From Crossan, (12-13):
This statement by Snow (science over art) is clearly opposed to Wittgenstein’s intention (art over science), but it brings home the problem most forcibly. And the problem is not the propriety of the hierarchy, one way or the other, but the very validity of the distinction itself. The most basic question for a theology of limit and of story is whether there is any such direct, ordinary, objective, descriptive language as over against some other type, whether it is considered to be a higher or a lower type. To concede objectivity to scientific language is to lose the battle before the first shot is fired. One will never prevail on such a field. But it may well be that there is only indirect (if you excuse the redundancy) language. In that case the real distinction would not be between the direct language of science and the indirect language of poetry but between language, whether in science or in poetry or in anything else, which is aware of its limits and language when it is fossilized and totally oblivious to the yawning chasm beneath its complacency. Art and science may not be two simultaneous and parallel way of knowing, but art and science may be, and in that order two successive moments of any truly human knowledge.
Yes! If there is a point I see hammered home over and over by Wittgenstein in his writings, it is that we are never done with the question, “how do you know?” When he hammers, it is at this. Otherwise he pokes and picks and prods and perambulates.
Even if we bust “science” down to its most basic level of factual observation, there is nothing of certainty there. It is all inference! It is all “descriptive” language that simply belongs to a game that takes itself more seriously than it takes any other game. There is nothing of objectivity to grant to it!
“Wir kämpfen mit der Sprache.
Wir stehen im Kampf mit der Sprache.”
But in the battle between “poetic” and “scientific” language, we can concede to neither side. They must both be stacked together in the same basket and weighed against what is, what we cannot truly or totally describe even in its most mundane aspects.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with considering either science or art as more objective, or a closer approximation of reality than the other. Ultimately, to make judgments that place one above the other, some standard and method is necessary. Logic might place science over art, tradition might put art above science. Ethics could go either way. And while some very important, meaningful truths might be revealed by pursuing that further, I’d like to make an entirely different contribution to this post.
Science, generally speaking, can be seen as advancing at different paces since the beginning of society. At least, when measured by our technological achievements. We might like to think that the scientific method is new, and that rationalism has set us free from dogma. But they have been around for a while. Recently, we’ve gotten better at recording and transmitting data. Which as in turn expanded our scientific and technological knowledge and power greatly. But the forward progress of science began with philosophy thousands of years ago. About the same time, Homer was writing poetry that is still read today. And despite our modern psychology, and our new technological way of living, people find some strikingly relevant, almost modern insights in him. We can definitely say that our science has a better understanding of the natural world that the science of Homer’s time. But can we say that we have a better understanding of the world that Homer? Historically, poetry has been an effective means to reconcile ourselves to whatever reality we can engage. Science has only just caught up.
That is it. How does this relate to your post?
That’s precisely what Levi-Strauss says in the savage mind, and Crossan explicitly goes through this argument. In his mind, reality is the story we tell, there is no real progress unless you set the parameters of your analysis. So, yes, your comment is very relevant.
Adam: Levi-Strauss, while doing something quite a bit different from Wittgenstein, is a nice shift in perspective. (Of course, Crossan is doing something of his own, as usual.) It is all the story one tells, or the language game one is playing. And to understand that is to know the parameters, and the limitations, of the language one uses. To know what this tool is, and is not, good at doing with respect to reality. (And yes, I’m going to keep using the word “reality” as a signifier that points outside of all games and stories.)