Biological Pornography
Why science falls short when it is independent of metaphysics
One of the most peculiar teachings in the biological sciences is the requirement of “proof” and what this actually is. In the physical sciences, the burden of proof is often in “deduction” (e.g. You can’t see “gravity” but when you see an apple fall, you can deduce that a force is exerted on that apple.) However, in the biological sciences, the burden of proof is frequently in “perception”. If you can see it, it exists. If you can count it, it’s real. If you can touch it, even better. But if it is invisible, and you can’t invent a machine to see it, you’d be hard pressed to avoid being thought of as a kook by claiming that something invisible matters. In fact, in the biological sciences, we often ignore the “invisible” or “unreal”, either because the visible is not yet a mirage, or because we rely too much on our perceptions to give us meaning. A little metaphysics, like an actual relationship, might add just the touch we are looking for. It might prevent us from buying into the objectification of “being human” by biology.
The stunning array of biological pornography: I’ll grant you this—perception is seductive, and the biological sciences do make a convincing case for the curiosities and glories of the visible. CRISPR technology will edit genomes. Increasingly powerful brain scanners will show you brain blood flow…
