C.Manikandan, B.Tech(Biotechnology), MA Philosophy, India
I like to begin the essay with a verse of Thirukkural couplet(as its my native language) written by Thiruvalluvar around 300 BCE to 5th century BCE.
எப்பொருள் யார்யார்வாய்க் கேட்பினும் அப்பொருள்
மெய்ப்பொருள் காண்ப தறிவு. (423)
which translates to, “to discern the truth in everything, by whomsoever spoken, is wisdom”. Why I begin with this because, it is taught in my school along with plenty of other aphorisms and sayings, for my well being in life. The word every is highlighted because, it highlights a problem with lofty ideals and the importance of learning syllogisms and practical difficulties when such things are learnt.
As per the classic rules of syllogism, for example,
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Similarly,
To discern the truth in every thing, by whomsoever spoken is wisdom. Wisdom is a virtue for a human to have.
Therefore, human will discern truth in every thing.
If a society is made up of homogenous Socrates, then there might be no issue. Globalisation has brought different Socrates from different countries. And also those Socrates are rare. Not everyone has the patience to be stopped and questioned or have a discussion with a philosopher. So the few Socrates, become odd ones in the society with the same old problem of Socratic paradoxes, like ‘I know nothing’, ‘No one does wrong willingly’. etc.
Truth is an often debated and discussed topic in philosophy. In modern day, for instance if wikipedia is taken as an example, it comes with citations. Can a person verify the citations or even further can one rely on the citations? I have cited Wikipedia as a reference for the dating of Thirukkural, which was cited earlier, not any other website. How many have the patience to verify the citation or even further the original manuscript? This essay will point about theories of truth and try to analyse how much truth can be validated in modern times by a Socrates with regard to biotechnology.
There are various theories of truth. Three famous theories are correspondence theory, coherence theory and pragmatic theory. Correspondence theory of truth states that a statement is true if it accurately reflects or corresponds to a fact in the real world, like Sky is blue. If someone says the sky is pink and the medium is taken as a reliable source(source of knowledge-testimony/sabda), then there is a possibility of the person doubting his senses. Next, comes coherence theory of truth, which posits that a theory is true if and only if it posits with other propositions of truth, if it fits logically and consistently with larger framework of beliefs. Pragmatic theory of truth posits that the truth of an idea is based on its practical consequences and its ability to be verified through experience. Essentially truth is based on its ability to work in the real world and guide effective action.
In Socratic dialogues, Socrates uses interrogation as a means to arrive at truth. Examples include Plato’s dialogues, like Meno, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, which explore concepts like virtue, piety, justice, and the soul. It is an unsaid truism that every man is a philosopher either through theory or practice of some beliefs. But is everyone a Socrates? Here Socrates is mainly used with regard to asking questions and finding answers through Socratic dialogues. The answer to the question might be no. No one has the patience to ask questions and search for answers. Most work on the principle of ‘Credo ut intellegum’ (I believe in order to understand). For example, if someone wants to understand how molecular biology and systems biology works in the human body as a whole or how aura impacts the genes or how different archetypes/consciousness etc. impact human genes while studying undergraduate, is like Socrates questioning everything, with limited resources and time at disposal. Integrating the concept of soul(ātman/psyche) with something genetic for a holistic treatment of diseases and understanding them from a scientific viewpoint is something that few would dare. There was phenomenology, which was studied at some point of time in the 20th century and there are alternate medicine fields like homeopathy, which was studied in the 19th century, and which relies on the body to heal itself. But how does it work? Homeopathy is not scientifically proven like allopathy, but still has followers and believers. Does God actively take part in earthly affairs by helping in times of distress? If so, why need medicine? Wouldn’t he take care of his believers? Such questions have less answers.
In order to illustrate allopathy, the field of medicine could be taken, where there is protein biology and structural bioinformatics. In order to find efficacy of a drug molecule, a small chemical molecule(which is potentially a drug) is docked with a macromolecule protein computationally, which generates a binding energy which is computationally derived based on binding energy formula. Does it act on only single protein, or does it act on many proteins? Screening of molecules is exhaustive. A chemical molecule might get screened computationally but it will not pass onto next phases of drug screenings and clinical trials. As computationally, through exhaustive search most of the small molecules may bind with plenty of different proteins(there are >30000 proteins) with different binding energies. In laboratory(in vivo), when the experiments are carried out, the results may vary. Logical empiricism/positivism based on which science is present says it could competitively inhibit the binding of plenty of different proteins, but how does one affect the other? Since science cannot present an answer for the moment, it could be argued there is something beyond the grasp of man, who is engrossed in day to day affairs such as God or divine energy or ātman/psyche or perhaps other fields such as phenomenology, holistic medicine such as homeopathy could perhaps provide answers. But can he comprehend all this and write when he studies? A person engrossed in research might be focussed and will be skilled but one who is distracted by all these questions could be called a philosopher like Socrates in the field of biotechnology with no thorough answers, as it could be taken with the analogy of philosophy, looking for a black cat in a dark room. Also such noble intentions or ideals has to be meet with proper actions and lifestyle. Is it feasible? These studies take millions of rupees. Meanwhile, the person might not be able to find a way to live in the world. He could become a mystic, inspired by holistic medicine or become a materialist desiring material wealth, hedonist influenced sensualism or other truths and trends. And where does the pragmatic theory of truth, correspondence theory of truth or coherence theory of truth fit in? Empiricism and bits of information here and there will not fit in for a complete theory of truth and a fast paced education. Truth can only be known when either no information is available or exhaustive information is available in one particular domain. Similarly, in the field of information, there might be many different pieces that might be thrown. One might argue If internet like AI or education or some other medium could evolve to meet these demands somehow, it would be great for education and the future of the world or it could still be argued as incomplete, like the case happened for any formal mathematical system with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.
References:
1. Wikipedia and Google AI