What Is Science? — Towards A Metamodern Epistemic

Jason Stone
4 min readJul 17, 2020

“One man tried going in a straight line many thousands of years ago and was called wamba (crazy) and punished by being thrown up into the sky.”

-Tyson Yunkaporta — Sand Talk

Where should we draw the line between what is and is not legitimately called “science”? Is there room for narratives that do not qualify as science or is science the only correct way to know about the world? If science is not the only useful way of knowing about the world, then how should we allow for other narratives and how should we approach knowing about them in productive ways?

The origins of science may help us to understand its proper scope. Science perhaps began with observations of the sky. The sky presented our ancestors with a highly regular environment with an obvious decomposition into parts — points of light moving across a mostly monochrome background. Each day the sun moved through the sky in a regular pattern with minor variations. Each night the planets, stars and moon also moved in regular patterns with minor variations. The movements corresponded with important events on the ground — such as cyclical seasons. In the quest to understand these regular movements our ancestors devised mathematical conventions and eventually mechanical models. These models attempted to explain the configuration and movements of the celestial objects, including anomalies such as the retrograde motion of Venus. This was perhaps the birth of science and engineering as we know them today. Because these systems were so regular they allowed for the successful application of deductive logic and mathematical tools that depend on the application of deduction. Using these tools, a scientist was able to devise a mathematical description for the movements, given the resolution of observation available at the time, where there were no known anomalies.

Looks Like Astronomy

Once our ancestors had created the deductive, mathematical tools to describe the regular movements seen in the sky, they went looking for other systems that seemed to exhibit similar amounts of regularity and that presented them with an obvious decomposition. In addition to systems found in nature, they attempted to construct their own devices that exhibit enough regularity and decomposition to allow for the successful application of deduction and mathematics. However, they found that there were many phenomena that were not regular enough to apply the relatively simple methods devised for astronomy. These shortcomings eventual lead to the creation of the branch of mathematics known as statistics and probability.

Doesn’t Look Like Astronomy

Using statistics and probability an investigator is able to collect samples of a phenomena and summarize the qualities of those samples. The investigator can then comment on the qualities of those samples in ways that are more principled than statements that do not account as well for the tendencies present in the population that is being characterized. Unlike the deductive and mathematical statements made about astronomical events, this technique may not produce deductive or mathematical statements for which there are no known anomalies for a particular decomposition and resolution of observation. If we can not produce general statements without known anomalies, then does it deserve the name “science”?

Not Exactly Science

Perhaps we should limit the scope of science proper to attempts to derive general deductive and mathematical statements about observations where there are no known anomalies for a particular decomposition at a particular resolution of observation. This would not extend to every investigation that statistics and probability touch upon and it would certainly not extend to anything that was considered knowledge in the general sense. There are experiences that are personal and particular and, even if skillful sampling could be applied, a generalization without exceptions is unlikely to form. These experiences may matter in substantial ways to many people and therefore may become the basis for narratives that are intended to describe and shape the direct sensation of living that is experienced by those influenced by these narratives. By circumscribing science we leave more room for other narratives. This extra room may serve an important psychological and sociological role since it could liberate us from the sense that the mainstream narrative of science has colonized all human knowledge and experience. This more limited definition of science should also allow us to feel free to use statistics and probability without the burden of needing to conform to the traditional scientific narrative.

Towards A Metamodern Epistemic

A Metamodern epistemic may be forming that attempts to skillfully sample narratives that are playing an important role in the world as we and those we share it with experience it. The sampling might include foundational art and literature that define particular narratives for many people and samples of contemporary journalism, first person anecdotes, and cultural products that are created by those living out those narratives. The application of Data Science tools to information obtained through the internet seems especially promising. These techniques can be applied without attempting to generate exception free generalizations or adopting the entirety of the current consensus version of the scientific narrative. Techniques might include: surveys of people who self-identify with a particular narrative, media studies that use statistical methods, and textual and quantitative analysis of journalism produced by or about communities associated with particular narratives. It might also be useful to ask participants in various narratives to attempt to interpret cultural products produced by theirs and other’s narratives. These interpretations could describe how a participant in a particular narrative imagines how they and other participants might interpret or use a particular cultural product in the context of their own narrative. These interpretations could then be analyzed and archived.

Analysis of the collected data might include a search for the heuristics that guide which details are thought of as important to include in a narrative and a catalog of lived experiences that seem to deviate from the narrative as it is often presented.

P.S. In order for the epistemic to qualify as Metamodern and not simply Postmodern, there would need to be an attempt to label the narratives and the interpretations in terms of developmental psychology — such as the Intergral, Spiral Dynamics, or Hanzi Freinacht schemes.

--

--