Science And Buddhism

[Xangsamhua]

Matthieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan, The Quantum and the Lotus: A journey to the frontiers where Science and Buddhism meet, Three Rivers Press, 2001.

The book covers a dialogue between a monk (Ricard) and an astrophysicist (Trinh) on matters such as (1) the relationship between consciousness and the material universe and the essential interdependence between the two, (2) the possibility or impossibility of a "beginning" to the universe, (3) the rationale for an organizing "anthropic" principle and Buddhist rejection of such a principle, (4) free will and (absolute) determinism, (5) the similarities and differences between conventional science and contemplative science, and (6) the centrality and necessity of compassion to both conventional and contemplative science.

Much is happening in both Western Buddhism and the Tibetan/East Asian diaspora that is taking Buddhism forward both in its contemplative practices and its dialogue with the scientific and secular world. This dialogue is an example.

Ricard, himself a trained neurobiologist, defends the ancient Buddhist view with arguments from his background and currency in science together with supporting quotations from the many relevant works of the Buddhist sages over the centuries.

Trinh, the astrophysicist, while providing many interesting examples of what is happening and what has happened to advance scientific discovery, does not have a well-founded philosophy of being or purpose, though he subscribes to the ethical principles of Buddhism learnt from his family. He says he has learnt a lot from the dialogues, but is still attracted to a teleological view of how and why natural law is as it is, i.e. to make a universe for humanity to live in – the product of an "anthropic principle". He also sees a cyclical universe as the only one possible where there has been no beginning, but doesn't see a cyclic reversion (a "big crunch") happening because there isn't enough matter in the universe to effect a gravitational reverse. My question though is: Does a beginningless universe have to be cyclical?

[fabianfred]

Good question. It seems logical to me that it should be beginningless. The Buddha looked back through his many lives, many world systems, countless aeons or mahakappa, and stated that 'a starting point was not evident'.

The cycles of birth and destruction which begin and end each aeon could mean everything in the cosmos, or perhaps just a single galaxy.

A single galaxy could be what is referred to as the 'ten thousand world systems' in the scriptures.

[phetaroi]

Good question. It seems logical to me that it should be beginningless. The Buddha looked back through his many lives, many world systems, countless aeons or mahakappa, and stated that 'a starting point was not evident'.

The cycles of birth and destruction which begin and end each aeon could mean everything in the cosmos, or perhaps just a single galaxy.

A single galaxy could be what is referred to as the 'ten thousand world systems' in the scriptures.

Because something is not "evident", does not mean that it does not (or did not) exist.

[Xangsamhua]

Good question. It seems logical to me that it should be beginningless. The Buddha looked back through his many lives, many world systems, countless aeons or mahakappa, and stated that 'a starting point was not evident'.

The cycles of birth and destruction which begin and end each aeon could mean everything in the cosmos, or perhaps just a single galaxy.

A single galaxy could be what is referred to as the 'ten thousand world systems' in the scriptures.

Because something is not "evident", does not mean that it does not (or did not) exist.

Vince, I think the idea of a beginningless universe is a pretty core Buddhist belief, though I'm certainly open to correction.

Ricard argues strongly that the doctrines of impermanence and the essential interdependence of all phenomena, including consciousness, negate the possibility of an original singularity, either material or non-material.

Clearly Trinh does not accept this, though he acknowledges the logic. Trinh is worried about the infinite regress conundrum. If one is to say that all things must have a cause, linear or interdependent, but that causation must still adhere to the laws of nature, then one has to ask why and how the laws of nature came to be what they are. The hypothetical responses can go on forever.

One option is to opt out of the discussion, as the Buddha did in his responses to Malunkya in the Cula-Malunkya-Sutta, perhaps on the ground that the discussion is not meaningful (the theological non-cognitivist position) and that it does nothing for one's practice.

[phetaroi]

Vince, I think the idea of a beginningless universe is a pretty core Buddhist belief, though I'm certainly open to correction.

