About 400 years
ago, two competing world-view paradigms, based on the geocentric
model of Tycho Brahe and the heliocentric model of Nicolaus
Copernicus were equally compatible with all known observations.
It was impossible to decide in favor of one or the other in terms
of available evidence. Thus, concerned natural philosophers may
have sympathized with the absurd predicament of Buridan's ass
which starved to death between equally attractive feeding
possibilities.
In time, heliocentrism superseded geocentrism; and thus a
paradigm shift had taken place. One reason was that such new
discoveries as those of Kepler, Galileo, Newton, etc. had slowly
tilted the balance in favor of Copernicus. The other, perhaps
even more important, reason was that supporters of Tycho Brahe
had gradually died out.
Why was this important? Because the geocentric model was more
compatible with emotional factors than the heliocentric
one. These factors had to do with simple, common-sense, intuitive
notions, as well as with philosophical-religious teachings about
Man's privileged status in Nature, Man's closest kinship to God,
and the like. Of course, these self-flattering notions were
extremely resistant to rational arguments; therefore, the most
vociferous partisans simply had to die out to make room for the
new view. The emerging mechanistic world-view allowed far less
arrogance and complacence and sharply accentuated the need for
rationalism and empiricism. Nevertheless, human conceit and
cosmic vanity have survived to the present day; and in spite of
overwhelming contrary evidence, still find ample expression in
the common-sense view of the Universe, which may be summed up as
anthropocentrism.
Whether in crude or subtle ways, anthropocentrism regards
Man as the central fact or final aim of the Universe, or
of any system; and its evaluations are always relative to
Man, always based on comparisons with Man. Direct
anthropocentrism is the natural world-view of naïve
realism. Based on instinctive and intuitive sense-perception,
this simple and linear perspective maintains that reality is
as it looks; things are what they seem. After
Copernicus, indirect anthropocentrism gradually superseded
the earlier view along the lines of classical realism. Finally,
despite the rational objectivity of scientific realism and the
counterintuitive or irrational features of quantum realism,
implied anthropocentrism is still with us, as seen for
example in the various sophisticated
'anthropic' principles.
Today, all world-views are still intuitively
anthropocentric, modern Science notwithstanding.
Against all this, in diametric opposition, cosmocentrism
proposes the Cosmos as the central fact or final aim of
the Universe, or of any system; and suggests that evaluations
might approximate independent reality much closer when they are
made relative to the Cosmos, based on comparisons with the
Cosmos. This is the (un)natural world-view of cosmic
realism. Based on scientific research data and sometimes even
counterintuitive synthesis, this complex and nonlinear
cosmocentric perspective maintains that reality is not as it
looks, things are not what they seem. Of course, this
view assumes that scientific realism is correct; i.e. that
there is a world 'out there' that really exists and that
is independent of our attempts to observe it and in fact
independent of our very being. Its corollary assumption is that
scientific investigations can make this world
comprehensible to us. Neither of these assumptions is arbitrary
or ad hoc; they are based on plenty of evidence from
modern Science as well as the lessons of History.
Perhaps the lessons of History have taught us to avoid the fate
of Buridan's ass. Perhaps we no longer have to fritter precious
time away, just waiting for partisans of the rival view to die
out. Perhaps we have learned to recognize irrational clingings to
self-flattering views, and we already know how to deal with
ignorance and arrogance. Perhaps Mankind no longer needs
cosmic vanity to be reconciled with 'fate' and natural
reality. Perhaps a paradigm shift in favor of cosmocentrism will
herald the dawn of a new era, when emotional maturity and
tolerance begin to supersede fratricidal-suicidal adolescence.
Let's hope so- and, therefore, let's start groping toward it!
Discussion
Perhaps the most
concise definition of anthropocentrism was given by Aristotle,
when, some 2,300 years ago, he quoted the great sophist
Protagoras (cca. 481-411 B.C.E.), who said that "Man is the
measure of all things". This was in perfect agreement with
common-sense views of Man, Nature, God or gods, and the Universe;
based on the knowledge of those times and projections or
extrapolations thencefrom. In order to fully understand what
anthropocentrism is and what its inadequacies are, it may be
worth while to take a somewhat closer look.
