thoughts of ignorance

I’m meant to be reading the Australian case of Mabo now, but I had the sudden impulse to blog. Special mention goes to Stefan Broderick and Mr Q for their excellent correspondence in addressing this issue which I am going to write about. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Stefan has or will blog about this also)

I never liked science as a notion of explaining the world in motion. The promise of science is and always has been a complete set of true and invariably consistent propositions that accurately correspond to the world of objective reality.

I am sceptical. The fact that science in the last two hundred years has grown increasingly byzantine and ecclesiastical in its bearing seems a sign of stagnation. We live in an age where the whole spectrum of science is not really accessible to the general discourse on reality. And if it isn't available to us in our everyday lives, then how real can it really be?

Could it be that science has hit the great and eternal sound barrier of metaphysics as it seeks to stretch its grammar far beyond the point of anything we could ever come to know sensually?

I really wonder if the inability to find in science the one unified picture that will give us absolute knowledge of reality is maybe just a failure to understand the use and limits of language. To advance physics a few hundred years ago, Newton and Einstein had to invent from whole cloth a new mathematics, essentially a new language. Is that even possible now? And if it is, will the new calculus bring only bring us to its own obsolescence in time? Has the paradigm already failed and we're just too stuck in it to notice? How would we know one way or another? What is the nature our relation to a failed paradigm? Does the paradigm fail us or do we fail it? Is all of this just more abuse of language?

Questions with no answers. That’s the primary reason why I dislike philosophy. I’m gonna hate jurisprudence next year. I can feel it in my veins.