Ricard argues strongly that the doctrines of impermanence and the essential interdependence of all phenomena, including consciousness, negate the possibility of an original singularity, either material or non-material.

Clearly Trinh does not accept this, though he acknowledges the logic. Trinh is worried about the infinite regress conundrum. If one is to say that all things must have a cause, linear or interdependent, but that causation must still adhere to the laws of nature, then one has to ask why and how the laws of nature came to be what they are. The hypothetical responses can go on forever.

One option is to opt out of the discussion, as the Buddha did in his responses to Malunkya in the Cula-Malunkya-Sutta, perhaps on the ground that the discussion is not meaningful (the theological non-cognitivist position) and that it does nothing for one's practice.

Way back in 1987, when I first read a couple of books about Buddhism (and I have no idea now their titles or authors, although they were Thai books translated into English), those writings didn't get into whether or not there was "a God" or how the universe was created for the very reason you mention -- it is not something we can know...we can therefore opt out of the discussion, or we can ponder it, and I can buy into either approach.

My logic tells me that there is not one object in this world that did not have a beginning. That's the scientist in me...that really is my background.

[rockyysdt]

My logic tells me that there is not one object in this world that did not have a beginning. That's the scientist in me...that really is my background.

Hi Vince.

Do you mean that objects in their current form all had a beginning?

Perhaps the energy which form the sub atomic elements of such objects do not have a beginning.

For example energy may not be created nor destroyed but can be transformed into various forms including potential energy (Conservation of Energy principal).

Edited July 19, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

My logic tells me that there is not one object in this world that did not have a beginning. That's the scientist in me...that really is my background.

Hi Vince.

Do you mean that objects in their current form all had a beginning?

Perhaps the energy which form the sub atomic elements of such objects do not have a beginning.

For example energy may not be created nor destroyed but can be transformed into various forms including potential energy (Conservation of Energy principal).

I think you're hinting at the interesting debate about whether or not energy is matter. NASA agrees that conceptually you can convert energy into matter, but that it is not practical, at least in terms of what man generally considers matter to be.

And that's what I'm talking about...the things man generally considers to be "matter" -- the computer I'm typing on, Pikes Peak I can see from my townhouse, the drug store down the street, my watch, etc. They all had a beginning.

I'm not sure that debate is central to the issue at hand. As long as man has been around there has been a debate about how things got started, and we're not going to settle that debate in this forum.

A central issue I have stated a number of times with a number of issues related to Buddhism is the difference between faith and evidence. As I have stated, there is nothing wrong with believing in something based on faith, providing one recognizes it as faith, rather than fact. I think we like to pretend that Buddhism is based more on observable fact, and yet there is so much in it that is based on faith with little or no evidence. For example, there have been...what...29 Buddhas according to Theravadan Buddhist scriptures? We have literal evidence for Gautama (although apparently much of his early history is cloudy). Can you show me some evidence...other than words...of the existence of Taṇhaṅkara? Or Dipankara?

Perhaps Tanhankara and Dipankara actually existed. But I see no evidence of such. But rather than say they did not exist, because perhaps they did, I will simply say I'm not going to worry about it because their existence does not affect whether the principles of Buddhism as stated by Gautama (AND OTHER INTERPRETERS SINCE) are valid or not.

How was the earth and man created? Is there a God? Same thing. Knowing that does not affect the basic principles of Buddhism. Whether or not God exists, does not have an effect on the wisdom of "right speech" or "right action", etc. So while I have my own opinions, and while I can certainly debate the issues related to that (although I'm not going to), whether I am wrong or right does not affect my belief in the basic principles of "the Buddhism of daily life".