For some 7,000 years, until the early XXth century, we had
thought that we live in a static Universe, characterized
by eternity, permanence, stability, predictability, and
reversibility. Although the importance of change and
time-bound, irreversible processes have always been recognized,
the permanence-features of the Universe had been given greater
emphasis. Why? Because of the adaptive preoccupation with
God or gods, which in this context also represented the vast
unknown segment of reality; and of course, God or gods had to be
immutable in order to maintain divine status and absolute rights.
What evidence was there to support such view?
Not much. Our remote ancestors did not think so much in terms of
evidence as in terms of plausibility. However, they were
no fools. Keen observations formed the basis of their intuitive
views and sharp analogies helped them to make sense of the
bewildering world in which they lived. It was quite natural to
observe human causation, from which simple intuition or
projection led to superhuman causation. So, gods had
always been thought to be giant humanoids with supernatural
powers. Remember, Science did not exist as such; and
authority was based on power, rather than knowledge. Thus,
the Sun-god Shamash had divine authority by means of which laws
could be conferred upon Sumerian society and enforced through the
good offices of King Hammurabi about 4,000 years ago, throughout
Babylonia.
This is how the first consistent world-view arose in ancient
Mesopotamia, based on astronomical observations and practical
considerations. It was the natural or instinctively intuitive
flat-Earth view, according to which we live on a flat disk
covered by a hemisphere. The ancient Persian religion of
Zoroastrianism, among others, furnished gods and angels for
Heaven above the hemisphere, and devils and demons for Hell
beneath the disk. Stars and their constellations resembling
something that humans could relate to, gave rise to astrology and
associated myths. The most important feature of this natural
world-view was consistency with all known facts as well as
explanation in terms that were familiar and satisfying to
the ancients.
Of course, partial explanations also flourished, as this was the
age of fabulous myths and great legends. However, the most
general view, being the most consistent with facts and features
of reality thought to be important, was this anthropocentric
flat-Earth model, which was also the most satisfying in terms of
cognitive-emotional needs.
The only addition to this view was its extension by Aristotle. He
simply took the flat Earth and spinned it around, so that the
hemisphere became a full sphere. By that time, more and more
evidence seemed to suggest that the Earth was round, not flat;
and this was more consistent with his philosophical reasoning,
which emphasized natural beauty and harmony.
It was thus quite natural for Aristotle to propose his famous
hierarchy, called "Scala Naturae",
which put Man near the top of a ladder or apex of a pyramid, if
you will. Beneath Man was the animal kingdom, and beneath that,
the non-living world. Above Man was God or gods; by means of
which the unknown could be rationalized, albeit in naïve
anthropocentric terms. Man thus acquired dominion over Nature,
Man was Nature's finest, destined to rule all
the world, being subject but to God or gods.
Our truth-needs were satisfied by the simple anthropocentric
world-view, while our love-needs were satisfied by the
human-privilege notion of our closest kinship to God or gods.
Together, they had taken care of our cognitive-emotional needs,
with minor variations, all along the line. Thus, natural
psychodynamics was the essence of anthropocentrism,
quite understandable in prescientific times and unscientific
terms. Things were what they seemed, and reality was as
perceived by Man.
Based on careful astronomical observations, the Alexandrian
astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus formalized the Aristotelian
world-view during the 2nd century, A.D. The Ptolemaic
system simply postulated that the Earth was the spherical center
of the Universe; and the Sun, the stars, and the other planets
revolved in orbits and spheres around it. Heaven was still above
it all, and Hell was still below the surface of the Earth.
A dozen centuries or so later, this was still the prevailing
view, further extended and complicated by astronomical
observations and postulates, such as stellar patterns and various
epicycles. This perspective formed the basis of the geocentric
paradigm as championed for example by the famous Danish
astronomer Tycho Brahe at the end of the Renaissance period in
the XVIth century. It was still a directly
anthropocentric perspective, well in line with Church
dogma. The Universe still revolved around Man; and thus, no
matter how pompous it sounds, Man was still the crowning glory of
Creation and God's gift on Earth.
