1978: Noam Chomsky on LINGUISTICS and KNOWLEDGE! | Men of Ideas | Classic Interviews | BBC Archive

Summary

The script discusses the inherent limitations of human understanding due to our reliance on personal experiences to construct a view of the world. It explores how these limitations might apply to humanity's collective knowledge, suggesting that our cognitive abilities, while allowing for scientific progress in some areas, may prevent us from making sense of other domains. The speaker considers the possibility that increased knowledge of our cognitive faculties might not expand these abilities but could help us recognize the boundaries of our scientific understanding.

Takeaways

• 🌐 **Individual Perspectives**: Each person constructs a view of the world based on their personal experiences, leading to a potentially distorted understanding.
• 🧠 **Cognitive Limitations**: The human mind's apparatus for understanding may impose systematic limits on our comprehension of the universe.
• 🚀 **Innate Scientific Capacity**: Humans possess an inherent ability to form scientific theories, which can sometimes extend beyond available evidence.
• 📚 **History of Science**: Scientific progress often involves initial theories that are later found to be incorrect, yet they pave the way for better understanding.
• 🔍 **Selective Evidence**: In formulating theories, scientists often focus on certain evidence while disregarding other data, hoping it will be addressed later.
• 🧐 **Idealization in Science**: The process of scientific discovery involves idealization, distortion, and the creation of new theories, which are then tested and refined.
• 🧬 **Biological Givens**: Our cognitive faculties are likely biologically determined and unlikely to be significantly altered through increased knowledge of them.
• 🤔 **Limits of Understanding**: There may be certain questions or domains that are beyond our capacity to understand or for which we cannot formulate explanatory theories.
• 🌌 **Delineation of Knowledge**: It's possible to identify areas where scientific theories are intelligible and those where they are not, reflecting the properties of our science-forming capacities.
• 📈 **Progress and Stagnation**: The history of science shows varying degrees of progress in different domains, suggesting inherent limitations in how we approach and understand certain topics.

Q & A

How does the transcript suggest our individual experiences shape our understanding of the world?

The transcript suggests that our individual experiences construct a picture of the world, which is systematically distorted because it is built upon our own narrow experiences.

What does the speaker think about the limitations of human understanding as it pertains to the cosmos?

The speaker believes that our understanding of the cosmos is drastically limited by the nature of our cognitive apparatus for understanding, but this same limitation also provides the possibility of creating explanatory theories.

How does the history of science illustrate the human capacity for scientific discovery?

The history of science shows that humans can make innovative leaps of imagination to create theories that explain aspects of the universe, even if these theories are sometimes wrong.

What role does evidence play in the creation of scientific theories according to the transcript?

The transcript indicates that when new theories are created, scientists often have very limited evidence, and much of the available evidence is typically disregarded in the hope that it will be addressed later.

How does the speaker describe the process of scientific discovery?

The speaker describes the process of scientific discovery as involving idealization, selection and distortion of evidence, creation of new theories, and their subsequent confirmation, refutation, or modification.

What does the speaker suggest about the possibility of humans expanding their cognitive faculties?

The speaker is skeptical about the possibility of expanding our cognitive faculties, viewing them as a biological given that we cannot easily modify.

What potential insight might come from studying our language-forming capacity, according to the transcript?

Studying our language-forming capacity might give us insight into the limits of our science-forming abilities and identify areas where we cannot construct explanatory theories.

How does the speaker compare the progress in different scientific domains?

The speaker notes a stark contrast in progress between domains like physics, where there have been substantial advances, and others, like understanding the source of human action, where there seems to be an absolute blank wall.

What does the speaker suggest about the nature of questions that fall beyond our science-forming abilities?

The speaker suggests that some questions may simply be beyond our capacity to construct explanatory theories, and we might be able to identify these limits through further study.

What example does the speaker provide to illustrate the limitations of human understanding?

The speaker uses the question of how a person makes a free decision as an example of a question that we have no framework to approach scientifically.

What does the speaker imply about the potential for future scientific advancements?

The speaker implies that there may be a delineation between areas where scientific theories are intelligible and those where no such theory is possible, suggesting that we might gain insight into this boundary.

Outlines

00:00

🌌 Systematic Distortion in Human Perception

The speaker discusses how individuals construct a distorted view of the world based on their personal experiences, which are inherently limited. This leads to a collective human perception that is also systematically skewed. The conversation then turns to the idea that mankind's understanding of the universe is similarly distorted due to the cognitive apparatus we possess. The speaker suggests that while this apparatus may limit our understanding, it also provides the capacity for scientific innovation. Historically, science has made leaps in understanding despite limited evidence, often ignoring or idealizing data to form theories. This process is seen as a strength of human cognition, but it also implies that our theories may be far-reaching and sometimes incorrect. The speaker also touches on the idea that while we may improve our understanding of these cognitive faculties, it is unlikely that we can change or expand them due to their biological nature.

05:01

🔍 The Limits of Scientific Inquiry

In the second paragraph, the discussion continues with the idea that while we may understand the structure of the heart, we do not necessarily seek to replace it with a more efficient pump. Similarly, understanding the mental organs might help in pathological cases but not in enhancing our cognitive capacities. The speaker suggests that we might discover the limits of our science-forming abilities, recognizing that some questions may be beyond our capacity to explain. The speaker uses the history of science to illustrate how some areas of inquiry have seen substantial progress, while others, like understanding human decision-making, remain elusive. The speaker concludes by suggesting that the differences in progress reflect the inherent properties of our cognitive abilities and that we might be able to delineate the boundaries between what is comprehensible and what remains a mystery to our scientific understanding.

Keywords

💡Systematic Distortion

This refers to the way individual perspectives shape a biased view of the world, as suggested in the transcript. Since each person constructs their understanding based on limited personal experiences, these views are systematically distorted and narrow. This concept is central to the speaker’s argument that the human perception of reality is inherently skewed and suggests a fundamental limitation in our understanding of the world.

💡Science-Forming Capacity

This term describes a unique mental faculty that enables humans to create scientific theories and understand complex phenomena. It highlights the ability to generate explanatory frameworks that extend beyond immediate evidence. The speaker connects this capacity to the development of innovative theories, such as Newtonian physics, while emphasizing that the same capacity may limit us in domains beyond our current understanding.

💡Idealization

Idealization involves simplifying complex phenomena by making certain assumptions or excluding some evidence. The speaker discusses how, in science, researchers often disregard certain data to build clearer theories, hoping that anomalies will be addressed later. This process is a necessary step in theory formation but may lead to an incomplete understanding of reality.

💡Martian Scientist

The 'Martian scientist' is a hypothetical outsider used to illustrate the speaker’s point about human limitations. This imagined observer would see humans as capable of scientific progress in some fields, yet perpetually baffled in others, indicating a systematic bias in our intellectual faculties. This concept helps underline the argument that human cognitive capacities are limited to certain domains.

💡Blank Wall

The phrase 'blank wall' symbolizes the areas where human understanding and scientific exploration reach a standstill. The speaker uses it to contrast the progress in physical sciences, like physics, with the lack of progress in understanding human cognition and decision-making. This suggests that certain questions may be beyond human scientific capacity, reflecting limitations in our theory-forming abilities.

💡Cognitive Capacities

Cognitive capacities are the mental faculties that enable humans to perceive, reason, and form knowledge. The transcript explores whether these faculties are fixed biological constraints or whether they could be expanded. The speaker argues that while we can study these capacities, it’s unlikely that we can fundamentally alter them, comparing this limitation to how studying the structure of the heart doesn’t allow us to change its basic function.

💡Theory Construction

Theory construction refers to the process of developing scientific models or explanations for observed phenomena. In the script, it’s described as involving leaps of imagination and a selection of evidence, often ignoring conflicting data. This process enables humans to create intelligible theories but also means that many theories may turn out to be wrong or incomplete.

💡Explanatory Theories

Explanatory theories are structured frameworks that make sense of observed data and predict outcomes within a specific domain. The transcript emphasizes that such theories often extend beyond immediate evidence and may idealize or distort reality. The speaker illustrates this through examples from the history of science, suggesting that explanatory theories can be immensely powerful but also flawed.

💡Evolutionary Constraints

Evolutionary constraints refer to the biological limitations imposed on human faculties due to their evolutionary origins. The speaker argues that just as the heart is limited by its biological structure, our cognitive faculties are similarly bound by their evolutionary design. This suggests that certain forms of knowledge or understanding may forever lie beyond human reach due to these constraints.

💡Human Action

Human action is a complex concept referring to the decisions and behaviors performed by individuals. The speaker mentions that while humans have made significant progress in understanding physical phenomena, the origins and mechanisms of human decision-making remain elusive. This illustrates a domain where science hits a 'blank wall,' pointing to potential limits in our science-forming abilities.

Highlights

Individuals construct a distorted view of the world based on personal experiences.

Mankind's understanding of the universe is limited by our cognitive apparatus.

The concept of 'limited' is questioned as it implies a negative connotation.

Science forming capacity allows for the creation of explanatory theories beyond available evidence.

Innovative leaps in science often begin with limited evidence and disregard for some available evidence.

The process of scientific discovery involves idealization, distortion, and theory confirmation or refutation.

Our cognitive capacities allow for the development of intelligible theories about the world.

The faculty of forming theories may lead us astray in domains outside our scientific progress.

The possibility of a 'martian scientist' observing our successes and errors from a higher intelligence.

The challenge of formulating concepts and categories to gain insight into certain domains.

The study of language forming capacity could increase knowledge of human cognitive faculties.

It is unlikely that increased knowledge will enable us to change or expand our cognitive faculties.

The possibility of discovering the limits of our science forming abilities.

The idea that some questions may fall beyond our capacity to construct explanatory theories.

The historical comparison of progress in physics versus the stagnation in understanding human action.

The inability to construct scientific theories about free human decision-making.

The reflection on the specific properties of our science forming capacities and their impact on scientific progress.

