Washing powder or science.
Both are markets.
Because both work like markets.
In science, market interests get
more and more priority over knowledge interests.
Here is the latest example.
Brain research against free will.
Do you still remember the uniformalists?
Or the catastrophists?
No?
They were shot from the market by the Darwinists.
The pulverizing expression has been chosen on purpose.
Change of paradigm is war.
While positioning in times of peace is characterized by specialization within a commonly accepted mental concept, change of paradigm is not about the extension, but about the demolition of the old doctrine.
The official reason given for a change of paradigm is that the contradictions recognized in research over a span of time have become so grave that they can no longer be solved inside the limits of the old mental concepts.
A new paradigm must be found.
That is a reason for the followers of the old paradigm to go on the warpath. They fear for their reputation and therefore for their very existence. The followers of the new paradigm hope to gain exactly what the followers of the old paradigm stand to lose. Consequently, the unofficial truth is the economic argument – the market argument.
Currently, you can see the process well when looking at brain research. Using an attractive set of vocabulary and fascinating tools (all kinds of scanners), they gained the supremacy when it comes to describing the human thinking process and its limits.
The metaphor of the brain researchers is: humans are pre- determined bio-machines.
Proof: Brain scans.
The metaphor of the free will is: humans have God-like formative power.
Proof: Look inside yourself.
The first metaphor fully fits the current trend among natural scientists.
The second metaphor suddenly looks outdated.
Suddenly?
The concept of free will has been questioned directly after it had been introduced on the knowledge market. So the doubts and counter-arguments have been around for millennia. The atomic theory, too, was more than 2,300 years old before it was finally proved correct.
That is what I mean when I say “suddenly”. There is a wide-spread belief that experimental methods of brain research will bring the break-through – in this question of free will or not. Because the methods are totally new. People tend to particularly trust in their own thinking process after having come up with tools through said thinking process (with which I do not necessarily want to say that this is what underlies the success of the do-it-yourself movement and the resulting pat-yourself-on-the-shoulder places, the hardware stores).
It is the reason why both followers and enemies of the free will theory who initially belonged to the faculties of philosophy and psychology now flee from their ancestral, soft humanities concepts, turning instead towards the hard currency of natural sciences.
They want to be there when the next great event happens. They want to be where they believe future sinecures will be distributed.
But is the paradigm of brain research already quite as good as the theory of evolution?
Even well-known brain researchers like Singer find theory sadly missing.
Plenty of observations, plenty of data, little in the way of explanations.
It seems like it will take a little more time before the hard brain researchers will have succeeded in shooting the soft free will thinkers from the market. And it is doubtful if we will then know more, better or truer things about ourselves.
Every new paradigm promises the same.
But what is truth?
„Truth is a mobile army of metaphors” says Nietzsche.
SIX
(Translated by EG)
If you want a summary on the state of the discussion between defenders of the free will theory against their attackers in the field of brain research that does not require extra pains to understand, I recommend: “Kritik der mörderischen Vernunft – (Criticism of Deadly Reason)” by Jens Johler. It combines exciting thrill with brilliant summary.
Loading ...