Let's remember that ever since Man knows that he knows, reality
has always been perceived in two categories; known and
unknown. At first, knowledge was limited to Man's immediate
experience; and everything else was unknown. But the unknown is
unpredictable, hence anxiety-provoking; and unrationalized
anxiety reduces Man to helplessness. By rationalizing thunder and
lightning as the wrath of God or gods, for example, such
phenomena could be given explanations that people could relate
to; and, very importantly, no other explanations were
available. Today, we have adequate explanations of natural
phenomena without recourse to supernatural notions. We might
still experience some anxiety when facing thunderstorms for
example, but we no longer have to invoke and try to placate gods
or demons in order to survive such episodes. In other words, as
knowledge has increased over the millenia, the unknown has
decreased proportionately. Knowledge thus enables us to relate to
various features of reality without superstitious beliefs and
practices or incapacitating fears and anxieties. However, in this
context, it is important to distinguish between subjective
and objective kinds of knowledge. Perhaps a word of
explanation is in order.
Subjective knowledge, while intuitively appealing and
perhaps even emotionally satisfying, may also be unreliable
and invalid. From perceptual selectivity to idiosyncratic
preferences, subjective knowledge can easily lead to false
beliefs and distortions of reality. For example, belief in
witchcraft had led to tragic persecutions and absurd injustices
for many centuries. It is thus a moral duty to always
strive for more and more adequate knowledge and to remain open to
criticism, even self-critique; otherwise, arrogance and
self-righteousness can lead to but repetitions of the horrors of
History.
Objective knowledge may be counterintuitive and even
emotionally unsatisfactory, but being reliable and valid,
it really helps to avoid self-righteousness and falsehoods.
Fortunately, we have epistemological methods and safeguards to
ensure the adequacy of objective knowledge. The built-in
self-correction of the scientific method is our principal
guarantee of reliability and validity, in spite of the inherent
limitations of Science.
Science is not perfect. Nor is it complete. It may or may not be
emotionally comforting, but it's still the best we have; and
it works. Of course, it is also our moral duty to
avoid the fallacies and pitfalls of scientism; and never
to mistake Science for a religious substitute or make substitute
religion of it. Science, in the modern sense of a dynamic
epistemological activity characterized by its
hypothetico-deductive-inductive method, is still very
young- barely 400 years old. What's that compared to 4,000 years
of anthropocentrism, 40,000 years of cultural evolution, and
400,000 years of anthropological evolution?
Yes, it was perhaps 400 years ago that modern Science had begun
to take shape. Francis Bacon of Verulam, among others, was
instrumental in formulating its methodology. By that time,
Copernicus had already proposed the heliocentric paradigm; and
thanks to Gutenberg, printed knowledge had begun to spread.
However, only elegance and Occam's razor argued in favor of
Copernicus; and his vindication had to await the works of Kepler,
Galileo, Newton, etc. Scientific measurement and systematic
experimentation throughout the XVIIth century gave rise to the
scientific revolution. To be sure, Science was still part and
parcel, a 'handmaiden' of Natural Philosophy; but by the turn of
the century, its emancipation was well under way, and direct
anthropocentrism was in trouble!
The XVIIIth, XIXth, and especially XXth, centuries have seen
indirect anthropocentrism gradually superseding the
earlier direct view as the thriving handmaiden of Natural
Philosophy had rapidly blossomed into a very attractive and
effective young 'goddess'. Her emancipation became complete about
a hundred years ago, and her superior beauty and efficiency have
been amply confirmed by such spectacular technological marvels
that would have been called 'miraculous' not too long ago. When
my Grandfather was a child, there was no such thing as an
airplane; but in the year he died, Man walked on the Moon. And
that's within a single lifetime! Since then, progress has even
accelerated and keeps increasing at an ever-dizzying rate.
Today's knowledge, its immensity notwithstanding, may be very
rudimentary compared to tomorrow's knowledge. Where it's all
going to lead is anybody's guess right now.
During its early evolution, Science generally proposed a
mechanistic, deterministic, and mathematically predictable
Universe, not unlike a great clockwork of great precision. The
XVIIIth century had extended this static, hydraulic, machine-like
view to Man, as shown for example, by Julien de la Mettrie's
"L'Homme Machine". Pierre Simon de Laplace's monumental work,
"Mécanique Céleste" had taken determinism as far as
doing away with God by doing without God. When questioned about
it by the Emperor Napoleon, Laplace rather arrogantly replied
that he had no need of such hypothesis.
