Science, Rationality, and Environmentalism in the Context of Textiles (Part I)
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Trusted Clothes (Unpublished)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016
I want to have some fun exploring some of the so-called ‘deep’ issues of sustainability through science and rationality and weave these back into the context of textiles. For the first part of this series, we will join together in an argument for science as a branch of philosophy and this should set the stage for part two to do with rationality, which will pave the way for part three devoted to science and rationality together as applied to environmentalism and how this includes textiles in a fundamental way – economically, too. Besides, this is a mere scratch on an iceberg, and the rabbit hole is rather deep, but if you’ll entertain my musings then I hope to return the same to you.[i]
Philosophy has come under a bad wrap recently, and this seems pretty wrongheaded and ahistorical, but, in sympathy and understanding, this makes perfect sense with some thought and seeing where others are coming from here.
We live in an area of the ascendancy of science and technology, or natural philosophy and its products, which originated with Aristotle in the 4th century BCE with the foundation of biology and taxonomy (animalia and plantae as the two original classifications for animals and plants, respectively).[ii][iii]
That is, the domination of the functional knowledge from the scientific process and the technological implementation of its knowledge in society.
In the developed nations, we can’t not see it, and the developing nations are going to be continuing to have to pay attention to it with even the simple consideration about the ubiquitous representation of cell phones. But what is science? It’s not so easy. Most have ideas, but these involve implicit premises about its definition, and its extent by implication.
So, what is it?
Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.
Some posit an epistemological naturalism for the foundation of science, but, in principle, science does not close off to these aspects of the world outside of the naturalistic. However, the tendency in history without formal argumentation seems like the trend towards natural explanations for natural causes. There’s even disagreement about the definition of the word physical. Does it mean simply material?
Physical is an issue. It’s mostly empty space and relative to an organism capable of detection of the sensory world, where “sensory” originates from the senses in conjunction with the central nervous system, mostly the brain receiving signals from the spinal cord and efferent nerves.
So if the physical world is a bit naïve, then what’s physical – material?
That can be an issue as well because the definition of the material of the world can be a bit fuzzy. An ancient school of philosophy called the atomists posited the fundamental units of the world as atoms, where the basic constituents of every single thing in the universe are indivisible units of stuff, atoms – which is pretty much a direct translation of the modern term. So physical becomes material becomes atoms.
So physical, if it means material, means atoms. Is that really accurate? Well, up until the 20th century, it seemed convincing, but the march of science changed the conceptual landscape of the world. It only gets worse, no joke. Although, the gruesome nature of the nature of the plumb’s length is pretty much the joke, if that’s your kind of humor.
And these sorts of assertions about the principles, let’s stick with principles, of science show a jagged refinement of the process. It’s not only certain monoliths. It’s got dynamic parts, as well. Constituents that manage the general nature of its processes, or its overarching operations. Well what are they, hotshot? They are observation, review background information, state the problem, form a hypothesis, design and perform the experiment, collect and analyze data, and draw conclusions.[iv]
And if this is seen as the scientific method, that really, really gives the whole game away because science is not just knowledge, or organized networks of information and assertions that define disciplines – nope, nope, triple nope. It’s a bit of those, but those are derivative; they come from the scientific process practiced by people in coordination with machines and tools, too.
I think of it as upstream-downstream with technology at the top and this feeding down into the economy, general culture, social life, public policy and so on. And, once more, this needs some backdrop. First, science means natural philosophy. Or, more properly, natural philosophy means science, because natural philosophy derives from philosophy – and natural philosophy garnered the name in recent intellectual history.
[i] Alice in Wonderland: Chapter I (n.d.). states:
In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again.
The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well.
Either the well was very deep, or she fell very slowly, for she had plenty of time as she went down to look about her and to wonder what was going to happen next. First, she tried to look down and make out what she was coming to, but it was too dark to see anything; then she looked at the sides of the well, and noticed that they were filled with cupboards and book-shelves; here and there she saw maps and pictures hung upon pegs.
She took down a jar from one of the shelves as she passed; it was labelled `ORANGE MARMALADE’, but to her great disappointment it was empty: she did not like to drop the jar for fear of killing somebody, so managed to put it into one of the cupboards as she fell past it.
`Well!’ thought Alice to herself, `after such a fall as this, I shall think nothing of tumbling down stairs! How brave they’ll all think me at home! Why, I wouldn’t say anything about it, even if I fell off the top of the house!’ (Which was very likely true.)
Carroll, L. (n.d.). Alice in Wonderland: Chapter I.
[ii] Del Soldato, E. (2015). Natural Philosophy in the Renaissance. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[iii] science. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 