Intellectual Finitude and the Quest for Truth

One of the leading themes in Hans-Georg Gadamer’s book?Reason in the Age of Science?is intellectual finitude, a necessary condition for self-understanding that is being pushed to abeyance by the rise of intellectual arrogance. Gadamer speaks of the age of science?as one that has been overpowered by scientific knowledge, not only in the sense of how we know the truth, but in the way it has defined the framework we use to think about anything. Gadamer opens his essay with the statement: “It is evident that what we call philosophy is not science in the same way as the so-called positive sciences are” (Gadamer, 1981). While Gadamer would not dispute the view that philosophy has a binding proximity to the sciences, the pressure point lies in practical hermeneutics. For Gadamer, the nature of our knowledge is never final and always subject to interpretation. To understand is to interpret. We do not know something in the sense of finality because understanding is but a moment of flickering wakefulness.

The splintering difference between philosophy and modern science is that the latter lacks consciousness of its limits. The age of science endangers social reason because it threatens our freedom from within through its totalizing pretensions. Throughout his essays, Gadamer frequently refers back to the ancient Greek notion of hubris as a signal of warning against intellectual egotism and extreme self-assurance, a reminder that?you are a man and no god. In 1912, nobody thought that the Titanic could sink. The ship's apparent invincibility was exacerbated by a halo of human hubris. Its ultimate fate offers a sobering reminder that without knowledge of our limits, knowledge as a scientific construct may amount to no more than a mirage.?

In this essay, I hope to explore in greater detail the consequences of an age of science characterized by control, mastery, and certainty. I will achieve this by discussing Gadamer’s concept of science?by invoking the specificities?of intellectual finitude and the threats that arise from the lack thereof. The first consequence that will be considered is a paralysis in the way we think. This is a by-product of an elevation of expectations, information asymmetry, and the outsourcing of decision-making to expert figures. The second consequence of the age of science is manifested in the way we act. Are humans truly the scientist or have we become the mere apparatus? Language gives a fundamental orientation to one’s experiences yet when it is replaced with the technical vocabulary of science, rather than being liberated by our social and cultural medium, we find ourselves bound by the grip of scientific ideals.

Gadamer refers to the “age of science” to describe the dominant intellectual and cultural paradigm that occurred during the Enlightenment and continued through the modern era. The age of science heavily emphasizes scientific and empirical methods as the primary means of understanding the world. Gadamer offers a useful framework through the lens of philosophy that can be used to understand humanity’s interactions with our own inventions so that we may search for truth in more meaningful ways.?He neither dislikes science as a discipline nor does he hold the belief that we are better without it, rather, he tells a cautionary tale of the danger that accompanies our absolute confidence in it. In some ways, science has?set asunder?from other disciplines like history, language, ethics, politics, art, and does not speak a language in the proper sense. Our perilous quest for answers has blinded us to the critical questions and is slowly depleting life of meaning. In the age of science, what cannot be proved with numbers, data, or empirical evidence is brushed off as heresy.?

"Science may be able to bring us to the point of producing life in a test tube but this does not affect the tough discontinuities between a really lived life and a withering away into death." —Hans Georg Gadamer

The excessive use of statistics is one symptom of the scientific era. The following statement from the American Lung Association serves as an illustration: smoking contributes to 80% and 90% of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively.?While this finding may be valid, it is by no means comprehensive and only tells a partial truth. By focusing the spotlight on one aspect, we are masking another. Abstaining from smoking does not make one invincible to the disease.?Surely the finding does not explicitly suggest this, yet if we probed further, it is revealed?by the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention that: Adults who do not smoke and are exposed to secondhand smoke increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%. This example not only?sheds light?how scientific knowledge can warp understanding and decision-making, but also exposes the escalation of trust we place in experts. With an increasing reliance on expert findings, what we see is a loss of personal judgment. It seems that in the age of science, we are losing the ability and confidence to make decisions – partly in fear of making the wrong choice. In this regard, we become mentally paralyzed, finding recourse in?the specialist who has a higher authority than we do. Leading with curiosity and adopting Gadamer's notion that knowledge is a continuous process of interpretation can get us closer to the nexus of truth.

