gave birth to it, is
to neglect the creative heart of scientific discovery.
From the point of view of Polanyi’s
and Lonergan’s analyses (with Whitehead implicitly concurring), Popper
is so concerned to eliminate the subject from knowing, so interested in
limiting scientific method to formal logical inference and argument
alone, that he overlooks the fact that the process of arriving at an
hypothesis is an informal, non-logical, preconceptual event. Popper’s
critical programme in defense of objective knowledge causes him to
ignore the undeniable fact that a-critical processes do occur and that
these a-critical processes, which involve the personal contribution of
the inquiring subject, are essential to the production of understanding
and knowledge. There must be a distinction made between the private,
preconceptual insight and the methodical expression of that insight in
public form, but both must be included in a descriptive account of
empirical scientific method.
On this basis Polanyi, Whitehead,
and Lonergan all agree that induction is definitely a part of the method
of empirical science. It is not a completely formal process of
inference, nor is it a strictly logical operation such as the
positivists sought to make it. Rather, it is an informal procedure: a
movement from the particulars of a problem to the solution of that
problem with the aid of imagination and intuition. The notion of
induction as a logically formal inference or an argument cannot be
defended. On this Popper, Whitehead, Lonergan, and Polanyi would all
agree. But from this Popper concludes that there is no such thing as
induction at all. In contrast, Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan point
out that induction as an informal procedure does take place in
scientific work. For them induction is a descriptive-explana-tory name
for one part of cognitional process, not the name of a logical argument.
Moreover, all three find in this cognitional process strong evidence
for the position that the achievement of understanding necessarily
involves and elicits the contribution of the inquiring subject.
Concerning the testing of
hypotheses, there is again a major difference between Popper and
Polanyi. On the basis of his prior analysis Popper insists that since
it is impossible ever to verify a proposition or an hypothesis (strictly
speaking), therefore all attempts to “justify” our hypotheses must be
given up. The only proper empirical test is falsifiability, subjecting
all hypotheses to the strongest possible tests intended to falsify them.
This is in keeping with his position that empirical scientific method is
really completely deductive in character: a falsification is really a
deductive inference, but it proceeds in an “inductive direction.”
[Ibid., pp.
135, 137-138.]
Polanyi disagrees with this analysis for two basic reasons. First,
Polanyi asserts, even though there are many strong “objective” criteria
governing the testing of hypotheses, these criteria alone never totally
decide the fate of an hypothesis. In the end, it is the personal
judgment of the scientist, made according to self-set standards, that
governs how the external criteria of testing are to be applied and
decides whether or not an hypothesis has been refuted and must be
abandoned. In short, even the final judgment of whether or not an
hypothesis has been refuted by the evidence is dependent on a
scientist’s intuition and judgment: this final moment in empirical
scientific method is dependent upon the personal contribution of the
scientist, and all that is involved in this personal contribution cannot
be formalized in some set of external “objective” criteria.
Secondly, Polanyi seems to defend
the position that, contrary to Popper’s analysis, a form of verification
does take place in the actual conduct of the scientific work. He does
not make this argument explicit, but it is implied in his position.
Even though formal verification in a strict sense is impossible, this
does not mean that scientists do not consider some hypotheses to be
verified in their experiments. Since verification is really an
inductive procedure (even Popper admits that it is), the same solution
that Polanyi proposes for the problem of induction is applicable to the
problem of verification. Verification is not a strictly logical,
strictly formal procedure; but it is an informal procedure. The
scientist can have a tacit integration of the particulars of his or her
experiments which illustrates that in these tests the hypothesis has
been verified. Verification in this sense, of course, is limited,
partial, and always open to further understanding and judgment. But it
does occur. The evidence for this position is discoverable in the
actual conduct of scientists.
Whitehead and Lonergan again are in
complete agreement with Polanyi’s analysis. Whitehead includes the
testing of hypotheses by experimen-tation within the “logic of
discovery” and states that this is inductive logic.
[Ibid., pp. 14-15.] Although Whitehead does not devote
specific attention to the question of verification, the clear
implication of his analysis of empirical scientific method and
scientific knowledge is that limited and partial “verifications” of
scientific hypotheses do occur. These verifications are always subject
to further understanding (since the limitations of scientific
generalizations are never completely known), but they are confirmations
that in the scientific generalization some aspect of reality has been
partially grasped.
[Ibid., pp.
23-26.]
In addition to this, although we have not yet seen Whitehead’s detailed
analysis of judgment),
I shall devote
attention to Whitehead’s analysis of judgment in Chapter III.
it is clear from his analysis of scientific method that the scientist’s
judgment plays a crucial role in the testing of hypotheses. The
culmination of the whole method is the judgment of verification or
falsification. Hence even from what we have seen thusfar) it is clear
that Whitehead’s account is compatible with Polanyi’s.
Lonergan also speaks of verification
throughout his analysis of empirical scientific method) and it is clear,
especially from his treatment of judgment and its conditions) that in
his view verification in science is always partial and limited.
[Thesis, pp. 60-61, 81-92.]
Lonergan’s extensive analysis of judgment, though using a different
terminology, is essentially identical to that of Polanyi. Lonergan
recognizes, as does Polanyi, that there are external criteria governing
the exercise of scientific judgment, and Lonergan devotes a good deal of
attention to these criteria.
Ibid., pp. 73-79. For
Polanyi, see pp. 171-173. Whitehead also discusses the external
criteria of scientific method in a generalized sense; see ibid.,
pp. 13-14.
However, when the exercise of judgment in science is investigated
closely, the surprising discovery is that ultimately the judgment is
made according to the self-set standards of the scientist.
[See ibid., pp. 178-182 for Polanyi’s analysis of this
point.]
Lonergan expresses this same point by noting that ultimately the norm
for scientific judgment is the internal dynamic of questioning itself,
driven by the restless Eros of the mind to know.
[Thesis, pp. 60-61, 91-92.] The demands of inquiry can only be
met by responsibly carrying out the operations of cognitional process in
the related pattern disclosed by a study of empirical scientific method,
and these demands cease only when the inquirer is able to make a
virtually unconditioned judgment. The canons of empirical method
attempt to formalize the demands of inquiry, but ultimately it is the
dynamic of questioning itself which is the norm for the inquirer.
