For centuries in the West, we believed knowledge was infinitely extendable, its limits nothing more than the edges of a map waiting to be filled in. The Enlightenment reinforced the conviction that reason would progressively extend the edges of our world, unveiling every mystery. But today this optimism is under pressure. Physicists from Heisenberg to Hawking have abandoned the idea that science can escape models of the universe to uncover an ultimate account. Philosophers, anthropologists, and sociologists have identified the constraints physiology, language, and culture pose to our complete understanding of the world.
Have we exchanged a world where the limits of knowledge were at the edges of our understanding, for a world in which there is no knowledge at all? And if so, should we give up on knowledge in favour of frameworks that enable us to achieve outcomes we desire? Or is it vital to distinguish between the true and the false, the known and the unknown?
Have we exchanged a world where the limits of knowledge were at the edges of our understanding, for a world in which there is no knowledge at all? And if so, should we give up on knowledge in favour of frameworks that enable us to achieve outcomes we desire? Or is it vital to distinguish between the true and the false, the known and the unknown?