[rockyysdt]

A central issue I have stated a number of times with a number of issues related to Buddhism is the difference between faith and evidence. As I have stated, there is nothing wrong with believing in something based on faith, providing one recognizes it as faith, rather than fact. I think we like to pretend that Buddhism is based more on observable fact, and yet there is so much in it that is based on faith with little or no evidence. For example, there have been...what...29 Buddhas according to Theravadan Buddhist scriptures? We have literal evidence for Gautama (although apparently much of his early history is cloudy). Can you show me some evidence...other than words...of the existence of Taṇhaṅkara? Or Dipankara?

How was the earth and man created? Is there a God? Same thing. Knowing that does not affect the basic principles of Buddhism. Whether or not God exists, does not have an effect on the wisdom of "right speech" or "right action", etc. So while I have my own opinions, and while I can certainly debate the issues related to that (although I'm not going to), whether I am wrong or right does not affect my belief in the basic principles of "the Buddhism of daily life".

No one can show proof as the answers can only be discovered through personal experience.

Another ones personal experience cannot be experienced by us.

The Buddha taught the way towards gaining personal experience.

The answers are there (or not) but effort is required.

[rockyysdt]

A central issue I have stated a number of times with a number of issues related to Buddhism is the difference between faith and evidence. As I have stated, there is nothing wrong with believing in something based on faith, providing one recognizes it as faith, rather than fact. I think we like to pretend that Buddhism is based more on observable fact, and yet there is so much in it that is based on faith with little or no evidence. For example, there have been...what...29 Buddhas according to Theravadan Buddhist scriptures? We have literal evidence for Gautama (although apparently much of his early history is cloudy). Can you show me some evidence...other than words...of the existence of Taṇhaṅkara? Or Dipankara?

How was the earth and man created? Is there a God? Same thing. Knowing that does not affect the basic principles of Buddhism. Whether or not God exists, does not have an effect on the wisdom of "right speech" or "right action", etc. So while I have my own opinions, and while I can certainly debate the issues related to that (although I'm not going to), whether I am wrong or right does not affect my belief in the basic principles of "the Buddhism of daily life".

We all have grown with beliefs & opinions.

I'm very mindful that my beliefs & opinions reflect my past environment and lifes influences.

Had I been raised by different parents on another continent my beliefs & opinions would vastly differ from what they are today.

During periods of clarity & awareness I'm learning to recognize their real roots & observe them without attachment.

The practice of Mindfulness & Self Awareness is the key.

Edited July 20, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

No one can show proof as the answers can only be discovered through personal experience.

Another ones personal experience cannot be experienced by us.

The Buddha taught the way towards gaining personal experience.

The answers are there (or not) but effort is required.

Hence, the distinct difference between a religion and science.

BTW, Buddha taught "a" way, not "the" way. Saying "the" implies there is no other way toward gaining personal experience.

[phetaroi]

We all have grown with beliefs & opinions.

I'm very mindful that my beliefs & opinions reflect my past environment and lifes influences.

Had I been raised by different parents on another continent my beliefs & opinions would vastly differ from what they are today.

During periods of clarity & awareness I'm learning to recognize their real roots & observe them without attachment.

The practice of Mindfulness & Self Awareness is the key.

Yes, we all have grown up with beliefs and opinions. And as a wise man realizes, growing up with a set of beliefs and opinions does not make them "correct". As a westerner I have grown up with certain beliefs and opinions that tend to reflect a Christian environment. Just as the Thais have grown up with a set of beliefs and opinions that tend to reflect a Buddhist environment.

When you say, "During periods of clarity & awareness I'm learning to recognize their real roots & observe them without attachment. The practice of Mindfulness & Self Awareness is the key," that is not too much different than what I have heard born again Christians say.

