To See More Clearly and Broadly: Science and the Postmodern Sentiment

"The end of man is to know."
Robert Penn Warren, All the King's Men

<1> What we call "postmodernism," whether we refer to the sciences or the humanities, is a certain preoccupation with the role of the human observer in the composition and perception -- perhaps even construction -- of reality. The postmodern condition, so to speak, is the moment in history when the "hard" sciences and the sciences of man seem to be suffering from the same anxieties about the relevance of the self-reflexive interaction between the observer and the subject to the fabric of existence and the web of knowledge. In simplest terms, we would define the postmodern question as this: "How much do I affect that which I observe?" More broadly the question becomes "What role, if any, does observation itself play in the universe?"

<2> As one of us suggested in Reconstruction 2.1 "The path of observation is the most fundamental and accessible route in the project of a mutually supporting theory between the disciplines. Primary to the goal of observation is the exploration of borders, boundaries and so-called 'givens,' and most importantly, anything constructed as 'natural'" [1]. This is that "rare and narrow passage" discussed by Michel Serres between the sciences and humanities [2].

<3> Much of the science discussed here, and indeed much of the science we might (correctly or incorrectly) label "postmodern" may be described as the sciences of Alpha and Omega, or beginnings and ends. Thus we can see the three functions of science in its historical, descriptive and predictive roles: how things began, how they are, and how they will be.The Alpha theories of the Big Bang, for instance are necessarily tied to the Omega theories of the last days of the Universe, for in the beginning the end is written. No wonder philosophers and theologians have taken an increasing, and often unwelcome, interest in the sciences over the last century; science seems to be rapidly closing in on the traditional territory of both philosophy and theology waving high the banners of GUT [3]and TOE [4] with rallying cries of "chaos," "omega point," "the birth of a star," and "seeing the face of God."

<4> Many scientists who now cringe at the very mention of the phrase "Chaos Theory" just as Erwin Schr��dinger implied that he seriously regretted ever coming up with the now infamous cat in a box[5]. It is now more proper to use the more genteel term "complex dynamics" in mixed company. Nonetheless, popular science is just that: the science of the populace, the science the common layperson understands, the science they are interested in, the science that they support at the voting booth, at the box office, on television, and at the news stand. Here are the titles that grab our attention: Jurassic Park, Contact, The Elegant Universe, Chaos, A Brief History of Time, Schr��dinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality, AI, The Golem, The End of Science, The Matrix, The Anthropic Cosmological Principles, The Physics of Immortality, The Number of the Beast, Me++, etc. Our subjects are cloning, complex dynamics, multiple universes, time travel, the big bang, the end of the universe, artificial intelligence, string theory, cyberspace, spooky action, and in some cases nothing less than eternal life and the resurrection of the dead through the wonders of technology and computing. Some scientists might prefer a little less attention, a bit more sober discussion of theory and less of the highly paid, high glitz television sponsored popularizes and yet the money keeps rolling in for those popular fields at the same time that it dries up for unpopular ones. Many of us remember Stephen Hawking playing cards with Worf and Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation. In the long run, science has not suffered from its popularity.