Moreover, it is only when the inquirer himself or herself is satisfied
that the demands of questioning have been met that the dynamic of
inquiry will allow the inquirer to cease questioning and make the
judgment. The normative nature of scientific inquiry ultimately resides
in the personal commitment of the scientist to the dynamic of inquiry
and the scientist’s awareness that the conditions required for judgment
are in fact fulfilled.
Thus on the issue of testing in
empirical scientific method, both Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s analyses
are in essential agreement with Polanyi’s. All three agree that a
partial and limited form of verification does occur in the exercise of
scientific method. More importantly, all three agree that the crucial
factor in scientific testing is the judgment of the scientist. There are
external criteria which aid and to some degree control the exercise of
scientific judgment, but ultimately it is the scientist himself or
herself who must judge how those criteria are to be applied, whether
they have been met, and what the results of the experimentation indicate
regarding the hypothesis tested. The personal contribution of the
inquiring subject is as essential and necessary in the final moment of
empirical scientific method as it is in the central creative moment of
discovering the hypothesis.
There is a further point to be
raised concerning the exercise of judgment in empirical scientific
method in comparing Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan. In my estimation,
Polanyi’s account stresses a factor that does not receive sufficient
attention in Whitehead’s or Lonergan’s accounts: the ways in which the
personal judgment of the scientist is formed, trained, and governed by
the scientific community and its tradition.
[Ibid., pp.
182-185.]
As Polanyi points out, one of the controls which prevent the exercise of
personal judgment in science from slipping into mere subjectivism is the
fact that the personal judgment of the scientist is formed and trained
by the scientific community and exercised within the shared tradition of
that community. In this way the personal commitment to the truth which
is the ultimate norm for scientific judgment is shared within and handed
on by the scientific community. This does not make the scientist’s
judgments any less personal, but it does establish an inter-subjective
check on subjectivism. Even though Whitehead and Lonergan do not
address this issue in a systematic way, I find no reason why they could
not both agree wholeheartedly with this analysis. Polanyi’s systematic
account of this factor seems to complement their analyses.
There is another point of contrast
between Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan on the one hand, and Popper on
the other. This contrast arises when we ask if their interpretations of
empirical scientific method are descriptions of how science is actually
done. First, it must be admitted that all four interpretations I have
discussed are interpretations. The actual conduct of scientific
research on a daily basis undoubtedly departs in several respects from
the ideal structure of the general method these interpretations present.
It seems evident to me, however, that there is a significant difference
between Popper’s interpretation and those of Polanyi, Whitehead, and
Lonergan. Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan, it seems to me, are trying
to develop interpretations that are descriptive of the general method
underlying the actual practice of empirical science, including all the
operations of the inquiring subject. All three of them, Polanyi and
Whitehead especially, appeal continually to science as done, to examples
from the history of science, attempting to show that their
interpretations describe what is actually done by scientists. In their
stress on the existence of inductive procedures in arriving at
hypotheses and on limited forms of verification in testing, Polanyi,
Whitehead, and Lonergan are all appealing to the actual practice of
scientists. Popper, in contrast, is not so much concerned to present a
descriptive interpretation of what scientists actually do.
[Ibid., pp.
145-147.]
He is trying, rather, to describe the logical core of correct science;
that is, he wants to identify what it is that makes science correct, no
matter what else scientists do or think they do. From the
strictly logical point of view, Popper insists, all the rest is
“psychological.” These “psychological” aspects of empirical science are
not what demarcate science from non-science; they are not part of the
logical procedure that gives scientific method its legitimacy and
separates science from other modes of thought. This is why Popper so
consistently denies that there is any inductive procedure in science,
why he refuses to include the processes involved in hypothesis formation
in his description of empirical scientific method, and why he insists
that the only proper empirical test is the active seeking of
falsifications. He might agree that what the others describe actually
occurs in the experience of scientists, but he would insist that this is
not what makes science science. Only the logical backbone of
empirical scientific method distinguishes science from non-science, and
Popper’s analysis tries to scrape away the subjective and psychological
“flesh” of the actual experience of doing science in order to get at
this logical “backbone” of correct science. This alone, he holds, is
the guarantee of objectivity in science.
A further topic to be considered in
this subsection is the nature of the knowledge arrived at by science. It
is important to note that all four thinkers I have discussed agree that
the knowledge arrived at by science is limited. Both Popper and Polanyi
characterize this knowledge as hypothetical, always remaining open to
revision.
[See
ibid., pp. 140-141 for Popper; pp. 171-173 for Polanyi.] Whitehead
and Lonergan concur in this evaluation, Whitehead speaking of all
knowledge as partial and limited
[Ibid., pp. 26-28.], and Lonergan speaking of
scientific judgments as probable, not certain.
[Ibid., pp. 92-95.] Interestingly, all four men agree
that progress in scientific knowledge is made, and that the process of
its growth is cumulative.
Compare Ibid.,
pp. 26-28, 94-95, 157-159. I have not discussed this issue in my
treatment of Polanyi but it is the clear implication of his
interpretation of science.
It ought to be noted, however, that the four men differ in their
specific interpretations of what knowledge is and how it progresses;
that is, even though they are agreed that in general knowledge is
hypothetical and the process of its growth is cumulative, these
statements mean quite different things for the four thinkers. I
shall discuss this issue in the following subsection.
Finally, there is an apparent
contradiction between Polanyi’s and Lonergan’s descriptions of empirical
scientific method which calls for some comment. As we have seen,
Polanyi stresses the passionate nature of the scientist’s inquiry, the
personal involvement of the scientist, and the intense interest and
excitement of the scientist seeking discovery. Lonergan rather
consistently describes the orientation of the scientist as being that of
“inquiring intelligence, the orientation that of its nature is a pure,
detached, disinterested desire simply to know.
Insight, p. 74. In another
place (ibid., p. 352) Lonergan adds the adjective “cool” to the
list.
Lonergan, in other words, seems to adopt the “objectivist” ideal of
scientific inquiry that Polanyi so forcefully rejects. With regard to
this apparent contradiction between Lonergan and Polanyi, I would point
out first that Lonergan’s whole analysis of cognitional process and
judgment is so similar to Polanyi’s that the contradiction can only be
apparent, not substantive.
