1

This world is a "Black Box" in essence. If we want to know how it works, we will be lost. We can only find our way if we strive how to use the world to serve our purpose. The very same notion is true in Science and Technology.

I would like to know how philosophers would take this notion.

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Alina Popa's recent work talks about a "black hyperbox" -- it is only tangentially related but may be interesting/rewarding. Is there any chance you could share a little more about what you might have been reading that has made this an interesting or important concern for you? What hypotheses have you formed and what has your research uncovered so far? What specifically would you like someone here to briefly explain to you?
    – Joseph Weissman ♦
    Commented Jan 28, 2017 at 14:19
  • @JosephWeissman I am a free thinker and studies a lot about various belief systems and religions. My profession is mostly to do with technology though. Throughout, my life I have observed that "How" is not that important as "What". I also do have a tendency to get lost whenever I go into depth to explore intricate details and have felt at many occasions that it wasn't worth the time and effort. Now I like to know and would love to write a book on this notion of mine.
    – Maxood
    Commented Jan 29, 2017 at 5:39

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

This world is a "Black Box" in essence. If we want to know how it works, we will be lost. We can only find our way if we strive how to use the world to serve our purpose. The very same notion is true in Science and Technology.

The position you have described is usually called instrumentalism and it is wrong. To see the problem suppose you're trying to prepare a rocket to go into space. You see somebody cut open a chicken, scatter its entrails on the ground and look at them intently.

You go up to this person and ask what he is doing.

'I'm checking whether there is enough fuel in the rocket,' says he.

'Um, the fuel gauge is over there,' you say, pointing in the relevant direction.

The man looks at you witheringly. 'Oh, you poor fool,' he says. 'We can't know anything about how the world works, so how you can say that I can't know how much fuel is in the rocket by looking at these chicken entrails?'

'That's ridiculous,' you cry indignantly. 'The fuel gauge has a floater in the tank which is connected to a metal rod with a variable resistor attached whose resistance increases or decreases as the fuel level rises and falls as a result of the change in angle of the floater to the metal arm.'

'No, that won't do at all,' the man says. 'That's a statement about how part of the world works and it's impossible to discover anything about how the world works, so I'll stick to my chicken entrails.'

The moral of the tale is that any measurement or practical undertaking of any kind depends on knowing stuff about how the world works. Taken seriously, your position would lead to the destruction of all science and all human civilisation because it would eliminate the only means of discovering whether a measurement device works or not: thinking about the explanation of how it is supposed to work and whether it corresponds to reality.

See 'The fabric of reality' by David Deutsch, which discusses many variants of your position and refutes them.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .