Chapter 1: The Nature of Beauty

In a recent article, I discussed the inherent epistemological boundaries within the scientific process. This observation is not a critique of science itself but rather of the common philosophical interpretations of science found in public discourse. Science undoubtedly offers significant benefits and applications that underpin many aspects of modern life.

However, I was taken aback by some of the responses I received. One commenter posited that the question "What is beauty?" is a valid empirical inquiry for cognitive neuroscience. When I probed for clarification, they suggested that we could investigate what triggers the sensation by asking individuals about their experiences and searching for neurological or chemical correlations. They concluded, "Then we know what there is to know about beauty."

This reaction highlighted for me the dogmatism that can arise from an excessive reliance on the scientific method as a lens for understanding reality.

Let us consider a few straightforward points. Suppose we accept, for argument's sake, that beauty arises from a set of evolutionary impulses or desires. Even so, the concept of "beauty" becomes exceedingly abstract for a neuroscientist. For instance, I might describe a woman I find attractive as beautiful, just as I would a flower. Moreover, beauty can be linked to unexpected or peculiar experiences; a dilapidated building or a profoundly tragic film can also evoke feelings of beauty.

How can we confine such an abstract notion to specific brain correlates? How do we restrict the exploration of aesthetic experiences and the qualities of consciousness to the presumption that they consist solely of neurological correlates?

It’s unclear whether any such correlates even exist. Beauty may well be as much a characteristic of consciousness itself as it is a trait of an object or an experience driven by evolutionary impulses. While we might assume that all experiences have some form of correlates, how can we pinpoint a common quality across such a diverse array of experiences? It's akin to suggesting that the qualia of the color blue defines its correlates. Beauty is an observation that things relate to one another, rather than merely a reflection of a specific desire. It represents a broad spectrum of conscious experience rather than a simplistic impulse/object relationship that lends itself to reductionism.

This perspective does not diminish the role of science. Rather, it emphasizes that many inquiries about beauty are philosophical, linguistic, or metaphysical. We can enrich our philosophical discussions with scientific insights—like evolutionary theory, the brain's use of abstract language, and theories about consciousness—but to assume that science can resolve questions that inherently transcend objectification is a fundamental misunderstanding. Declaring "then we know what there is to know about beauty" without fully engaging with the linguistic intricacies of the term or the actual experience itself borders on self-parody. This approach is as misguided as the philosophical assumption that if we find a flower beautiful, we should dissect it to uncover the material essence of beauty.

Perhaps the question "What is beauty?" is too abstract to yield anything but open-ended responses. For those who hold theistic beliefs, such a quality suggests that consciousness is directed toward aims that surpass any particular limitations we impose, connecting with transcendental values. In any case, it is a matter for poets, artists, philosophers, and even the self-reflective individual to ponder.

Science is undoubtedly remarkable and valuable. However, approaching it with philosophical assumptions may lead us into futile self-affirmation. Science should be viewed as a tool, and expecting it to answer questions that extend beyond objectification is akin to asking a calculator to define goodness. We should not limit any discipline by insisting that one must overshadow another simply because of personal preference. Today's challenges are multifaceted, requiring the collaboration of scientists, philosophers, poets, and artists. Rather than pitting these fields against one another, we should explore the coherence that arises when these disciplines coexist, recognizing their respective boundaries and embracing those that extend beyond them.

Video Description: This video discusses the compatibility of science and spirituality, exploring whether they can coexist and inform each other.

Chapter 2: The Philosophical Dimensions of Science

Video Description: This video examines whether scientists should engage with philosophical questions and the implications of such inquiries on scientific practice.