The great similarity
between Lonergan’s and Polanyi’s analyses of empirical scientific
method, cognitional process, and epistemology has been established in
the detailed study of Harold Kuester, “The Epistemology of Michael
Polanyi,” Part 5, 2: 482-590, 600-601. The same conclusion has been
reached by Joseph Kroger, “Polanyi and Lonergan on Scientific Method”
Philosophy Today 21 (1977): 2-20.
Secondly, I would note that Lonergan’s use of such adjectives as “cool,”
“detached,” and “disinterest-ed” when describing the desire to know
seems to contradict his other description of the desire to know as “an
Eros of the mind.”
[Insight, p. 74.]
Harold Kuester has suggested that perhaps Lonergan’s use of these
“objectivist” adjectives comes from his grounding of the cognitional
process upon the virtually unconditioned.
[Kuester,
“The Epistemology of Michael Polanyi,” p. 588.]
I suspect that Lonergan uses this “objectivist” terminology because
faithfulness to the desire to know (as Polanyi would agree) prevents the
inquiring subject from lapsing into mere subjectivism and instills in
the subject a sense of responsibility to what the knower is trying to
know. In giving himself or herself over to the desire to know, the
inquirer stands under the judgment of the truth. Lonergan, in other
words, is trying to express how the desire to know elicits the
transcendence of subjectivity in the cognitional process, and so he
describes that desire to know in what Polanyi would regard as
“objectivist” terminology. In any case, I agree with Kuester’s
conclusion that there is no reason why either man could not agree with
the position of the other.
[See ibid.]
I have been concentrating in this
subsection on the differences between Popper’s analysis of empi-rical
scientific method and those of Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan. I have
shown that there is a fundamental compatibility between Polanyi’s,
Whitehead’s, and Lonergan’s interpretations of scientific method, and
that all three would disagree with Popper’s interpretation. It is
important, however, to be clear about the nature of their disagreement.
In my judgment neither Whitehead nor Lonergan would claim that Popper’s
analysis is mistaken. Rather, they would hold that it is incomplete.
As is implicit in my discussion above, Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s
disagreement with Popper is not over the accuracy of his logical
analysis, but rather over its adequacy as a complete account of
empirical scientific method.
Popper restricts empirical
scientific method to its logical elements alone, primarily because he
wants to establish that this logical core (together with science’s
ability to predict empirical states of affairs and test theories against
empirical facts) is what demarcates science from all other modes of
human thought. This is what guarantees the objectivity of science, not
the “psychological” states of the subjects who do science. So far as
concerns the importance of the logical and empirical criteria of
science, Whitehead and Lonergan would not disagree. We have seen in
Chapter I that Whitehead and Lonergan both include in their
interpretations of scientific method the logical and empirical criteria
that Popper stresses and studies in great detail. But Lonergan and
Whitehead are interested not only in the “objective” rational and
empirical criteria which function in empirical scientific method; they
are also interested in the subject who is searching for
knowledge.
This is already clear
for Lonergan from my discussion of his programme in Chapter I. It will
become clear that this is also the case for Whitehead in my discussion
in Chapter III.
They are seeking to understand how the subject participates in and
contributes to the knowing process. Thus their descriptive analyses of
empirical scientific method include not only the logical and empirical
structure and criteria stressed by Popper, but also the non-logical,
a-critical, “subjective” or personal operations and processes stressed
by Polanyi.
My point is that Whitehead’s and
Lonergan’s analyses of empirical scientific method include those
logical and empirical elements that Popper stresses. They would disagree
with him only in so far as he tries to claim that his account is a
complete description of what takes place in an act of scientific
knowing. Whitehead and Lonergan want to take into account the personal
or subjective participation of the knower. Popper might insist that
this has nothing to do with what is strictly scientific about
scientific method, but that is not the concern Whitehead and Lonergan
have. They would agree with Polanyi that whether or not the “personal”
participation of the knower has anything to do with what is strictly
scientific in scientific method, it is nevertheless an essential part of
the entire process of knowing and cannot be overlooked. Thus the
essential compati-bility between the interpretations of empirical
scientific method produced by Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan ought not
to be taken to mean that they reject Popper’s analysis. Rather, all
three insist that in addition to what Popper stresses, the participation
of the knowing subject must also be taken into account. In this sense,
the antagonism between Polanyi and Popper is actually misleading. They
agree on more than one would be led to believe by their criticisms of
each other.
I must now pursue the implications
of these interpretations for the broader philosophical issues of knowing
and knowledge.
The Nature of Knowing and Knowledge
We have now seen the basic agreement
between Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan in their interpretations of
empirical scientific method, and both their agreement and disagreement
with Popper’s analysis. As I pursue the larger philoso-phical issues
raised by a study of empirical scientific method, the differences in
approach between Whitehead and Lonergan will again begin to surface.
Even while acknowledging these differences, however, it will remain
clear that Whitehead and Lonergan are in general agreement with
Polanyi’s interpretation. Once again, they will disagree with Popper,
not in outright rejection of his positions, but in their attention to
the subjective contribution of the knower. I will begin by discussing
two points on which there is significant agreement between all four
thinkers I have discussed.
The first point on which all four
men would agree is that the distinction between understanding and
knowledge corresponds to the difference between an untested hypothesis
and a tested one. Whitehead, Polanyi, and Lonergan would all agree that
understanding is an achievement of the inquiring subject, but none of
them would call this achievement knowledge. Likewise, it seems to me,
Popper would agree that an hypothesis is the expression of
understanding. For all four of these men, one cannot speak of knowledge
until the understanding has been subjected to testing. Knowledge is the
child of responsible judgment, and judgment can occur responsibly only
when the understanding has been tested against the facts of experience.
The import of this for all knowledge is clear. As we shall see when we
come to discuss objectivity, there is a major difference between Popper
on the one hand and Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan on the other
concerning the meaning of testing, the criteria for making such
judgments, and the role of the subject in knowledge. But all are agreed
on the general point that one can only speak of knowledge when
understanding has been subjected to the proper testing.