Transcripts

what you say though about the

limitations that this imposes on us

prompts in me that the following thought

we're all very used I think to the idea

that in social life each one of us as

individuals tends to construct a picture

of the world around his own experience

and indeed we it's difficult to see how

we could do anything else we're bound to

do that we've got no alternative but it

does mean that each one of us forms a

systematically distorted view of the

world because it's in it because it's

all uh built up on what accidentally

happens to be the particular and really

rather narrow experience of the

individual who does it now do you think

that something of that kind applies to

man as a whole

because of the reasons implicit in your

theory that is to say that the the whole

picture that mankind has formed of the

cosmos of the universe of the world

to be systematically distorted and

what's more drastically Limited

by the nature of the particular

apparatus for understanding that he

happens to have

well I think that is undoubtedly the

case but again I would question the use

of the word limited which carries

unfortunate suggestions that is I assume

that

one of our faculties one of our mental

organs if you like is let's call it a

science forming capacity capacity to

create intelligible explanatory theories

in some domain and if we look at the

history of science we discover that time

after time when particular questions

were posed at a particular level of

understanding it was possible to make a

very Innovative

leaps of the imagination to Rich

explanatory theories that

presented an intelligible picture of

that subdomain of the universe often

wrong theories as we later discovered

but there's a course that's followed and

this gives this could have been the case

only because we do have and we in fact

share across the species a kind of a

science forming capacity that is that

limits us as you say but at the same in

the Same by the same token provides the

possibility of creating explanatory

theories that extend so vastly far

beyond any evidence that's available I

mean it's very important to realize that

should be

obvious say but it's worth saying that

when when is when a new theory is

created and I don't necessarily mean

Newton I mean even a small Theory what

the scientist is typically doing

uh first of all he has very limited

evidence the theory goes far far beyond

the evidence secondly much of the

evidence that's available is typically

disregarded that is it's put to the side

in the hope that somebody else will take

care of it someday and we can forget

about it so at every stage in the

history of science there's uh even

normal science not you know coonian

revolutions there's a high degree of

idealization that goes on so this

selection of evidence Distortion of

evidence creation of new Theory uh

confirmation or refutation or

modification of that theory further

idealization these are all very curious

steps now we're capable of nevertheless

we can often make them and make them in

a way which is intelligible to others it

doesn't look like some random act of the

imagination and where that's possible we

can we can develop intelligible theories

we can gain some comprehension of the

nature of this aspect of the world now

this is Possible only because we are

rigidly pre-programmed again because we

have somehow

developed through Evolution or however

the specific faculty of forming very

particular theories of course it follows

it once or at least follow it's

reasonable to assume that this very

faculty which enables us to construct

extremely rich and successful theories

in some domain

may lead us very far astray in some

other domain for example there may be

some you know again a martian scientist

looking at us and observing our

successes and errors from a higher

intelligence let's say might be bemused

to discover that whereas in some domains

we seem to be able to make scientific

progress in other domains we always seem

to be running up against a blank wall

because our minds are so constructive

that we just can't

make the intellectual leap that's

required we can't formulate the concepts

we don't have the categories that are

required to gain insight into that

domain

our study of our language forming

capacity and hence our cognitive

capacities as you call them our

abilities to know and understand and

learn

if these studies that you're pioneering

result in an enormously amount of

increased knowledge of all these human

faculties do you think it's at all

likely that that increased knowledge

will will enable us to change and indeed

expand the faculties

that I think is extremely unlikely

because I think the faculties are a

biological given we may study the

structure of the heart but we don't do

so because we think it's possible to

replace the Heart by another kind of

pump say which might be more efficient

uh

similarly here I think if if we ever did

gain a real comprehension of the mental

organs

we would not we might that might help us

in cases of pathology

uh marginal cases in other words but I

wouldn't see how that could have anyway

at least with our present science of our

you know plausible science of modifying

these capacities what we might do

however is gains I mean at least it's in

theory imaginable that we might discover

something about the limits of our

science forming abilities we might

discover for example that some kinds of

questions simply fall beyond the area

where we are capable of constructing

explanatory theories and I think we even

maybe now have some glimmerings of

insight into where this delineation

might be between intelligible theories

that fall within our comprehension and

areas where no such theory is possible

well the case that we discussed before

may be one take take the question of

if you go back to the you know take go

back to the early histories of Science

History of Science early origins of

science speculation and people were

raising questions about say the heavenly

bodies uh and about the sources of Human

Action

well we're asking exactly the same

questions now about the source of human

action there's been no progress we have

no idea how to approach this question

within the framework of science we can

write novels about it but we can't

construct even false scientific theories

about it we simply have nothing to say

when we ask uh the question how does a

person make a decision

in a certain Manner and not some other

manner when it's a free decision that we

just have no way of dealing with that

issue on the other hand the history of

physics let's say has had substantial

advances and uh very it's very likely I

think that that

massive difference in progress in one

domain and an absolute blank wall and

another reflects the specific properties

of our science forming capacities we

might even be able to show that someday

if it's true

[Music]

thank you

[Music]