Indeed, the rapid and spectacular progress of Science had
demystified the Universe to the point that Friedrich Nietzsche
announced that "God is dead". Nihilism, existentialism, and
materialism had no room for anything supernatural. Positivism and
Darwinism appeared to rob Man of his semi-divine privileges and
cast serious doubt on divine creationism. Thus, about a hundred
years ago, as Science had gradually begun to reveal that things
are not what they seem, even indirect
anthropocentrism started to be in trouble!
However, the Universe itself was still thought to be
static. That is, the heliocentric model, ruled by blindly
mechanical forces, was at first simply extended to infinity, both
'up' toward the macrocosm of stars and galaxies and 'down' toward
the microcosm of atoms and molecules. Later, the Sun was deprived
of its central position; and there was no further need for an
astronomical center, as such. Stellar and galactic systems could
make up the static Universe, without a preferred center; but
being its prime observer, Man could still maintain dominion. This
is a very subtle psychological point, well worth careful
consideration. The static Universe remained indirectly
anthropocentric, by virtue of potentially infinite observability
and predictability, hence controllability. It was even
thought that all essentials were already known, and the
completion of Science would soon be forthcoming. Instead, what
came forth was a series of knockout blows.
During the XXth century, it became clear that the Universe is not
static, but dynamic and expanding. Worse,
Relativity Theory in the macrocosm and Quantum Mechanics in the
microcosm had completely overthrown common-sense, intuitive
notions; and thus deprived us of conceptual comfort and security.
As such, there could be no further doubt that things are
definitely not what they seem. Increasing doubt
had been cast on predictability and controllability. Worst of
all, limits to knowability had begun to appear, such as
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in Physics and Gödel's Undecidability Theorem in Mathematics,
for examples. Schrödinger's wave
mechanics cast doubt on exact determinism and substituted
probabilistic interpretations. It was shown that the act of
investigation itself may distort reality. The sheer proliferation
of data, the information explosion has blown all objective
knowledge way out of proportion, in utter disregard of
Man's perennial cognitive-emotional needs and
the lessons of History. The result has been increasing confusion
and frustration throughout the weary XXth century.
Nowadays, people don't know what to believe or
whom to trust any more; and cognitive dissonance as well
as emotional voids characterize modern
Man's conflicts, which may be indicative of
progressive neurosis, maybe even psychosis of some schizophrenic
variety. By instinct, Man still directly perceives things
relative to himself; but scientific knowledge forces him to think
less and less as though the Universe revolved around him and more
and more in very sophisticated, albeit still indirectly
anthropocentric terms- but even that is rather
objectionable. For example, we have to consciously remind
ourselves that the galaxies are 'out
there' and electromagnetism permeates
everything and bacteria are 'all
around', whether we see them or not. Together
with the Big Bang cosmology and plenty of other evidence, the
emerging picture seems to suggest that human sense perception,
however extended by telescopes and microscopes, keeps Man locked
into a 'bubble' of virtual reality, as it were, in dynamic
interaction with the expansion of the Universe. But virtual
reality is definitely not independent, real reality.
This is tantamount to pronouncing the death sentence on
all anthropocentrism, whether direct or indirect or both.
Let's put it differently. If we proceed from Man 'outward', we
pass through the increasing magnitudes of the solar system, then
the stellar system, then the Galaxy, then the Local Group of
galaxies, then the supercluster of local groups, all the way to
the outer limits of the Universe. As we reach these limits at the
level of cosmology itself, things become increasingly blurred.
The geometry is no longer Euclidean, visual information becomes
less and less reliable, and more and more indirect methods have
to be used, from radio astronomy and x-rays to mathematical
modelling. There's a uniform microwave background radiation at
2.7 degrees Kelvin, which may be evidence of the Big Bang itself.
Recently discovered hot and cold dark (nonluminous) matter seems
to comprise 90% of the Universe, which is inaccessible to direct
observation. Perhaps such dark matter could effectively close the
Universe by providing a positive cosmological constant, whereby a
pulsating or oscillating Big Bang - Big Crunch cosmology would
perforce emerge, ad infinitum.