The following is NOT about you, but it is interesting to me to see the ego that is attached by many of the posters in this forum. And just for the record, I have ego of my own, and realize it. But among a number of posters in this forum I see the attitudes that include: "I am a Buddhist, therefore I am on the right path that is superior to all non-Buddhist paths", "I am a well-educated westerner who reads many more books and uses the internet more intensely to take a more intellectual path toward Buddhism than the average Thai person, and as a result I am a better and more knowledgeable Buddhist than the average Thai Buddhist", and "I am Theravada Buddhist, and therefore I am on the right path, as opposed to the Mahayana Buddhist, who are on the wrong path". Of course, I am not being subtle, as some of the posters here...I am being blunt...but those sentiments are not uncommon in this forum. And that is an interesting inverse to your pointing out that we all have grown up with beliefs and opinions...it is actually the same set of attitudes that are common to people who convert to almost any religion.

[rockyysdt]

Yes, we all have grown up with beliefs and opinions. And as a wise man realizes, growing up with a set of beliefs and opinions does not make them "correct". As a westerner I have grown up with certain beliefs and opinions that tend to reflect a Christian environment. Just as the Thais have grown up with a set of beliefs and opinions that tend to reflect a Buddhist environment.

Unfortunately many Thais have grown up with belief in Anamism, Lucky Charms, & superstition in the guise of Buddhism.

These things are easy to adopt as they don't require effort.

When you say, "During periods of clarity & awareness I'm learning to recognize their real roots & observe them without attachment. The practice of Mindfulness & Self Awareness is the key," that is not too much different than what I have heard born again Christians say.

The key difference here is that progressive mindfulness in the present moment allows us to govern the six senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind) & cause suffering to cease.

A practice which will yield personal experience.

With Christianity there is no personal experience. We are offered benefits such as eternal life to soothe the ego & we must die to learn whether our belief was correct or not.

There is no effort on our part other than to open our heart & believe.

The following is NOT about you, but it is interesting to me to see the ego that is attached by many of the posters in this forum. And just for the record, I have ego of my own, and realize it. But among a number of posters in this forum I see the attitudes that include: "I am a Buddhist, therefore I am on the right path that is superior to all non-Buddhist paths", "I am a well-educated westerner who reads many more books and uses the internet more intensely to take a more intellectual path toward Buddhism than the average Thai person, and as a result I am a better and more knowledgeable Buddhist than the average Thai Buddhist", and "I am Theravada Buddhist, and therefore I am on the right path, as opposed to the Mahayana Buddhist, who are on the wrong path". Of course, I am not being subtle, as some of the posters here...I am being blunt...but those sentiments are not uncommon in this forum. And that is an interesting inverse to your pointing out that we all have grown up with beliefs and opinions...it is actually the same set of attitudes that are common to people who convert to almost any religion.

Despite conflict of belief & egocentricity displayed by colleagues I view all with a duality.

One part of us is heavily attached to ego, whilst another neutral part attempts to guide us with Dhamma.

All travelers have such a duality.

Until our self experience allows us to grow, our lack of awareness allows our egos to flourish & dominate.

I hope others have such an understanding for me during times when my coloration is exposed.

Despite apparent fixed views & ego, our Sangha allows us to support each other & inspire practice of Mindfulness as the Buddha taught.

A practice which at the very least will yield our selfless nature.

Edited July 20, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

With Christianity there is no personal experience. We are offered benefits such as eternal life to soothe the ego & we must die to learn whether our belief was correct or not. There is no effort on our part other than to open our heart & believe.

I don't agree with that at all. The active Christians I know work very hard at their religion and their beliefs and put their words into practice...long before death.

[Xangsamhua]

With Christianity there is no personal experience. We are offered benefits such as eternal life to soothe the ego & we must die to learn whether our belief was correct or not. There is no effort on our part other than to open our heart & believe.

I don't agree with that at all. The active Christians I know work very hard at their religion and their beliefs and put their words into practice...long before death.

I understood Rocky to be saying that Buddhism differs from Christianity in that the latter encourages people to offload their burdens on to Christ, to look to God for guidance and support, especially through prayer and, in some cases, sacramental action and/or social action (acts of effective compassion and liberation). Buddhism, on the other hand, refers the person entirely back to his or her own mental or physical actions as the means to happiness (via cessation of suffering), though, as Rocky pointed out, the Sangha can be a great help, and access to the Dhamma and the Buddha's example is assumed .

