Chapter 1: The Meme of Science and Nature

The idea that science elucidates "how things function" is widely recognized. For instance, a lesson from Study.com states that "Scientists seek to answer questions through experiments that validate their hypotheses about the workings of the world." Similarly, Science Buddies notes that "The scientific method emerged over centuries, shaped by debates on how to best understand the natural world, with Aristotle being one of the first to advocate for observation and reasoning." An article explaining science remarks that observations are merely a component of a broader process that entails forming theories about nature and testing them against empirical evidence.

As the NIH explains for younger audiences, "Science might appear mysterious or complex, but at its core, it's about discovering how nature operates and understanding the reasons behind everyday phenomena." Neil deGrasse Tyson expressed a desire to deepen his knowledge of the universe's workings during an interview with Curt Jaimongal on YouTube.

The fascination with the notion that science reveals how nature "functions" carries significant implications. The term "function" often evokes teleological interpretations—implying purpose in the effort expended to achieve a result.

Despite physicists' intentions to eliminate such implications, the idea of "function" still clings to the discussion through concepts like "force," which suggests an influence that leads to change. If we were to adopt a strictly Humean perspective on natural regularities, as proposed by David Hume, we would refrain from assuming inherent tendencies or necessary connections in nature. This perspective, distancing itself from Aristotle's comparisons of natural processes with human-made products, would suggest that any teleological element is merely a subjective addition to our observations.

With skepticism as our lens, the concept of nature "functioning" would vanish. We could still recognize changes in nature, but without the assumption that these changes are dependable or enhanced by an external force. Thus, while motion and energy transfers occur, the idea of a force driving these changes—and, by extension, nature's intent—would lose its credibility.

Section 1.1: The Pragmatic Focus of Scientists

Interestingly, the persistence of the meme that science explains nature's workings is rooted in practical considerations. Scientists, when they express the need to understand how nature functions, often jump ahead: the real work lies in how we, as a species, harness empirical knowledge for our benefit. Nature does not operate independently; instead, we engage with it through scientific inquiry.

What scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson prioritize is not the metaphysical essence of nature but its utility. They are pragmatists, often setting aside philosophical or theological debates about ultimate causes to focus on what can be achieved with provisional models.

For example, one can explain the mechanics of a firearm without delving into its broader social implications. Understanding how something operates entails knowing how to predict its behavior under specific circumstances. This pragmatic approach to science mirrors the behaviorist perspective in psychology, where the focus is on observable reactions rather than underlying motivations.

Subsection 1.1.1: Mechanistic Abstraction

Thus, one can articulate how a firearm operates without addressing its identity as a weapon with societal roles. The mechanical explanation abstracts away the ethical dimensions, reducing it to a system of measurable interactions.

A classic example is found in quantum mechanics, where the focus is on quantifying changes at the quantum level without positing theories about the nature of quanta or the reasons behind their behavior. Physicists often separate their instrumental answers to the "How?" from metaphysical inquiries into the "What?" and "Why?" questions, adhering to the adage, "shut up and calculate," as famously stated by physicist David Mermin.

Chapter 2: The Complexity of Nature's Reality

The approach of scientists to objectify nature is beneficial, as any singular view of nature is inherently subjective. The holistic reality of nature is likely beyond our comprehension. We dissect the cosmos into manageable parts that serve our cognitive capabilities, often neglecting the broader, inhuman reality of natural phenomena.

This imbalance is unavoidable; a comprehensive account of nature would be overwhelming, akin to describing every minute detail of a film without discerning its overarching narrative. Such exhaustive descriptions undermine the purpose of language and thought.

Consequently, our understanding of nature is inevitably simplified, and scientists tend to objectify rather than humanize their explanations. However, since ultimate questions regarding nature's essence are often unfathomable, philosophers, theologians, and artists are free to explore these inquiries.

The tendency among progressive scientists to dismiss these questions as irrelevant stems from a misunderstanding of their significance. While scientific knowledge proves useful, it does not diminish the value of exploring deeper existential questions, which may evoke feelings of awe or humility in the face of nature's vastness.

In sum, the limitations of scientific inquiry can lead to an underestimation of the profound and often unsettling aspects of nature. The assumption that all inquiries into nature must yield practical benefits is a manifestation of a narrow, human-centric perspective. As we grapple with the enormity of the natural world, we may find that some of the most meaningful questions remain unanswered.

The second video explores the insights of Terrence Howard during a full address and Q&A at the Oxford Union, where he discusses various concepts that challenge traditional scientific paradigms.