One criticism for the phenomenon that we overly confide in expert advice can be explained using a thought experiment. Imagine Jonny, a two-year-old baby who suffered a severe brain haemorrhage and is in critical condition. The doctors placed him on life support and gave his parents two choices: either (1) they make the decision themselves?whether or not to keep their son on life support, or (2) they let the doctor choose. Most people would prefer to make the choice themselves because it would seem absurd to let anyone else decide the fate of their own child. This situation is partly affected by information asymmetry. While the doctors may behold an objective set of information about Jonny (i.e. his medical condition), the parents behold a moral duty toward their son and their family, which is inimitable by the doctors. Therefore, we can see that even in the age of science, when people face moral choices, falling back on the expert may not always be preferred.?

In response to the above thought experiment, it is important to note that it does not necessarily contradict Gadamer’s notion that we are dependent on expert figures. For example, the case does not consider the parents’ psychological state after making the decision. If the parents decided to take Jonny off life support and believed to have made the right choice, they should feel emotions like sadness, but not guilt. Yet, most parents would feel a certain degree of guilt had they made the decision themselves to end the life of their child. This underscores the problem: even when we make a choice, we are often unhappy with it because we think there could have been a better alternative. Consequently, that alternative usually lies with the expert, or so we perceive. If there was a law stipulating that doctors (experts)?must?make the final call of keeping or removing a patient from life support, Jonny’s parents would be relieved of the decision and as a result feel very little, if any, guilt. Therefore, in the age of science, we are losing the ability and confidence to make decisions and consequently, even when we form a judgment, we often find ourselves regretting it at a later time.?

Second, I wish to discuss how the scientific age has influenced the way we act. When technology is produced, it will inevitably be used. And as such, and a temptation for it to be misused arises. Gadamer refers to the example of genetic breeding and brainwashing to describe what can happen when science loses sight of its limits. Are we really Victor Frankenstein or are we the monster? Without knowledge of our intellectual limits, Frankenstein’s monster may be seeking revenge sooner than we anticipate, and the worst part is, we are still under the false pride that we are its master.

"Was it a moral awareness – or what kind of shock was it that arose in reaction to the idea that a kind of superman could be genetically bred while this society would be transformed into a worker-bee existence for the sake of these drones?" —Hans Georg Gadamer

In the age of science, we are losing our sense of identity. Information is imparted so quickly on us that we are becoming overwhelmed. The technological age calls for intellectual adaptation and while we are busy following rules, the meaningful acts of cooperative inquiry, creativity, and critical thinking are fading. The fear of missing out (FOMO) has become a popular slang among teenagers and young adults. Consumers line up at 3 AM to buy the latest edition of the iPhone not with the intention of replacing a broken phone, but because it is the fashionable thing to do. People take 50 photos to tell a Snapchat story not because each photo is meaningful, but precisely to convince themselves that their lives are not boring. In the age of science, people are losing their bearings and becoming camouflaged into anonymity. Although we may gain convenience, comfort, and short bursts of excitement, what we lose is freedom from within.?

"The individual in society who feels dependent and helpless in the face of its technically mediated life forms becomes incapable of establishing identity." —Hans Georg Gadamer

When Gadamer argues that a sense of self-aggrandisement has accompanied the scientific age, he seems to place the entire burden of proof on the shoulder of humans. However, an objection could argue that humans have not lost the sense of intellectual finitude, but rather often?are incapable?of doing anything about it. In a similar vein to Habermas, perhaps the underlying problem is not recognizing our limits, but rather finding a way out by taking an objective stance. Though we like to think we are masters of our environment, this is not always so. Through our scientific endeavours, we have become slaves to the institutions we built.

Consider the second industrial revolution. This was a time characterized by rapid industrialization and technological efficiencies. Changes happened so fast that people did not and could not know how to react. On the surface, we saw modernity beckoning at us, yet little did we suspect that the problems brewing under the surface would far exceed the perceived progress, in the scientific sense. It was not intellectual infinitude that inflicted our blindness, but rather the bubbling of problems that were initially invisible and undetectable. For example, factories were emitting highly toxic chemicals like benzene, diesel exhaust, metals, and aerosols, many of which were invisible to the naked eye. It is difficult for humans to realize that when we ‘solve’ one problem, several new ones may emerge in its place. We applaud when a cure for a disease is found, as if the success is able to stand on its own. Any side effect or trade-offs that have been made are either invisible or drowned by the celebrations. We cheer without seeing the entire picture.?