I think that Christianity, however, in its more insightful forms, has the idea of "heaven", in terms of "living in God's presence" as something attainable during one's life - not just as a blissful state to be gained after death - and refers to the many holy men and women throughout history who seem to have attained this in their lives. However, although a Christian mystic, missionary, ascetic or social worker may have a sense of being possessed by the divine and being divinized thereby, God is nevertheless "other", no matter how close God may seem to be. In Buddhism there is no transcendent God in this sense (though there may be wonder-working deities with whom some enlightened beings interact).

Incidentally, Rocky's view of Christianity sounds like a Protestant one to me. Faith alone is not sufficient in Catholic, Uniate, Orthodox or Coptic Christianity. To be fair, however, Protestant teaching assumes that faith will lead to effective acts of charity, personal and social development, right thinking, speech, actions, and so on.

[christiaan]

Christianity is more as the Christian religious institutions we can find in the world. I am spiritual and in my spirituality I am atmost Christian but in my spirituality I also am a Budhist in my way. But I do not see Budhisme and Christianity as stones of some building but as spiritualy evolving moving realities.

The origin of the world is absolute awareness.

Awareness is an 'activity' that is aware of its own 'activity'.

There is no other activity (in the world) that can, in its own characteristics, re-act on it self.

Awareness can.

Awareness has no beginning, awareness has no end, it is

The world of matter is compacted awareness.

In compaction of awareness the world of matter was created.

We can never be aware of this with a 'material' mind, with a material way of thinking.

By developping the personal spiritual self, developing our spiritual senses we can -sometimes- 'experience' the world of absolute awareness,

We live in a time were it is almost desperately asked from humanity to work to spiritual science.

The world we live in asks this, and we can see this by the developing of material science.

We live in a time/world of material science as never before, and at the same time we live in a world with individual hunger for spirituality as never before.

The world of matter draws the Self out of the individual in a time we have to become aware we should travel to our inside, our core essence, inner awareness.

And it is only in inner awareness we can become aware of the origin of the world, the essence of spiritual reality, the essence of what we call ' God'.

The world of matter was created by the word (the first compaction of awareness) and we as humans speak out this world out of our growing awareness in words again.

This is the time we have to develop in awareness spiritual science by developping in awareness our spiritual sences to become aware spirits living in a human body.

This is daily life, no rituals are needed, no requirements, just awareness.

(excuse me for my english, I am not an english native speaker or writer)

[christiaan]

The origin of the world is not beginningless when we realise the beginning is awareness.

In partial compaction of awareness, awareness does not disappear but transforms.

The creation of this world of matter, the world of matter we call 'Our World' is to imagine as the expiration of the world of awareness, and by this a compacting spiritual activity creating matter in time. (Time only exist in relation to matter)

Our world, at some point, will be inhalated - after being disolved by heat - and return to absolute complete awareness again.

The birth, existence and death of our world - of matter - is part of a cycli, a spiritual living, evolving proces of absolute awareness.

[Xangsamhua]

The origin of the world is absolute awareness.

The world of matter is compacted awareness.

The world of matter was created by the word (the first compaction of awareness) and we as humans speak out this world out of our growing awareness in words again.

Christiaan, are you suggesting

(i) that awareness is essential and irreducible?

(ii) that compaction of awareness is like the coeval and interdependent existence of conscious and unconscious aggregates, but in a new and reduced form?

(iii) that the "word" (the first compaction of awareness) has evolved or perhaps emanated from absolute awareness in such a way that absolute awareness remains absolute?

Is this like the gnostic view in which the Absolute, the "Ground of Being", the "Pleroma", is the source from which all being emanates in some way, but which assumes the reality of matter independently of mind or spirit, though the latter is superior (closer to the Pleroma) to the former?

