PACIFIC WORLD - The Institute of Buddhist Studies

Tainer: Studying No Mind 63approach to naturalized explanations may be left intact, but we may thenhave to become more modest, revising our understanding of what sciencecan and can’t give us . . . or of what science itself is and isn’t, in a larger viewof things. Or we may come to understand “empirically compelling” in anew way, one that can cogently recognize additional (humane) facets ofour human nature and our direct experience. Or we may find a use for thelatter as essential but preliminary grist for a theoretic mill that producesnew theories, but of a fairly conservative type.There are many possibilities, and I think the task of cognitive scienceforces them upon our attention to an unprecedented degree. If the greatestdiscovery of science is science, what will science look like after it haswrestled with the problem of cognition? And might the “second greatest”accomplishment of science not be the discovery of ways of opening up thescientific view, so it may (theoretically or meta-theoretically) include someof what was removed in the first great framing of science and nature?Now in stating this possibility, I don’t mean to suggest that forcognitive science we must reverse the trend of science’s many Copernicanrevolutions, and go back to some sort of hybrid comparable to that of TycoBrahe. Brahe retained the ancient “stationary, central Earth” picture,applying Copernicus’s heliocentrism only to the other planets, therebysplicing the Copernican theory with the old Ptolemaic system. Certainlythe reintroduction of anthropocentrism or folk psychological notions about“mind” aren’t wanted or needed for the study of cognition. But it is stillvery important to recognize more of what a human being is, including ourspiritual nature and ground. How might this happen?WHAT THE NEW NATURALIZATIONMAY NEED TO INCLUDESometimes naturalization in science is related to an ambitious visioncalled the Unity of Science program. This sees all branches of science asrelated, much like the branches of a tree, all connected to one fundamentalpicture or ontology—that of physics. The hope has been that eventuallythis connection will be explicitly stated in the branches’ theories of nature,or at least rendered “sayable” in principle.At present, such a project is only becoming realizable for chemistry, notyet for other physical sciences, much less for life sciences like biology. ButI want to draw the reader’s attention to the idea behind the Unity of Scienceprogram—it’s meant to stress that there are no special sciences. For if therewere a special (anomalous) science then this would suggest that there arephenomena in the universe that are unrelated to all other phenomena.Without continuity in nature, we would be left with an extremely disturbingdiscontinuity in explanation and understanding.