The Fragile Bridge of Knowledge
Murtiningsih then constructs the hypothesis that philosophy is the bridge for that knowledge. Her thesis departs from the division between the natural sciences and the humanities.
Is it true that only philosophy can be a bridge for many disciplines? This question is an epistemic response to Siti Murtiningsih's article titled "The Bridge of Sciences" that appeared in Kompas (25/3/2022).
Before examining Murtiningsih's thoughts further, I first discuss the “core issue” of her writing, and then proceed to status quaestiones (the state of investigation). Murtiningsih begins her article by starting with a formal statement, that there is good will from the government in anticipating specializations with multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary sciences. The last three are a kind of a bridge between the sciences.
Murtiningsih then constructs the hypothesis that philosophy is the bridge for that knowledge. Her thesis departs from the division between the natural sciences and the humanities. She shows that, first, C.P. Snow built a bridge so that the sciences could “make peace” between one another. Second, she presents Veit and Ney's idea that metaphor can be a common ground for art and science.
Also read:
Science should Form Basis of Development
There is naive repetition in Murtiningsih's thesis. This is because, first, philosophy with all its past glory is still believed and largely glorified by its defenders, who reside in the philosophy faculty. Second, philosophy, which in the broadest sense is thinking and reasoning, can be a solution to life's problems and their complex details. For this reason, philosophy, for Murtiningsih, needs to be a “friend” to other sciences.
Competing sciences
The first question is, is it true that philosophy can be a bridge (or friend) for many disciplines? From what Murtiningsih suggests, the answer is no. This is due to her de facto lack of awareness that science is still metaphorized as a shady tree with branches, leaves and fruit, the roots of which are philosophy itself. This metaphor has been a long-held belief in the minds (interiority) of those who have studied philosophy. It is already fragile.
The fragility is because the other sciences have developed rapidly and are complex in their own right. The sciences are competing to hold the right to claim truth. Mathematics, for example, was the queen and servant of science for Eric Temple Bell. If mathematics is queen, then according to Nobel laureate David J. Gross, physics is the king of all sciences. These assumptions continue on Immanuel Kant's idea that metaphysics was the queen of the sciences during the Enlightenment.
The next question is, how are sciences related? Is a bridge (as Murtiningsih envisioned) still sufficient to connect so many branches of knowledge? A map showing the connectedness between paradigms could be an alternative solution. The current situation, as researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory have revealed, is that the map of science is growing ever more complex.
The map of science no longer illustrates the metaphor of a shady tree, but the Milky Way. The topography of knowledge relies on a network database of the natural sciences linking Thomson Scientific, Elsevier, Jstor, Ingenta and the campuses of the University of Texas and California State University. In addition, it maps patterns of attention and interest in cross-journal citations.
Certainly not! Philosophy, for me, retains its allure in dialectical interruptions.
Therefore, imagining philosophy as a bridge and friend is not adequate to support a paradigm on the connectedness of the sciences. Has philosophy then sunk to its lowest point and to approach its death, as mentioned by physicists such as Stephen Hawking and later, Lawrence Krauss? Certainly not! Philosophy, for me, retains its allure in dialectical interruptions.
During a panel discussion on “The Limit of Science”, Krauss was interrupted by Massimo Pigliucci and Daniel Dennett. Krauss believed that science as a whole, including mathematics (and physics), was based on empirical facts. Pigliucci criticized this statement as empty pyrrhic victory, and then asserted that philosophy was about thinking.
Krauss continued, saying that most scientists no longer read philosophy. Dennett then responded to Krauss: "You can't do science without doing philosophy." Dennett's statement actually emphasizes, “How can we think without philosophy?”
The important point I would like to make is, first, philosophy exists not as a mere friend, but rather as an interrupter. If it is only a friend with three roles (listening, mentoring and being the arbiter of bridging), philosophy will indeed be left behind and become unattractive. Moreover, if a student of philosophy only fulfills these three roles in a discussion, for example, philosophy would be silenced, dominated, and relegated to taking only the path of "peace". Philosophy becomes fragile and unexciting.
Exciting problem
In fact, philosophy needs to take another way, namely interrupt discussions, as Pigliucci and Dennett did, so the discussion becomes a discourse with dialectical tensions until it arrives at the pleasure of thinking.
If it arrives at a deadlock (aporia), there is no need to worry because in philosophy, “not finding an answer is an answer”. Interruptions are made first to provoke new questions. For this reason, in philosophy it is not the answer, but the problem that is presented in the question that offers the pleasure of thinking.
In the university curriculum, the division between the sciences and the humanities has actually been bridged for a long time.
For me, repositioning philosophy is unnecessary, especially in curriculum. Murtiningsih is not aware of this. Repositioning is a presupposition to anticipate pain (due to a sprain, or because of a fracture). In the university curriculum, the division between the sciences and the humanities has actually been bridged for a long time.
At the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), for example, the fine arts and design program is proof that the division of knowledge is no longer an issue. Philosophy at ITB is taught in a very challenging and fun way by Prof. Bambang Sugiarto, who cemented the spirit of the campus with the phrase In Harmoniae Progressio (Progress in Harmony). This de facto situation was ignored by Murtiningsih.
Also read:
Studying Secular Sciences in the Middle East
It should be realized that even in the humanities, the sciences compete with each other. The fields or clusters of knowledge that are formed by curriculum designers do not necessarily reduce or even produce unanimous and permanent conventions between one science and another. Legal science certainly has foundations that are scientifically different paradigms from the sociopolitical sciences.
Likewise, the humanities branches are growing increasingly complex today.
The case of the pawang hujan (rain shaman), which Murtiningsih mentions, is not just a conflict between the humanities and the exact sciences. Fellow humanities scholars actually have a variety of perspectives on the pawang hujan phenomenon in Mandalika.
Philosophy and cultural studies may be able to reveal a dimension of local wisdom that is believed to exist to control the rain. However, in theology, which is still loyal to revelationist dogma, pawang hujan is sometimes understood to be a form of syirik, a force that works against fate, and needs to be avoided.
The relationship between the humanities and the exact sciences is not permanent. Biological philosophy, for example, is taught at the biology faculty, but its lecturers are selected from within the faculty. The reason for this is because the lecturers have a doctoral degree, so it is assumed that they have taken a philosophy course (both general philosophy and the philosophy of science).
A consequence will occur when (general) philosophy comes up against teaching the exact sciences.
Thus, the philosophy of biology has become a standard course because its philosophical explorations are less deep and less powerful. A consequence will occur when (general) philosophy comes up against teaching the exact sciences.
Finally, as a challenge, philosophy scholars are expected to be capable of entering the newly emerging sciences, such as actuarial science, data science, biomedical technology, and digital marketing. Philosophy scholars play a role in proposing status quaestiones to provide a basis for these new sciences.
No less important, however, is that the government needs to be invited to a dialogue that philosophy actually functions to provide a strong scientific foundation, if necessary at the senior high school level, so that philosophy does not crumble.
Andri Fransiskus Gultom
Andri Fransiskus Gultom, Philosophy lecturer at PGRI Kanjuruhan University, Malang, and founder of the Pancasila Philosophy Institute
(This article was translated by Kurniawan Siswo).