A second point on which all four men
agree is that the general or essential structure of empirical scientific
method is the underlying general structure of method in philosophy and
in all cognitional knowing.
[For Whitehead and Lonergan see Thesis, pp. 113-115; for
Popper, pp. 126, 154-155; for Polanyi, pp. 188-196.]
Now just as we saw when comparing Whitehead and Lonergan on this point
[Ibid., pp. 113-115.], so also here this general
agreement seems to cover a host of important differences. “Philosophy”
means something different to each of these four men, and in this case we
even have a major disagreement over what the general method of empirical
science is. Yet even in the face of these important differences, there
is significance in the fact that all four men agree that any act of
knowing has the same essential structure as an act of knowing in the
empirical sciences. Ideally, at least, this brings scientific knowing
into a common relationship with other forms of knowing. I will pursue
the significance of this point, which may seem quite unassuming now,
later in my study.
I must now take up a complex of
interrelated issues in which the differences between Popper on the one
hand and Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan become great. These issues
are self-transcendence and objectivity in knowing, the growth of
knowledge, and the relation of knowledge to reality. The position
adopted on anyone of these issues is related to and dependent upon the
positions adopted on the other two. Thus the full positions of the
thinkers I am considering will emerge only after I have discussed all of
these issues.
I will begin by considering the
issue of self-transcendence and objectivity in knowing. There is a
sense in which all four men I have studied would agree that faithfulness
to the method of knowing leads the inquiring subject to
self-transcendence and that objectivity consists in faithfulness to this
method. The disagreements arise over what specifically this means. For
Popper, as we have seen, objectivity has to do with the autonomous
“world 3” of objective knowledge.
[Ibid., pp.
148-154.]
In this “world,” which has an existence independent of knowing subjects,
are found the logical relationships and implications of all hypotheses
and theories. It is only in relation to this independent “world 3” of
objective knowledge that the inquiring subject can transcend the
limitations of the subjective world (“world 2”). It is only because the
subject submits his or her hypotheses to criticism in terms of the
objective logical relations and implications of the autonomous “world 3”
that the “world 2” subjective cognitional process transcends itself to
objectivity. Thus faithfulness to the method of criticism in boldly
proposing hypotheses and keeping them open to intersubjective criticism
evokes the self-transcendence of the inquiring subject from the world of
human subjectivity (“world 2”) toward the world of objective knowledge
(“world 3”). Objectivity, then, has an ontological referent (“world
3”), and only insofar as the processes of subjective knowledge conform
to the pattern of growth of objective knowledge can the subjectivity of
“world 2” be transcended and objectivity attained.
It is remarkable how similar to and
yet ultimately how radically different from Polanyi’s this position of
Popper’s is. Polanyi, too, insists that personal knowledge is a
transcendence of subjectivity because it is asserted in commitment to
pursuit of the truth. It is because the scientist or any knower is
faithful to the methodical structure of knowing and committed to the
reality he or she is trying to know that personal knowlledge is not
merely subjective.
[See ibid., pp. 178-182, 193-196.] Thus for Polanyi, too, there is a
sense in which objectivity has an ontological referent: the reality
which the inquirer is struggling to understand and know and to which he
or she is committed. It is this commitment to the truth which
structures the methodical process of knowing and elicits the
self-transcendence of the human subject in personal knowledge affirmed
with “universal intent.” Yet in spite of what appears to be a
fundamental agreement, Polanyi and Popper could hardly disagree more.
The heart of the disagreement
concerns the role of the inquiring subject in self-transcendence and
objectivity. Popper explicitly tries to construct his view of
objectivity without reference to a knowing subject. He asserts that
only after this objective realm of “knowledge without a knowing subject”
has been established and understood can one finally see how subjective
cognitional processes can transcend subjectivity by relating themselves
to this independent world of objective knowledge. Polanyi, on the other
hand, argues that properly speaking there can be no knowledge without a
knowing subject. He affirms that knowledge cannot be separated and
isolated from the subject who knows and the processes involved in
knowing. To attempt this separation not only distorts the character of
knowledge but also is destructive of its bases. Ultimately, he asserts,
it is not some autonomous and independent world of objective knowledge
that validates our propositions as objective, but rather the strength
and passion of the inquirer’s commitment and responsibility to the truth
as it reveals itself to the knower in discovery and judgment. It is the
personal participation of the inquirer in the act of knowing, his or her
indwelling and commitment in responsible judgment, that is the source
and ground of objectivity. The responsibility for our personal
knowledge, the guarantee of its objectivity, can never be shifted from
personal commitment to external “objective” criteria such as
logical relations, testability, and so forth.
Polanyi’s central point seems to be
illustrated quite well in Popper’s own writings. Popper’s position on
objectivity is intelligible only if one assumes the personal commitment
of the inquiring subject to universal standards. The external criteria
Popper proposes cannot alone guarantee objectivity or make it automatic.
Popper actually assumes the personal commitment of the inquirer but
does not take it into account systematically in his philosophy of
knowledge. For example, Popper characterizes scientific method as a
critical method that subjects all proposed hypotheses to the most
stringent of tests and that systematically excludes all procedures by
which an hypothesis might be “immunized” against falsification.
[See ibid., pp. 135, 144-145.]
But as Popper himself observes
[See ibid., p.
135; L.Sc.D., pp. 41-42.],
it is always logically possible to
find some way of “immunizing” hypotheses against falsifi-cation. On the
grounds of logic alone, falsification can always be avoided. That is
why Popper characterizes empirical scientific method as “a method that
excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification which . . . are
logically possible.”
[L.Sc.D., p.
42.]
But what does this mean if not that empirical scientific method is a
radical commitment to testing? And how can one speak of
commitment if one is not referring to the personal commitment of
scientists as individuals and as a group—personal commitment to the
pursuit of truth? And how can one exclude logically possible ways of
evading falsification except by the exercise of responsible judgments
made in commitment to the pursuit of truth? Popper from the very
beginning of his project must characterize empirical scientific method
as radical commitment to testing, and yet he refuses to take this
personal commitment into account systematically in his interpretation of
empirical scientific method.
