Loved this. There is a world of difference between don't and can't. Does the concept of epistemic humility require acceptance of can't (ie some things are definitively unknowable)? Is it sufficient to have a more conditional principle than expressed above "human knowledge has limits and there are some things we cannot actually know"? Perhaps something like in the pursuit of human knowledge, there are some things we may never actually know? Epistemic humility becomes a way of managing this potential.
Really interesting question. Thanks! I'd say your more conditional principle still counts as epistemic humility, even if I'd argue for a stronger version that includes can't. My view is that there are things that are definitely unknowable, but we can't be sure we know where to draw the line between knowable and unknowable. i.e. We have to be humble about our knowledge of where to draw that line.
For example, I'm personally convinced that penetrating the Heisenberg Uncertainty above is in the 'humans can't know' category, but I'll recognise it is possible that I'm wrong and there new paradigm in physics might emerge that allows us to. Another simple example that I think falls into the 'can't know' category is the philosophical question: what is it like to be a bat?
What interests me most about quantum physics is that assuming there is something can't know allowed the development of an incredibly productive theory. It suggests there is explanatory power in assuming there are things we can't know.
While I suspect there are questions that are definitionally unknowable, I am happy to humbly let time play out to determine whether I am right or wrong. My equivalent to your drawing the line (every line we draw may well be wrong).
I loved the use of quantum physics to demonstrate the value of the unknown.
As an aside, I am not sure about bats generally but I am sure my cricket bat if sentient would have wondered why I used the edge so often and the middle so rarely. Not the same thing I guess.
I wonder if the reason quantum physics is fascinating to the interested lay person is simply because it is so conceptually weird. Rocket science is proverbially complex and it undergirds amazing feats of human accomplishment, but it is based on boring old Newtonian physics that is intuitively understandable to anyone who has ever sat under an apple tree. It doesn't stir the imagination in quite the same way as an existentially-challenged cat in a box does. But we have no direct experience of interacting with objects at atomic scales or moving at the speed of light, and presumably there was no evolutionary advantage in being able to have such experiences (unlike being able to see and feel and think about apples dropping on one's head), so it's not really surprising to me that we cannot conceptually understand what happens in the quantum world. What I find really impressive - and, in that regard, well done, humans - is that some really smart people have developed non-intuitive, conceptually bizarre knowledge that describes the world so accurately. If epistemic limits are determined by what we can conceptually grasp, then we've come to a dead-end. But knowledge of quantum physics enables the creation of really useful things like computer chips, lasers and GPS, and perhaps we should just be satisfied with predicting outcomes from the equations to enable the creation of such things rather than trying to grasp what is 'really' happening in a way our very limited senses can understand.
I agree with almost all of this (although Newtonian physics was astonishing and anything but boring in its day!). The problem is that people very often do dismiss a theory or a point of view simply because they don't understand it or it doesn't make sense.
Quantum physics is a nice example of how sometimes if you accept a starting point that you can't get your head around, a lot of other things then start to be predictable and make sense.
Loved this. There is a world of difference between don't and can't. Does the concept of epistemic humility require acceptance of can't (ie some things are definitively unknowable)? Is it sufficient to have a more conditional principle than expressed above "human knowledge has limits and there are some things we cannot actually know"? Perhaps something like in the pursuit of human knowledge, there are some things we may never actually know? Epistemic humility becomes a way of managing this potential.
Really interesting question. Thanks! I'd say your more conditional principle still counts as epistemic humility, even if I'd argue for a stronger version that includes can't. My view is that there are things that are definitely unknowable, but we can't be sure we know where to draw the line between knowable and unknowable. i.e. We have to be humble about our knowledge of where to draw that line.
For example, I'm personally convinced that penetrating the Heisenberg Uncertainty above is in the 'humans can't know' category, but I'll recognise it is possible that I'm wrong and there new paradigm in physics might emerge that allows us to. Another simple example that I think falls into the 'can't know' category is the philosophical question: what is it like to be a bat?
What interests me most about quantum physics is that assuming there is something can't know allowed the development of an incredibly productive theory. It suggests there is explanatory power in assuming there are things we can't know.
While I suspect there are questions that are definitionally unknowable, I am happy to humbly let time play out to determine whether I am right or wrong. My equivalent to your drawing the line (every line we draw may well be wrong).
I loved the use of quantum physics to demonstrate the value of the unknown.
As an aside, I am not sure about bats generally but I am sure my cricket bat if sentient would have wondered why I used the edge so often and the middle so rarely. Not the same thing I guess.
If you are interested in reading more about bats and philosophy of consciousness, you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat
I wonder if the reason quantum physics is fascinating to the interested lay person is simply because it is so conceptually weird. Rocket science is proverbially complex and it undergirds amazing feats of human accomplishment, but it is based on boring old Newtonian physics that is intuitively understandable to anyone who has ever sat under an apple tree. It doesn't stir the imagination in quite the same way as an existentially-challenged cat in a box does. But we have no direct experience of interacting with objects at atomic scales or moving at the speed of light, and presumably there was no evolutionary advantage in being able to have such experiences (unlike being able to see and feel and think about apples dropping on one's head), so it's not really surprising to me that we cannot conceptually understand what happens in the quantum world. What I find really impressive - and, in that regard, well done, humans - is that some really smart people have developed non-intuitive, conceptually bizarre knowledge that describes the world so accurately. If epistemic limits are determined by what we can conceptually grasp, then we've come to a dead-end. But knowledge of quantum physics enables the creation of really useful things like computer chips, lasers and GPS, and perhaps we should just be satisfied with predicting outcomes from the equations to enable the creation of such things rather than trying to grasp what is 'really' happening in a way our very limited senses can understand.
I agree with almost all of this (although Newtonian physics was astonishing and anything but boring in its day!). The problem is that people very often do dismiss a theory or a point of view simply because they don't understand it or it doesn't make sense.
Quantum physics is a nice example of how sometimes if you accept a starting point that you can't get your head around, a lot of other things then start to be predictable and make sense.