A Guide for the Perplexed

A Guide for the Perplexed is a short book by E.F. Schumacher, published in 1977. While better known for his 1974 environmental economics bestseller Small is Beautiful, which made him a leading figure within the ecology movement, Schumacher himself considered A Guide for the Perplexed to be his most important achievement. His daughter wrote that her father handed her the book on his deathbed, five days before he died and he told her "this is what my life has been leading to"'.{{Ref|Pearce}} As the Chicago Tribune wrote "A Guide for the Perplexed is really a statement of the philosophical underpinnings that inform Small is Beautiful."

Critique of materialistic scientism

Schumacher was very much in favour of the scientific spirit; but felt that the dominant methodology within science, which he called materialistic scientism was flawed; and stood in the way of achieving knowledge in any other arena than inanimate nature. Schumacher believed that this flaw originated in the writings of Descartes and Francis Bacon, when modern science was first established.

Related Topics:
Methodology - Nature - Descartes - Francis Bacon

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Schumacher makes a distinction between the descriptive and instructional sciences. According to Schumacher the descriptive sciences are primarily concerned with what can be seen or otherwise experienced, e.g. botany and sociology. While the instructional sciences are concerned with how certain systems work and can be manipulated to produce certain results, e.g. biology and chemistry. Instructional science is primarily based on evidence gained from experimentation

Related Topics:
Botany - Sociology - Systems - Biology - Chemistry - Experimentation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Materialistic scientism is based on the methodology of the instructional sciences, which developed to study and experiment with inanimate matter. According to Schumacher many philosophers of science fail to recognise the difference between descriptive and instructional science; or ascribe this difference to stages in the evolution of a specific science; which for these philosophers means that the instructional sciences are seen as being the most advanced variety of science.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Schumacher is particularly offended by the view that instructional science is the most advanced form of science; because, for Schumacher, it is the study of the low hanging fruit of inanimate matter, or less metaphorically the study of the lowest and least complex level of being. As Schumacher sees it knowledge gained about the higher levels of being, while far harder to get and far less certain, is all the more valuable. Schumacher quotes St Thomas Aquinas approvingly "the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained from higher things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained from lesser things."{{Ref|AGFTPp13}}

Related Topics:
Being - St Thomas Aquinas

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Schumacher argues the applying the standards and procedures of instructional science to descriptive sciences is erroneous, because in the descriptive fields it is simply not possible to use the experimental techniques of instructional sciences. Experimentation is a very effective methodology when dealing with inanimate matter; but applying it to the living world is liable to destroy or damage living things and systems, and is therefore inappropriate. In support of his argument, Schumacher quotes Dr Viktor E. Frankl "The present danger does not really lie in the loss of universality on the part of the scientist, but rather in his pretence and claim of totality...What we have to deplore therefore is not so much the fact that scientists are specialising, but rather the fact that specialists are generalising. After many years of theological imperialism, we have now had three centuries of ever more aggressive 'scientific imperialism'."{{Ref|AGFTPp15}}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Schumacher uses the term scientism because he argues that many people, including some philosophers of science, have misunderstood the theory behind instructional science and believe that it produces truth. But the instructional sciences are based on induction; and as David Hume famously points out induction is not the same as truth. Furthermore, according to Schumacher, instructional sciences are primarily concerned only with the parts of truth that are useful for manipulation, i.e. they focus on those instructions which are necessary to reliably produce certain results. But this does not mean that an alternative instruction set won't work, or indeed an alternative instruction set based on quite different principles. For Schumacher, instructional sciences therefore produce theories which are useful not true, they produce pragmatic truths. By contrast, Schumacher argues that the descriptive sciences are interested in the truth in the wider sense of the word.

Related Topics:
Scientism - Truth - Induction - David Hume - Pragmatic truth

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Schumacher argues that materialistic scientism follows a policy of leaving something out if it is in doubt. Consequently, the maps of western science fail to show large 'unorthodox' parts of both theory and practise of science and social science, and reveal a complete disregard for art and 'so-called' occult and paranormal phenomena. Such an approach, Schumacher argues, provides a grey, limited, utilitarian worldview without room for vitally important phenomena like beauty and meaning.

Related Topics:
Science - Social science - Occult - Paranormal - Phenomena - Utilitarian - Beauty - Meaning

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Schumacher observes that the mere mention of occult and paranormal phenomena in academic discussion is seen as a sign of 'mental deficiency' among scientists. Schumacher argues that where there is near total agreement a subject becomes effectively dead; and it is the subjects where there is doubt that deserve the most intense research. Schumacher believes in contrast to materialistic science that what is in doubt should be shown prominently, not hidden away or ignored.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Schumachers biggest complaint against materialistic scientism is that rejects the validity of certain questions, which for Schumacher are actually the most important questions of all. Materialistic scientism rejects the idea of levels of being; but for Schumacher this leads to a one sided view of nature. For Schumacher, you can learn much about man by studying from the perspective of minerals, plants and animals, because man contains the lower levels of being. But that is not the full or even the most important part of the story, as he puts "...everything can be learned about him (man) except that which makes us human."{{Ref|AGFTPp30}}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evolutionism

Schumacher first notes that the evolutionist doctrine clearly sits in the descriptive sciences rather than instructive sciences. Schumacher accepts that evolution as a generalisation within the descriptive science of biological change has been established beyond any doubt whatsoever.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

However, Schumacher considers the 'evolutionist doctrine' to be a very different matter. The evolutionist doctrine purports to prove and explain biological change in the same manner as the proof and explanation offered by the instructional sciences. Schumacher quotes the 1975 Encyclopædia Britannica as an example of this view "Darwin did two things: he showed that evolution was in fact contradicting scriptural legends of creation and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic leaving no room for divine guidance or design."{{Ref|AGFTPp125}}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Schumacher considers the evolutionist doctrine to be a major philosophical and scientific error. Schumacher argues that the evolutionist doctrine starts with the perfectly reasonable explanation of change in living beings, and then jumps to using it as an explanation for the development of consciousness, self-awareness, language, social institutions and the origin of life itself. Schumacher points out that making this conceptual leap simply does not meet the standards of scientific rigour and the uncritical acceptance of this leap is, for Schumacher, completely unscientific. For instance, until scientists can mix together non-living substances in a laboratory and create life, using evolution as an explanation for the origin of life remains an hypothesis. Scientists may feel it is by far the most likely hypothesis, but it is not proven.

Related Topics:
Consciousness - Self-awareness - Language - Origin of life

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~