This same is true of Popper’s
treatment of imagination and intuition. In order to make his account of
scientific method intelligible, Popper grants that there are roles for
imagination and intuition in the formation of hypotheses and in the
testing of hypotheses, but he tries to exclude them from his systematic
account of that method. Again, we have seen how dependent upon the
exercise of personal judgment the act of knowing is even in empirical
science. Polanyi acknowledges that there are external (or “objective”)
criteria but he points out forcefully that the application of these
criteria to any actual situation in science always depends on the
personal judgment of the scientist. A verification or a falsification
is never automatic, but depends entirely on the exercise of responsible
judgment by the scientist. Popper speaks of imagination,
intuition, commitment, and judgment, but when he comes to his systematic
analysis of the method of knowing, he whisks them away. The fact that
he must speak of them to lend intelligibility to his interpretation
indicates that they must be more than bit players to be trotted on and
off stage in the drama of scientific inquiry and knowing; they must in
fact be the principal actors in that drama.
On these issues Lonergan and
Whitehead have positions that are plainly resonant with Polanyi’s. For
Lonergan, as we have seen, objectivity is achieved by faithfulness to
the demands of methodical inquiry. The method of knowing is normative
because it carries within itself the very dynamic of questioning. The
inquirer is driven by the Eros of his or her mind to know, and the
inquirer cannot arrive at knowledge without faithfully submitting
himself or herself to the dynamic of questioning. That dynamic follows
a pattern of recurrent and related cognitional opera-tions culminating
in virtually unconditioned judg-ments, and only when such judgments can
be made does the dynamism of inquiry allow the inquirer to rest. Thus
for Lonergan as for Polanyi, the ultimate ground of objectivity is
personal: the Eros of the mind to know (Polanyi’s personal commitment to
the pursuit of truth). It is this personal dimension at the very root
of knowing that accounts for the self-transcendence and objectivity of
knowing. Polanyi argues that the person transcends subjectivity in
knowing because his or her judgments—in commit-ment and responsibility
to the truth pursued—are affirmed with “universal intent”; objectivity
depends on this personal contribution of the knower to knowing.
[See Thesis, pp. 178-182, 194-196.]
Lonergan argues the same point when
he discusses the relation of judgment to being, and argues that all
judgments made in commitment to the pure desire to know are affirmed
with “the intention of being.”
[See ibid., pp.
101-102. I have treated this point in Lonergan’s thought only summarily
thusfar. I shall take it up in detail in Chapter III.]
Thus Lonergan’s analysis of the personal ground of the method of
knowing, the personal contribution of the knower in making judgments,
and the intentionality of. the judgments made in this manner, is almost
identical with Polanyi’s analysis.
Whitehead’s approach to these issues
is rather different from that of Polanyi and Lonergan, but certainly
compatible with them in my estimation. Whitehead would agree that what
is commonly meant by objectivity is achieved by faithfulness to the
general empirical method which underlies empirical scientific method,
philosophical method, and any act of cognitional knowing. The starting
point, however, is actuality, the actual world, including the inquiring
subject.
[See ibid., pp. 11-13.] The inquiring subject is from the
start immersed in actuality in the form of his or her experience. The
pursuit of knowledge is the attempt on the part of the inquiring subject
to elucidate his or her actual experience. This is done by the use of
concepts and ideas which are, by their very nature, abstractions from
concrete experience.
[See ibid., p.
35-41.]
The method of discovery develops abstractions and schemes of
abstractions by the use of imagination and intuition in the hope of
elucidating more deeply and thoroughly the processes and interrelations
operative in actuality. Whitehead will only speak of “knowledge,”
however, when the inquiring subject tests these abstractions against
experience and formulates a judgment as to their applicability and
adequacy.
[See ibid., pp.
23-26, 47-49. ]
Objectivity, then, means faithfulness to this empirical method, and
faithfulness to this empirical method means a personal commitment of the
inquiring subject to the truth of experience. But it is the inquiring
subject who must judge whether or not any abstractive scheme of thought
elucidates experience. For Whitehead, too, the ground of objectivity
cannot be separated from the inquiring subject: the ground of
objectivity is the experiencing subject who is inquiring with the
intention of elucidating experienced reality, and who elicits as best he
or she can the testimony of that experience he or she hopes to
elucidate. To speak of objectivity is to speak of such a subject
faithfully submitting himself or herself to the general empirical method
of inquiry. It seems to me that though Whitehead’s approach to these
issues is quite different, it is an analysis quire compatible with
Polanyi’s and Lonergan’s on the necessity of the personal contribution
of the knower to knowing, and on the inherently personal grounding of
objectivity.
I shall discuss
Whitehead’s position on these issues more thoroughly in Chapter III.
Let us now shift attention to the
issue of the growth of knowledge. In Popper’s interpretation, knowledge
grows through criticism of our conjectures and the elimination of
errors.
[See Thesis, pp. 151-159.] In science this means that we
actively strive to “overthrow” our theories by falsification and
construct better theories which incorporate all the falsifications of
the past. By doing this our theories become better and better
approximations to the truth. In non-science such growth occurs by
subjecting our conjectures to strong criticism and developing arguments
of relative adequacy so that we may judge one conjecture to be a closer
approximation to the truth than the other even though strictly speaking
it is impossible to refute either conjecture.
[See ibid., pp. 160-162.]
The model of growth Popper proposes, then, is cumulative. The
instrument of growth, however, is restricted to falsification in
empirical science and judgments of relative inadequacy in metaphysical
discussions.
Polanyi and Lonergan would agree
that growth in knowledge is cumulative (that is, that it depends upon
and incorporates what has been learned in the past), but they would not
agree that the reasons for this cumulative growth are restricted to
actual falsifications in science or arguments of relative inadequacy in
non-scientific thought. As we have seen repeatedly, both Polanyi and
Lonergan would argue for the actual occurrence of a limited form of
verification in science, and both would argue for the existence of a
similar process in non-scientific thought.
Polanyi reserves the
term “verification” for judgments made in empirical scientific work, and
uses the term “validation” for other modes of thought. See P.K.,
p. 202. Both Lonergan and Whitehead are not adverse to using the term
“verification” for the whole continuum of modes of knowing, though
clearly the term is used by them in a general sense, not the specific
sense applicable to empirical scientific judgments.
