The idea that the nature of the world can be grasped in its fullness with a purely rational method, as many a physicist and scientist believes, always makes me wonder how those who seriously take this as fact are not in some way deluding themselves (and others)?

To believe that the world can be fully understood and explained with words, numbers and symbols is, to my mind, to be burdened from the start with a great impediment.

Just off the top, using math as an example: if the math needs to be juggled in order to maintain its consistency with a basic assumption, and further that – the problem persisting after X number of “corrections” are made – the assumption must be changed, then how is such “groping” or “guessing” smarter than “groping” or “guessing” in any other discipline aimed at discovering the true nature of things? Is this not rationalizing to the nth degree?

The role of science in providing handles on reality that render the world less mysterious, less troublesome, and more productive of a better life is not at issue here.

It is the leap required to reach an understanding of reality per se. Which is why I do not allow science or other strictly rational discipline to become my “faith” regarding the true nature of the world. It’s not that I distrust........

© American Thinker