Now, if we proceed from Man 'inward', we pass through decreasing
magnitudes, through the 'worlds' of physiology and biochemistry,
all the way to quarks and other subatomic particles. Finally, we
reach the inner limits of the Universe, as it were. Here, again,
a blurred mode of existence seems to prevail, as virtual
particles spontaneously jump in and out of existence all the
time, as shown by Quantum Field Theory. Again, the geometry is no
longer Euclidean, visual information becomes less and less
reliable, and more and more indirect methods have to be used from
electron tunneling and x-ray scattering to mathematical
modelling. The same dark matter as in cosmology seems to provide
sufficient energy densities for the fundamental field so that
virtual particle fluctuation may continuously take place, again
ad infinitum.
So, proceeding from Man outward, we reach the blurred mode of
existence, which is cosmodynamics. Proceeding from Man inward, we
also reach the blurred mode of existence, which is also
cosmodynamics. Either way, the same Cosmos is at the end, as per
current knowledge. The Cosmos seems to be the infinite baseline
of all existence, from which all material events arise and to
which they periodically return. If we were to post an unbiased,
ideal observer at the level of the bare Cosmos, the
Universe would look very different from there than from here.
Let's be a bit whimsical and call this
nonhuman cosmic observer
'Genie', somewhat similarly
to Maxwell's
'Demon', if you will.
Relative to Genie, all material events would be on a scale
of positively increasing magnitudes, if we allow the observations
to be at the origin of Cartesian coordinates. Genie would
observe all material as well as nonmaterial events as various
motion phenomena as though the vantage point were at the center
of a sphere, assuming our habitual Euclidean geometry for present
heuristics. Therefore, relative to Genie, it seems
reasonable to conclude, that the Cosmos is the central fact or
the final aim of the Universe; and this is nothing less than the
definition of cosmocentrism itself.
Let's imagine a straight line or spectrum with Man at the center,
and Cosmos at both ends. If we rotate either half of this line
around Man, we get the anthropocentric paradigm. If we bend it in
half and double it up so that Man is at one end while Cosmos at
the other, and then rotate it around the Cosmos, we get the
cosmocentric paradigm. Since the doubling up resembles a loop, by
rotation we get a doughnut or torus-shaped Universe, which
is compatible with all present-day objective knowledge, including
Cosmology. Man is way out, somewhere at the periphery of the
torus, nowhere near the center. However, things are not
this cheap; and while anthropocentrism is a simple,
static, and linear world-view, cosmocentrism is a complex,
dynamic, and nonlinear perspective, nay, a complete paradigm
per se.
Cosmocentrism shifts focus from Man to the Cosmos. It considers
Man as nothing special, but a perfectly normal and necessary
phase of cyclic evolutionary cosmodynamics. Cosmic evolution
seems to proceed by both positive and negative feedback loops,
between Big Bangs and Big Crunches, following the irreversible
thermodynamic Arrow of Time. The Cosmos itself seems to consist
of an overall closed system and several open subsystems, in
dynamic interaction, somewhat like multidimensional subsets
within a universal master set. The overall cosmic matrix with its
pulsating submatrices appears to be what existence is all about.
That one of the submatrices may be called human need no
longer distort the overall matrix or the proportions and
relations of the submatrices. Relative to the bare Cosmos, which
alone may be timeless, all material events are observably
time-bound and transient. Cosmocentrism thus provides a
perspective consistent with all objective knowledge, and a
world-view more harmonious with independent reality than the
severely flawed, directly or indirectly anthropocentric paradigm.
As such, it may be instrumental in the eventual resolution of our
conflicts.
No need to fear humiliation. Our cosmic dignity is assured by our
cosmic citizenship status without having to imagine that
the Universe revolves around us. Although our cosmic roles
may appear to be rather insignificant, we are just as
indispensable and integral parts of the Cosmos as any other
living or nonliving entity.
Nor does cosmocentrism do away with God or religion. Although, as
Professor Stephen Hawking noted, in the Big Bang cosmology
there's not much for a Creator to do; God and religion may still
be invoked, albeit for emotional rather than cognitive needs.