For both men this “positive” growth in knowledge is rooted in the
affirmations of the inquiring and judging subject. Both would grant
that there are negative judgments such as Popper is speaking of, but
both would deny that the judgments of knowers are in actuality limited
to such negative judgments. There are also affirmations which knowers
make on the basis of responsible judgments, and these, too, contribute
to the growth of knowledge.
Whitehead would clearly agree with
Polanyi and Lonergan on these points. However, Whitehead offers an
additional argument against Popper’s position, an argument which in my
estimation is quite powerful. Whitehead would grant that, indeed,
falsification or the detection of errors is one way in which knowledge
grows. A more important way in which knowledge grows, however, is in
our discovering the limitations of our ideas.
[See Thesis, pp. 26-28, 35-41.]
Even in science, this does not
necessarily mean falsification in the strict sense. As we have seen,
Whitehead argues that one major example of progress in the science of
cosmology did not really involve falsification, but the discovery of
limitation. Einstein’s discovery did not reveal Newton’s formulae on
gravitation to be false, but rather to be limited in their scope of
application. Likewise, with the progress of science, the limitations of
Einstein’s formulae will one day come to be known.
[See quotation ibid., p. 27.]
Thus knowledge grows not only by the
detection of errors and false hypotheses, but by the discovery of the
limitations of applicability of our abstractions. This is true not only
for science, but also for all forms of cognitional knowing.
This brings us to the culminating
issue of this complex of issues: the relation of knowledge to reality.
Popper’s interpretation of knowing places severe limits on the relation
between knowledge and reality.
[See ibid., pp.
156-157.]
Our knowledge always remains hypothetical or conjectural, nothing beyond
more or less good guesses. These guesses, if informed, are serious
attempts to discover truth, but we can never know if we have grasped the
truth and come to know reality. This, of course, is because we can
never verify our conjectures. By falsifying them, however, we can
conclude that there is a reality, something with which our conjectures
have clashed. Logically, the very idea of error implies the idea of an
objective truth which we may fail to reach. Empirically, when we succeed
in falsifying a conjecture this must mean that objective truth (that is,
reality) exists. Falsifications are the points at which we “touch”
reality, and by discarding our falsified conjectures and formulating
better ones in pursuit of the truth, we may be said to be drawing nearer
to the truth. This, however, means that our knowledge is severely
limited. Our knowledge of reality is restricted to the idea that there
is a reality and that we have encountered it in detecting the errors of
our conjectures about it. This is the limit of our “positive
experience” gained from reality.
[See quotations; ibid., p. 157.]
The idea of truth has motivating and
regulative roles, but we can never know if we know the truth, nor can we
know reality except in error.
Popper’s position is
thus a contemporary form of the Humean and Kantian limitation of
speculative reason.
This position also implies that actual contact with reality can only be
achieved in empirical science where falsifications can be made.
Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan all
take a very different position on this issue. In spite of very real
differences in their individual points of view, these three thinkers are
in fundamental agreement as against Popper’s position. Knowledge has a
very different character for them. Polanyi holds that contact with
reality is made in personal knowing which includes positive affirmations
as well as judgments of falsity. Our personal knowledge, then, is more
than the knowledge of error and that some unknown reality must exist.
His whole analysis of discovery in empirical science and in any act of
knowing shows that reality beckons the inquirer on and reveals aspects
of itself to him or her in intelligibility. When the knower is able to
affirm in a judgment with universal intent that contact with reality has
been established, there is positive knowledge of reality. This is, to
be sure, knowledge fraught with risk, knowledge that always remains
partial, incomplete, and uncertain. It is, however, positive knowledge
of reality, knowledge that goes beyond the mere knowledge of error.
Contact with reality is made by recognizing and affirming the
intelligible in reality.
This is clearly the
implication of Polanyi’s analysis of the nature of objectivity in
knowing. See especially ibid., pp. 5-6, 63-64, 104-106, 311-316.
Recognizing and affirming the intelligible in reality is dependent upon
our commitment and responsibility to the vision of reality we are
glimpsing. Commitment, in turn, has two moments: the final commitment
of the person in judgment and affirmation; and the initial commitment of
the person in indwelling.
[See Thesis, pp. 193-196.]
Indwelling itself is an experience of the yet unknown reality, aspects
of which will be affirmed and known in the final commitment of judgment.
Polanyi, in short, recognizes the limited nature of knowledge, but
affirms that our knowledge is positive contact with reality. Contact
with reality is not restricted to the empty knowledge that there is a
reality and the negative knowledge of error. Furthermore, contact with
reality is not restricted to the empirical sciences, but takes place in
all acts of personal knowing.
Lonergan and Whitehead are in
fundamental agreement with Polanyi’s position. Lonergan also argues
that contact with reality is made in affirming the intelligible.
[See ibid., pp.
53-55, 81-102.]
Lonergan’s whole analysis of judgment results in the argument that the
problem of how a knower can get beyond himself or herself to a known
world is incorrectly put, that it is in fact a pseudo-problem. The
intentionality of judgment shows that the self-transcendence of the
knower ought not to be sought in getting beyond a knower to an unknown
world. Rather, the intentionality of judgment shows the
self-transcendence of the knower in “heading for being” within
the act of knowing.
[See ibid., p.
102.]
Once it is shown that it is possible and reasonable for the knower to
affirm himself or herself as a knower (the affirmation of self as a
knowing being), then it must be recognized that it is equally possible
and reasonable to arrive at other judgments from which arise knowledge
of other objects as beings and as being other than the knower. In
short, contact with reality is made whenever a reasonable and
responsible judgment can be affirmed, and from such judgments knowledge
of reality arises. Such judgments are not restricted to negative
judgments of falsity or error, but include positive affirmations. While
such knowledge of reality cannot be considered absolute, complete,
final, or certain, it is knowledge nonetheless. In affirming the
intelligible, we do know reality and this knowledge is not limited to
the sort obtainable in the empirical sciences.