I'm not sure how awareness is "compacted". This suggests a cohesive force external to awareness that brings aggregates of awareness together. I can understand a dynamic and interdependent relationship of conscious and unconscious aggregates, but not as a duality. But something acting on awareness to make it a "compaction" - a combination of things that reduces them to something more compact - what is it? I can't fit it into a Buddhist framework at all.

[christiaan]

Xangsamhua, yes I am suggesting awareness is the essence andirreducible.

Yes, this is like the Gnostic view, but the world of matteris not independent of the spirit.

Absolute awareness remains absolute.

I prefer not toaproach this from a more theoretical perspective. I suggest we should aproachthis from living reality.

In daytime, the human is separated from absolute awarenessand enclosed in material awareness. Material awareness, enclosed in the mind,is limited to the material world and it is built upon the activity of the physicalsences, the material sences.

In night time, when we ‘sleep’, our material awarenes is ‘turned of’ and weenter the world of absolute awareness again. In night time our physical awareness is asleep. In the morningwhen we wake up again, the absolute world, the spititual world, closes becos the material world is ‘gettingawake again’. As humans we are separated from the absolute awareness at daytime.We can not handle the world of absolute awareness with a physical mind. Indaytime our spiritual awareness is asleep.

These two worlds are separated in a human. Since humans livein two worlds.

We live in the world of daytime and in the world ofnighttime. We live in the material world and after dead (of material existence) we livein the spiritual world.

As humans we should start to wake up in spiritual awarenessat daytime. We can do this by developing our spiritual senses out of our free will..

We should ‘develop spiritual science’ and come to growing spiritualawareness.

The material science is the science we most of the time talkabout when we are talking about science.

We limit our selfs in this way.

Science is not exclusively part of the material world.

To think so means we are thinking material.

Science is not connected to any specific world but connectedto living questions and living questions are not limited in any way.

The beginning of science is the question and not somematerial object or phenomenon.

The question is part of the spiritual and the material world.

The outcome of material science (awareness) could be that we can compute how many elephantscould live on earth when we would take care all the conditions by wichelephants can live and reproduce. That is theory.

The outcome of spiritual science (awareness) could be that werealise there never can be more as a certain quantity of elephants since thespiritual essence of the elephant is limited in its physical manifestation. Thatis living reality.

Many religions in the world have become musea of principles.

Some religions or sub religions are excellent in conservationand preservation of old principles.

They think when they guide millions of people through their ‘religious museum’ and explain them all their – often cultural – conserved specialities, they are, that is, reality.

But that is not living reality.

Religion in its essence is the connection of humans with theliving spiritual world, so the connection itself should be full of life and nodead historical collection of artifacts.

I suggest compaction is an activity of awareness it self andit is not to understand with the material mind.

One maybe can come close to have some imagination of it whenwe imagine our stomach contracts out of fear.

Fear is a spiritual activity on a lower level and it workson our stomach. Our stomach itself is the physical manifestation of spiritualreality.

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you Christiaan.

Just a couple of questions:

1. When we sleep "we enter the world of absolute awareness again". How do dreams relate to this world?

2. "Some religions or sub religions are excellent in conservationand preservation of old principles. They think when they guide millions of people through their 'religious museum' and explain them all their – often cultural – conserved specialities, they are, that is, reality. But that is not living reality. Religion in its essence is the connection of humans with theliving spiritual world, so the connection itself should be full of life and nodead historical collection of artifacts."

I think I detect perennial philosophy here, as for example Frithjof Schuon's The Transcendent Unity of Religions, in which he contrasts exoteric (public teaching) with esoteric (restricted) religious teaching and argues with examples for the unity of the latter across religions. Is perennial philosophy a source for your ideas? I would be interested to know who or what has helped you in reaching your philosophy.

