Taxonomic Note on the Gnosology of Modern Science

Abstract

Surprising as it may perhaps seem to many, I have found in the upshot of a fairly persistent series of trials that it is easier to define “life” in terms of “culture” than it is to define “culture” in terms of “life.” Searching logistic experiments show that the latter way is strewn with conceptual booby-traps in the shape of such terms as “physical,” “non-physical,” “material,” “immaterial,” “spiritual,” “ideal,” “natural,” “supernatural,” etc. Some important sectors of our intellectual culture have for generations stultified themselves by attempting to account in such unserviceable and deceitful terms for manifest and institutionally important differences in natural phenomena and the practical human affairs to which they appertain. Such desperate jugglery as has been engaged in, although embraced in much received doctrine, is not conducive either to intellectual or to moral integrity. Such dualistic chimeras had best be abandoned, the more peremptorily the better, as leading only to self-contradiction, confusion, and serious temptation to futile logical expedients.