Whitehead, it seems to me, would not
disagree with such an analysis of what takes place in the act of
knowing. He does, however, develop his position from a point of view
more closely akin to Polanyi’s notion of indwelling
There are a number of
similarities or resemblances between the philosophies of Whitehead and
Polanyi which are beyond the scope of my study. For a study of a few of
these similarities, see John B. Bennett, “The Tacit in Experience:
Polanyi and Whitehead,” The Thomist 42 (1978): 28-49.
than to Lonergan’s analysis of the intentionality of knowing. Whitehead
does not begin his analysis of knowing by considering an inquiring
subject in isolation and studying the processes of cognition in an
attempt to discover how that subject is related to reality. He begins,
rather, with the subject immersed in reality, enmeshed in a network of
real relation-ships. For Whitehead, reality is what constitutes
experience. Metaphorically, we already “know” reality in its fulness
and its infinite complexity in our experience.
This, of course, is
not rational knowledge nor even conscious awareness. See Thesis,
pp. 35-36.
That is the starting point for trying to understand what rational
knowledge is. Thus whereas Popper says that we “touch” reality only in
our falsifications, Whitehead would say that we never lose “touch” with
reality at all. When in an act of knowing the knower can affirm the
truth of some abstraction, the knower has not for the first time
“touched” reality by breaking through the confines of isolated
subjec-tivity. Rather, the knower has gained rational know-ledge—always
partial, incomplete, and limited—of some aspect of the reality he or she
is constantly experiencing. Rational knowing elucidates some aspects of
an already experienced reality. For Whitehead, too, in spite of its
limited nature, knowledge is positive, is possible in affirmation as
well as negation, and is not restricted to the inquiries of the
empirical sciences. Any true act of knowing (involving testing
abstractions against experience) produces positive, though limited,
knowledge of reality.
I might note that Lonergan’s and
Whitehead’s positions on the relation of knowledge to reality are the
philosophical undergirdings for their positions on induction. Both of
them, along with Polanyi, affirm that informal inductive procedure is an
element of the process of knowing. As we have seen
[Ibid., pp. 118-119.],
Lonergan grounds induction in an
“immanent and operative law” of the dynamism of cognitional process,
while Whitehead grounds induction in an ontological analysis of an
occasion of experience. For Lonergan induction is an inherent operation
of cognitional process, but Whitehead insists that induction (even
though part of cognitional process) cannot be grounded until one has
illustrated that the immediate occasion of experience is related to
other occasions in the past and the future. Both solutions are
empirical: Lonergan’s appealing to the data of cognitional process,
Whitehead’s to the data of experience more broadly conceived.
While both Lonergan and Whitehead
could present strong arguments against Popper’s solution to the
psychological problem of induction
[See ibid., pp.
136-140.],
in my judgment Whitehead’s would be
the more powerful. Popper resolves the psychological problem of
induction by arguing that induction is not a psychological fact.
Rather, the psychological situa-tion is that we have “inborn”
expectations that future events will conform in general ways to events
of the present and the past. We test those expectations and if
necessary modify them, eliminating erroneous expectations; but, Popper
concludes, this is really a deductive procedure. Hence the
psychological situation parallels the logical, and induction is a fact
in neither. Apart from several other arguments which could be
formulated against Popper’s position from Whitehead’s philosophy, the
fundamental one concerns the question of why such “inborn” expectations
are present at all. Popper’s response is clearly Kantian: the
expectations are there because they are the instruments of our
cognitional processes, and we cannot avoid having them. Whitehead would
respond, I think, by making two points. First of all, he would agree
that, surely, there are inborn expectations that the future will conform
to the past in some respects. This fact, however, does not substantiate
the denial of inductive procedures. These expectations are not specific
hypotheses from which formal deductions could be made. They are,
rather, general expectations; and we must actually induce our
specific understandings of how in fact particular aspects of the future
will conform to particular aspects of the past. We do so by eliciting
our specific understandings from our actual experience.
Secondly, Whitehead might argue,
Popper’s response does not really ground these expectations. In both
their general and specific forms, such expectations remain ungrounded
empirically until we can illustrate in the facts of experience that the
general nature of such expectations conforms to the structure of
reality. These expectations presuppose and imply a metaphysical
understanding of the world. Therefore, they cannot be grounded by
regarding them as mere conjectures to be tested and then developing a
deductive logic of testing. A logic alone cannot empirically ground
these expectations. They can only be grounded empirically by
illustrating in the facts of experience that present events have
inherent relations both to the past and the future. This calls, in
short, not for a logic but for a metaphysical analysis of the structure
of reality. This alone can give empirical grounding to these
expectations. Once Whitehead establishes his ontological analysis of
actual entities and their relationships, he is able to show that the
expectations of conformity of future to past are present in the
inquiring subject not merely because they are the unavoidable structure
and instruments of rational consciousness, but because the experiencing
subject is continually rooted in a reality in which the present moment
is affected by the past and affects the future. The inductive procedure
of rational consciousness can now be understood and affirmed as grounded
in and reflecting the actual connectivity of all events.
In this subsection I have once again
concentrated on the differences between Popper’s philosophy of knowledge
and the positions presented by Polanyi, Whitehead, and Lonergan. Again,
however, it is important to be clear about the nature of the
disagreements between them. In my estimation, neither Whitehead nor
Lonergan would deny the legitimacy of Popper’s main points, and in fact
they include them or could include them in their own analyses. The
disagreement with Popper again centers around taking the contribution of
the knowing subject systematically into account in constructing a
cognitional theory and epistemology. Popper restricts his theory of
“objective knowledge” to the logical relations within and between
theories and the inter-subjective criticism of theories. He argues that
only by means of contact with this objective “world 3” realm of logical
contents can the subject achieve self-transcendence and objectivity in
knowing. It seems clear to me that neither Whitehead nor Lonergan (nor,
for that matter, Polanyi) would dispute this point. The disagreement
they have with Popper concerns the exclusion of the subject from a
description of the knowing process. I shall try very briefly to
summarize the grounds for this interpretation.
It is clear that both Whitehead and
Lonergan agree with Popper concerning the importance of the logical and
empirical dimensions of “objective knowledge” for any account of the
growth of knowledge and of objectivity and the self-transcendence of the
knower. For example, we have seen how Lonergan insists that the
private, pre-conceptual insight must be formulated in public terms
precisely so that it can be communicated and inter-subjectively tested.
[See ibid., pp. 59-60.]
