Philosophia Polymathematica

The idea of the existence of reality independent of, and beyond our, limited human perception has been exhaustively expounded and debated in many different philosophical contexts. Different versions of the same basic premise have been variously called the noumenal world, Forms, dharma, and The Real among others. For purposes of this blog, I will, as per my general preference, use the Kantian terms of noumenal/phenomenal although I should be clear that I will not use the terms within the strict meaning of Kantian canon. While I am amenable to this idea, I am often troubled by how it contributes to erroneous conclusions amongst casual philosophers. It has also, over the years, reinforced in me the idea that in many matters, those who are oblivious are actually more likely to draw close-to-the-mark, albeit not accurate, conclusions than those who possess rudimentary or insufficient knowledge. Alas, that is an altogether different subject that deserves its own epistemological inquiry on s

“[The Twilight Zone] is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge.” –Rod Serling Rod Serling’s crowning achievement, The Twilight Zone, a Kafkaesque anthology show that frequently traversed through the realms of the supernatural, paranormal, and science fiction, is widely regarded as one of the greatest television shows of all time. Having premiered in the late 1950s, when filmic technology and special effects were nowhere near where they are today, the show relied on the brilliance of storytelling, dialogue, and thematic structure to captivate audiences. These are indeed timeless, transcendent, and permanent cinematic qualities, demonstrated by the fact that more than 50 years later The Twilight Zone has still not lost its charm. When in my early 30s I finally came around to exploring The Twilight Zone, I was immediately gripped by Serling’s penetrating opening voiceover

Philosophers, since ancient times, have asserted some version of the theory that apodictic certainty is a sine qua non for scientific knowledge. Apodicticity—with its literal linguistic definition being demonstrable or capable of being demonstrated—denotes that something is necessarily, axiomatically, or self-evidently true. The point is that apodictic propositions, either factual or logically deduced statements, are beyond dispute. For Aristotle, this was the chief distinguishing feature of science from other domains of human inquiry and knowledge. Based on my, what is most likely a very incomplete, understanding, for a claim to be countenanced as scientific it must minimally be, among other things, apodictic. To me, as an amateur philosopher, this proviso’s convenient and plain dilemma is that, what appear to be or are considered as, legitimately scientific claims also do not necessarily always bear apodictic certainty. Consider that significant aspects of Newtonian physics were eve