[christiaan]

Thank you Xangsamhua

Our dreams are most of the time the views we have with our material mind when we look over the treshold entering the spiritual world in the evening or leaving it in the morning. Since we cannot handle the straight confrontation with this world with a material mind this experience of what we later call a dream is deformed, translated.

Since all religions are from the same source but now separated and therefore fragmentation, they are a unity.

I think it could be very interesting for you to read some publications from Georg Kuhlewind.

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you Xangsamhua

Our dreams are most of the time the views we have with our material mind when we look over the treshold entering the spiritual world in the evening or leaving it in the morning. Since we cannot handle the straight confrontation with this world with a material mind this experience of what we later call a dream is deformed, translated.

Since all religions are from the same source but now separated and therefore fragmentation, they are a unity.

I think it could be very interesting for you to read some publications from Georg Kuhlewind.

I've added "From Normal to Healthy" to my Amazon cart.

[christiaan]

Xangsamhua

It would be interesting to know about your thoughts after reading this book, in relation to Thai Budhisme and Thai spirituality.

I am quite impressed by the book "Doing The Truth" , (Georg Kuhlewind) in German language, as far as I know not translated in English.

The sub-title of this book is: Experiences and consequences of intuitive thinking.

Another to me impressive book is "Truth and Knowledge" from Rudolf Steiner.

When interested , this book can be read on the internet.

Thinking and talking about science, I think, out of the arguments, it is important to read what is written in the preliminary remarks.

Truth and Knowledge

i

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

EPISTEMOLOGY is the scientific study of what all other sciences presuppose without examining it: cognition itself. It is thus a philosophical science, fundamental to all other sciences. Only through epistemology can we learn the value and significance of all insight gained through the other sciences. Thus it provides the foundation for all scientific effort. It is obvious that it can fulfill its proper function only by making no presuppositions itself, as far as this is possible, about man's faculty of knowledge. This is generally accepted. Nevertheless, when the better-known systems of epistemology are more closely examined it becomes apparent that a whole series of presuppositions are made at the beginning, which cast doubt on the rest of the argument. It is striking that such hidden assumptions are usually made at the outset, when the fundamental problems of epistemology are formulated. But if the essential problems of a science are misstated, the right solution is unlikely to be forthcoming. The history of science shows that whole epochs have suffered from innumerable mistakes which can be traced to the simple fact that certain problems were wrongly formulated. To illustrate this, we need not go back as far as Aristotle's physics [ 73 ] or Raymond Lull's Ars Magna; [ 74 ] there are plenty of more recent examples. For instance, innumerable problems concerning the purpose of rudimentary organs of certain organisms could only be rightly formulated when the condition for doing so had first been created through the discovery of the fundamental law of biogenesis. [ 75 ] While biology was influenced by teleological views, the relevant problems could not be formulated in a way which could lead to a satisfactory answer. For example, what fantastic ideas were entertained concerning the function of the pineal gland in the human brain, as long as the emphasis was on its purpose! Then comparative anatomy threw some light on the matter by asking a different question; instead of asking what the organ was “for,” inquiry began as to whether, in man, it might be merely a remnant from a lower level of evolution. Another example: how many physical questions had to be modified after the discovery of the laws of the mechanical equivalent of heat and of conservation of energy! [ 76 ] In short, success in scientific research depends essentially on whether the problems can be formulated rightly. Even though epistemology occupies a very special place as the basis presupposed by the other sciences, nevertheless, successful progress can only be expected when its fundamental problems are correctly formulated.

The discussion which follows aims so to formulate the problem of cognition that in this very formulation it will do full justice to the essential feature of epistemology, namely, the fact that it is a science which must contain no presuppositions. A further aim is to use this philosophical basis for science to throw light on Johann Gottlieb Fichte's philosophy of science. [ 77 ] Why Fichte's attempt in particular to provide an absolutely certain basis for the sciences is linked to the aims of this essay, will become clear in due course.

One can find this book at :

http://wn.rsarchive.org/GA/GA0003/English/GC1981/GA003_c01.html