Thus Lonergan would
agree entirely with Popper’s statement that “only a formulated
theory (in contradistinction to a believed theory) can be objective, and
. . . it is this formulation or objectivity that makes criticism
possible . . .”
[Ob. Kn., p.
31.]
Further, Lonergan would agree that self-transcendence and objectivity
occur in the knowing process precisely because the subject is related to
an objectively stated theory and is seeking to answer the further
questions that arise. The dynamic of inquiry drives the subject to
search for the fulfilled or unfulfilled conditions of that proposition
in testing.
Likewise, Whitehead would have no
quarrel with the points upon which Popper insists. Whitehead even
develops an analysis remarkaply akin to Popper’s discussion of “world
1,” “world 2,” and “world 3.” As I shall discuss in detail below [See Thesis, pp. 297-324.], Whitehead works out a metaphysical
theory of “propositions.” Propositions, he holds, are hybrid entities,
neither actual entities nor pure concepts, but distinct entities
combining characteristics of both. Although it would take me too far
afield here, it could be shown rather easily that Whitehead’s “actual
entities” considered as “superjects” (objects) correspond quite closely
with Popper’s “world 1” physical objects or physical states.
Whitehead’s “actual entity” considered in its formal constitution
(i.e., as a concrescent subject) corresponds quite closely with Popper’s
“world 2” subjective experience. Finally, Whitehead’s “propositions”
correspond quite closely with Popper’s “world 3” objective logical
relations within and between theories. Whitehead would agree entirely
with Popper that self-transcendence and objectivity occur in knowing
when a subject asks about the truth of the proposition in itself (apart
from its relation to or interest for the subject).
[See ibid., pp. 323-324, 325-334, esp. 331-333.]
Whitehead would even agree with
Popper’s attempt to work out a “correspondence” theory of the truth of
propositions.
See ibid., p.
324. In light of the fundamental agreements and similarities between
Whitehead’s and Popper’s positions, I find Popper’s criticism of
Whitehead’s philosophy to be unfounded. See Karl Popper, The Open
Society and Its Enemies, 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, 1963);
2: 247-251. Popper’s remarks in this very brief discussion of Whitehead
indicate quite clearly that he does not understand Whitehead’s
philosophy.
In short, in my judgment both
Lonergan and Whitehead include in their cognitional theories and
epistemologies the elements that Popper stresses in his philosophy of
knowledge. The disagreement between them concerns Popper’s inattention
to how the subject operates in its attempt to arrive at objective
knowledge. In so far as Popper tries to limit the account of knowledge
solely to the logical contents of “world 3,” Whitehead and Lonergan
would hold that his account is incomplete. As I argued above
[See Thesis,
pp. 209-210.],
both Whitehead and Lonergan want to include in a systematic way the
subject’s participation in the process of knowing. It is not their
purpose to restrict their analyses to the logical dimension of objective
knowledge, but to attend to all the dimensions of knowing, including the
subjective participation of the knower in the act. This is where their
disagreement with Popper would be centered.
There is one final point to which I
must allude. Popper, Polanyi, Whitehead and Lonergan all agree that the
knowledge of reality gained in the empirical sciences is hypothetical,
limited, partial, and incomplete. Popper, Polanyi, and Whitehead
clearly understand and affirm this to be the character of all
knowledge. Whitehead, for all his conviction that it is possible and
necessary to develop a universally applicable and necessary set of
metaphysical categories, affirms that metaphysical knowledge is
hypothetical, partial, limited, and relative. Knowledge in metaphysics
has essentially the same character as it does in the empirical sciences:
it is always open to revision. Lonergan, in contrast, seems to find a
changelessness, a certainty in metaphysical knowledge that makes it
quite different in character from knowledge in the empirical sciences.
[See ibid., pp.
107-108, 120.]
The risk of error inherent in all knowledge seems to have disappeared
when Lonergan arrives at metaphysics. This position sets Lonergan apart
from Whitehead, Popper, and Polanyi, and it presents me with a problem
which I shall confront in Chapter III.
My final task in this chapter is to
make my judgment concerning the tenability of Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s
interpretations of empirical scientific method. We have seen that in
every important respect Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s interpretations of
empirical scientific method are in essential agreement with the
interpretation of Michael Polanyi. I have also tried to show that their
interpretations agree with and include the logical and empirical points
stressed by Popper. Further, we have seen that although they take
different approaches, Whitehead and Lonergan are in basic agreement with
Polanyi on the elements and structure of the general method of knowing,
on the nature of objectivity and the personal contribution of the knower
to the act of knowing, on the growth of knowledge, and on the relation
of knowledge to reality. Thus they are in general agreement with
Polanyi not only on the interpretation of empirical scientific method
but also on several of the larger philosophical implications of what is
discovered underlying that method. Although Whitehead and Lonergan
would disagree with Popper’s philosophy of knowledge, I have tried to
indicate that this disagreement is not over the legitimacy and accuracy
of Popper’s basic positions, which both Whitehead and Lonergan would
accept and which are in fact included or could be included in their
analyses. Rather, Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s accounts include the
contribution of the subject, which Polanyi stresses, as well as the
“objective” elements of knowledge so stressed by Popper.
Thus, in sum, Whitehead’s and
Lonergan’s interpretations of empirical scientific method and their
cognitional theories and epistemologies include what both Polanyi and
Popper stress in their interpretations. While Whitehead’s and
Lonergan’s interpretations correspond more closely to Polanyi’s, they
nevertheless agree with Popper on the “objective” elements of scientific
method and knowledge. I take all of this to be sufficient grounds for
judging that Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s interpretations of empirical
scientific method are well within the spectrum of interpretations
offered by contemporary philosophy of science. This is the independent
evidence I sought for affirming that their interpretations of empirical
scientific method are tenable.
We have seen again, however, that
when Whitehead and Lonergan extend the implications of their
interpretations of empirical scientific method into larger philosophical
questions, they take markedly different approaches. This difference in
how general empirical method is utilized in their philosophies reflects
the basic differences in their philosophies. I must now turn my
attention more fully to this set of issues.
Forward to
Chapter III:
The Influence of Empirical Method in Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s
Analyses of Human Subjectivity
Back to
Table of Contents