A more modern example is the paradigm shift towards the age of artificial intelligence (AI). I use?paradigm shift intentionally because we are quite literally witnessing what is a radical change to the boundaries of human understanding. ChatGPT and other AI-based tools have changed the way we learn, synthesize information, and share knowledge. In fact, the optimist may argue that it inspires creativity more than ever before by cutting out much of the mundane tasks of searching the web for information and images, and instead, gives more freedom for the creator to create. It is akin to a secondary brain that filters and consolidates?information?so that the core brain can function at its peak. Yet, it would be naive to say that there are no risks.?

Given AI's expansive applications in virtually every field, the ethical, legal, and regulatory concerns are not only justified, but very real. What's most challenging is finding the balance between an approach that does not stifle innovation but also takes reasonable measures to protect humanity against itself. What I mean by this is, we are the creators of these technologies,?yet few people (...if any)?hold total understanding of?its inner mechanics. For most, it is a black box and for the experts, part of it is still a mystery. This is particularly true when the AI begins to self-improve and self-learn and the outcomes that it produces is much?messier and more difficult?to predict. One thing is certain: no one is insulated from its reach. Knowing this, creating and continuously nurturing a platform of shared dialogue (both at the micro- and macro-levels) would be a good starting point to establish a set of core values and ethical principles that guide the use of new technologies without prematurely stifling innovation and invention.

The age of science should not be examined without consideration to prejudice, tradition, and authority. In order to grapple with the concept of intellectual finitude, we need both theory and practice.?Aristotle’s metaphor of the archer offers a vivid analogy: to be a good archer, one needs both theoretical and practical knowledge; the dual capacity of having a clear view of the target and knowing how to handle the arrow and bow. Similarly, a lawyer must not only know the rules of law, but more critically, be able to interpret and apply the law in light of the specific case. Intellectual finitude is not the iceberg that sank the Titanic but rather the overbearing belief that no obstacle could inflict its demise. Humans are prone to hubris not because they are incapable?of being emancipated from the condition but because they choose to wear blinkers.

"To be a good archer, one needs both theoretical and practical knowledge; the dual capacity of having a clear view of the target and knowing how to handle the arrow and bow." —Aristotle

In the age of science, there is a misalignment between theory and practice. Our desire to know is so overbearing that we begin to lose the art of handling the arrow and bow, and consequently surrender an actuation of life (Gadamer, 1981). Humans can speak the language of?science, but can?science really speak a language in the proper sense? In the book?Reason in the Age of Science, Gadamer courageously exposes the danger we face when treading in the shark infested waters we call science. Although the sharks are metaphorical, the threat arising from hubris is no figure of speech. In this essay, I offered an in-depth discussion of Gadamer’s concept of intellectual finitude and considered two consequences that may arise in the age of science. First, our sense of self-aggrandisement leads to a paralysis in our ability to think and form judgments. This is revealed through our escalation of dependence on the ‘expert’ and the manipulation of public opinion. The second consequence manifests in the way we act. In the age of science, we often find ourselves standing on the shoulder of a giant looking down at the seemingly beautiful society we have created, without giving second thought what we are standing on. Science is irresponsible in the sense that it is not disposed to answer to anybody, and as a result, we find ourselves adapting without even questioning why.?

There is no truth that is frozen in time. Nor is there anything to thaw us from the beautiful illusions we encased ourselves in. The demythologization of science begins with deep introspection and a renewed sense of who we are.

Reference

Gadamer, H. (1981).?Reason in the age of science?(F. G. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.?

Acknowledgements

Dr. Paul Fairfield of Queen's University, for the knowledge that he imparted on his students. Many of the ideas explored above are the learnings from my time studying Continental Philosophy under Professor Fairfield.