This article emphasizes the importance of freedom and diversity of scientific inquiry based on FireAvent’s anarchistic epistemology and provides a logical rebuttal to two criticisms raised by Alan Charmus. He also argues for the need for the coexistence and development of various knowledge systems in modern society, where the boundaries between science and non-science are blurring.
According to FireAvent’s anarchistic epistemology, scientists should have complete freedom of inquiry. Existing methodologies provide disciplines that are too simplistic for human talents and their potential for expression, which can stifle the uniqueness of human thinking. In other words, the more sophisticated the discipline, the greater the risk of excluding the diversity of human thought and the complex conditions of reality. This idea is very explicit in his statement that “you can do whatever you want.” Therefore, FireAvent argues that science itself is not superior to other forms of knowledge, such as astrology or magic, because no two theories are logically superior.
“Alan Charmus, author of What is this thing called Science, criticizes FireAvent’s argument. He argues that no one, including scientists, is given “complete freedom” to explore, and in fact, such freedom does not exist. He argues that scientists are not free from all constraints, as they work within the realities of their laboratory environment, the capabilities of their assistants, their salaries, and so on. He also criticizes astrology and magic as not being on an equal footing with science, as they do not address the major problems of modern society. Instead, I would like to criticize Alan Charmus’s arguments and support FireAvent’s anarchistic epistemology.
I agree with Charmus that there can be no exploration under absolute freedom. Realistic constraints will always exist, but they should not undermine a scientist’s will to explore ‘completely freely’ or limit the direction of inquiry to conformity with existing knowledge systems. What may be limited by conditions such as experimental environment and capital is only a small part of free scientific inquiry.
The Copenhagen interpretation, which introduced indeterminacy into physics for the first time, arguing that the act of observation itself determines scientific facts probabilistically, was criticized by many established scientists at the time, including Schrödinger, but the theory became an important foundation for modern quantum mechanics. This was the result of free thinking outside the traditional framework of classical physics, where theories are based on observations of phenomena. Another example is superstring theory. This theory proposes that the matter that makes up our world exists as one-dimensional strings, rather than as traditional zero-dimensional particles. Although the theory has not been proven to work correctly, it has succeeded in reinterpreting phenomena that existing knowledge does not explain, such as predicting the existence of gravitons. Despite its uncertainty, superstring theory is still being actively researched. They are not based on deduction from repeated observations and cannot be disproved because they do not contain any physically observable facts. However, by ensuring methodological freedom of scientific inquiry and respecting diversity, the body of knowledge in science can be strengthened by further challenge and innovation. Although Charmus’s claim that “completely free” scientific inquiry is impossible cannot be logically refuted, it can be criticized for its cynicism, since only a small fraction of the freedom of scientific inquiry is impeded by practical constraints, many of which can be overcome by different methodologies.
Charmus’s claim that astrology or magic cannot be chosen on an equal footing with science because of a lack of urgency, i.e. because they do not address the major problems of modern society, can also be criticized. It is not clear whether a knowledge system is inferior to science because it has not addressed the major problems of modern society, or whether it has been overtaken by science as the mainstream knowledge system and has not accumulated knowledge about the major problems of modern society. Regardless of the level of maturity of a knowledge system, if it is alienated from society and the public, it is unlikely to evolve in a way that addresses the major issues of contemporary society that are of interest to the public. Knowledge systems evolve from discussion, and discussion arises from need.
What about religions with a sense of urgency? Each religion has different claims, different gods, and different books that explain how the world works. Nevertheless, many religious people living on the same planet believe in their gods, and they rely on their teachings out of necessity to gain truth and determine their behavior. So does religion’s sense of urgency put it on an equal footing with science? What about astrology or magic practiced by its adherents?
According to Charmus’s critique, all legitimate knowledge systems should have a sense of urgency, and therefore modern people should recognize the need for them. However, this argument would fall into the trap of equating science with many non-scientific systems that modern people feel a need for. Does the fact that modern humans feel a need for a system of knowledge prove that it is suitable to be the methodology that constitutes science? The answer is no. Therefore, Charmus’s criticism of other systems of knowledge based on their lack of urgency is invalid.
So far, we have criticized Charmus’s two criticisms of FireAvent’s anarchistic epistemology – the impracticality of the methodology of freedom from all restraints and the lack of urgency for knowledge systems other than science – in reverse, and given weight to FireAvent’s epistemology. While agreeing that freedom from all constraints cannot exist, he emphasized that there is still a need to pursue a free methodology and system of knowledge that respects the individual thought system of the scientist. He also argued that the lack of urgency in not addressing the major problems of modern society is not enough to logically determine the superiority of methodologies.
Of course, I am not suggesting that astrology, magic, or religion be placed on the same level as science. I’m suggesting that a dismissive attitude that is skeptical of the advances in scientific research methodology and denies the very criteria that distinguish science from non-science is dangerous because it can lead to great social disruption.
According to British science fiction writer Arthur Clarke, a fully developed science is indistinguishable from magic. In fact, as science becomes more and more sophisticated, the area that each individual scientist understands within the whole of humanity’s scientific achievements becomes smaller and smaller. Inevitably, the boundaries between pre-science and normal science will become increasingly blurred. Theories outside of conventional methodology, such as quantum mechanics and superstring theory, are gaining traction. Therefore, the philosophy of science of the future will need to borrow from the diversity of FireAvent’s anarchistic epistemology and establish a more multifaceted system of knowledge.