The challenge of cosmocentrism is that Man, not God, must be
dethroned. Of course, God in the cosmocentric paradigm cannot
very well resemble the Heavenly Father image of naïve
realism; but, perhaps, it's just as well. Anyway, that's another
story.
Summary & Conclusions
In
summary, it may be said that this paper has endeavored to show
that a fundamental paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to
cosmocentrism is possible and perhaps even overdue. That's
because common-sense perception of everyday reality is ab
ovo anthropocentric, which is increasingly proven unreliable
and invalid by factual knowledge of objective reality. It's high
time for our intuitive world-view to become fully consistent with
Nature as Nature is, rather than trying to squeeze Nature
into our self-flattering pigeonholes. In short, it's time for a
fundamental adjustment in our cognitive-emotional perspectives;
it's time to transcend our bubble of virtual
reality.
To be sure, direct anthropocentrism arose quite naturally
along the lines of cultural evolution. From the ancient
flat-Earth myth through the Ptolemaic system all the way to the
geocentric model of Tycho Brahe, it was just a linear extension
of a simple paradigm: that of Man on top of his
world. Then, the Copernican heliocentric model gave rise to a
mechanistic and increasingly materialistic world-view; which,
together with modern Science in general and modern Physics in
particular, has gradually shown in recent times that even the
indirect anthropocentric paradigm may be inadequate and
seriously misleading. The anthropocentric evolution of
world-views from primitive to sophisticated can be seen as
growing conflicts between subjective and objective perceptions of
factual truth, all the way to the cognitive dissonances and
emotional voids of today, always relative to Man.
Against this, the new cosmocentric paradigm may be proposed as
adequate and truthful representation of cosmic reality; through
the careful observations of an independent and factual and
unbiased, perhaps even ideally optimal observer at the
level of the Cosmos itself, as it were. This objective, nonhuman
Genie has only one problem: available knowledge is still
permeated by indirect or implied anthropocentrism, in however
increasing sophistication and subtlety; as seen for example, in
the various 'anthropic'
principles. As even the existing tools, such as logic,
mathematics, physics, philosophy etc. are still
'contaminated' by
anthropocentrism, new tools may be needed; thanks to which many
discoveries may be made beyond our wildest dreams. Much remains
to be discovered. Genie is going to be very busy, but
Genie needs a lot of help for complete substantiation of
the cosmocentric paradigm. Although many of its features are
counterintuitive, perhaps even irrational; there is already
enough evidence in favor of adopting factual and objective
cosmocentrism, and without repeating historical mistakes
at that. Until now, every world-view has been
anthropocentric, whether in crude or subtle ways. The radically
new world-view of cosmic realism, called cosmocentrism,
introduced here for the first time, is explicitly based on
scientific realism, which believes that theoretical
constructs (with some exceptions) refer to actually existing
things which are described differently on different levels of
theory. Gravitation is really there, whether it be
described by forces or space-time curvatures. Classical realism
has been superseded by quantum realism, which in
turn may be superseded by cosmic realism. What it all means for
us, is simply that we have to give up dominion. Cosmocentrism
does not exalt Man. Rather, relative to the Cosmos, it
shows the soberingly modest place of Man in Nature and Nature's
proper place in Man. As such, cosmocentrism may be less
emotionally satisfying than anthropocentrism- well, tough luck.
Presently, both paradigms are compatible with existing knowledge;
and choice may be again made on grounds of elegance and Occam's
razor, at least for the time being, until Genie tilts the
balance definitely and irreversibly forward. The choice is ours,
but with an important caveat. Factual truth is a moral
duty and we really ought to keep in mind that things are
not what they seem. The shift in favor of cosmocentrism is
tantamount to a fundamental revolution at the conceptual level.
The essence of this revolution is that Cosmos, rather
than Man, is the true measure of all things.
Paper written for and presented at the joint British Mensa P.D.G.
— I.S.P.E.Conference, Braziers College,
Oxford, U.K., May 5-7, 2000.
Published:
Telicom, Vol. XIII, No. 5, July
2000, pp. 30-40,
Commensal, No.
102, August 2000, pp. 24-33,
Posts
