What do you think?
Rate this book
What We Can Never Know: Blindspots in Philosophy and Science
Contemporary philosophy and science strive to give a complete account of the world and our position in it. In this original and provocative book, David Gamez engages the reader in a series of colourful thought experiments that illustrate the limits of this mission. Although we commonly believe that science will give a final description of everything, What We Can Never Know reveals blindspots in many of our theories that completely undermine their ability to explain reality. Each chapter explores these problems using a popular question or topic in philosophy, such as our perception of space, the nature of time, scepticism or the relationship between reason and madness. In this series of lively studies, Gamez pushes our everyday assumptions to their limits and opens up fresh perspectives on philosophy and science. By leading the reader progressively through key areas of our knowledge, this book will leave you questioning everything that you think you know.
- GenresPhilosophy
287 pages, Paperback
First published February 15, 2007
3 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 3, 2015
A complete head-trip of a book. Kaleidoscopically-written with irruptions of first-person reflection, second-person thought-experiment breaking through thickets of philosophical science fiction or even blank verse. The whole, though, is structured across three unfolding arguments suggesting that we cannot possibly know or describe reality – trapped as we are in brains without access to an external world, bound by inexplicable time that projects us "as existence", and unable to distinguish madness from sanity.
David Gamez, in other words, has been down the rabbit-hole of positive scepticism and wants to drag us all with him.
Gamez highlights collapsing or unstable theories to demonstrate what we can never know for sure: that we are always trapped in one-way hermeneutical dead-ends which cannot guarantee any purchase on reality. For example, neuroscience claims that "our bodies and environment are both represented within a single virtual reality model that is entirely contained in the brain." Unfortunately, "although this interpretation of neuroscience is unavoidable, it suffers from the fatal problem that it is based on evidence taken from our experiences with real brains, and yet claims that we have never seen or touched a real brain."
Drawing on neuroscience, information theory, the sociology of deviance and labelling, as well as classical and modern philosophy, What We Can Never Know is wide-ranging, thought-provoking, if a little (deliberately) uneven. The section on time, for example, I found fairly hard going.
Gamez is resigned to being caught in an uneasy movement between the possibility of constructing theories based on evidence, accepting their ultimate collapse into warrantless belief, and returning again to construct evidence-based theories. Positive scepticism, despite its happy moniker, is a fairly pessimistic view of human epistemology. He is, at least, bold enough to admit that it is not really a viable basis on which to make plans, enter into relationships, reflect and act ethically, or really do much of anything at all.
The account of collapsing theories is fairly robust, but I don't think the evidence for positive scepticism is always as Gamez portrays it. Phantom limbs, for example, are offered as evidence of the “brain hypothesis” (that we are only able to inhabit the virtual world constructed by our brains which encompasses everything, including our brains). Gamez suggests that our entire body (and every sensory experience) may be phantoms of the brain in just the same way – mapped out through the firing of neurons. However, while the mapping of phantom limbs onto the brain’s body sense is a really interesting phenomenon, phantom limbs are generally felt but not seen. Our brain, it seems, protects its body map in surprising ways but does not do so for everyone (not everyone experiences phantom limbs) and not at the expense of discarding all sensory (dis)confirmation.
He’s right to point out the difficulties in maintaining logically coherent accounts of perception, time and sanity. But despite these difficulties, people will unavoidably persist in experiencing others and their environment precisely as others and their environment – external to themselves. We will carry on talking about the past, the present and the future regardless of the difficulties in defining these. And we will preserve, however hesitantly and sensitively, a distinction between sanity and madness. In the face of people’s lived reality, it’s not really possible to be a positive sceptic. Critical realism, for all its challenges, makes sense of what we may not be able to fully or properly describe.
But it's fun to think about impossible things.
David Gamez, in other words, has been down the rabbit-hole of positive scepticism and wants to drag us all with him.
Gamez highlights collapsing or unstable theories to demonstrate what we can never know for sure: that we are always trapped in one-way hermeneutical dead-ends which cannot guarantee any purchase on reality. For example, neuroscience claims that "our bodies and environment are both represented within a single virtual reality model that is entirely contained in the brain." Unfortunately, "although this interpretation of neuroscience is unavoidable, it suffers from the fatal problem that it is based on evidence taken from our experiences with real brains, and yet claims that we have never seen or touched a real brain."
Drawing on neuroscience, information theory, the sociology of deviance and labelling, as well as classical and modern philosophy, What We Can Never Know is wide-ranging, thought-provoking, if a little (deliberately) uneven. The section on time, for example, I found fairly hard going.
Gamez is resigned to being caught in an uneasy movement between the possibility of constructing theories based on evidence, accepting their ultimate collapse into warrantless belief, and returning again to construct evidence-based theories. Positive scepticism, despite its happy moniker, is a fairly pessimistic view of human epistemology. He is, at least, bold enough to admit that it is not really a viable basis on which to make plans, enter into relationships, reflect and act ethically, or really do much of anything at all.
The account of collapsing theories is fairly robust, but I don't think the evidence for positive scepticism is always as Gamez portrays it. Phantom limbs, for example, are offered as evidence of the “brain hypothesis” (that we are only able to inhabit the virtual world constructed by our brains which encompasses everything, including our brains). Gamez suggests that our entire body (and every sensory experience) may be phantoms of the brain in just the same way – mapped out through the firing of neurons. However, while the mapping of phantom limbs onto the brain’s body sense is a really interesting phenomenon, phantom limbs are generally felt but not seen. Our brain, it seems, protects its body map in surprising ways but does not do so for everyone (not everyone experiences phantom limbs) and not at the expense of discarding all sensory (dis)confirmation.
He’s right to point out the difficulties in maintaining logically coherent accounts of perception, time and sanity. But despite these difficulties, people will unavoidably persist in experiencing others and their environment precisely as others and their environment – external to themselves. We will carry on talking about the past, the present and the future regardless of the difficulties in defining these. And we will preserve, however hesitantly and sensitively, a distinction between sanity and madness. In the face of people’s lived reality, it’s not really possible to be a positive sceptic. Critical realism, for all its challenges, makes sense of what we may not be able to fully or properly describe.
But it's fun to think about impossible things.
June 28, 2011
When I was younger, so much younger than today
I never needed circular hermeneutics in any way
But now these days are gone I'm so self-assured
Now I find I've changed my mind and given up its law
Help me if you can, I'm tired of AI
And I do appreciate the logic of my
Help me get my ideas back on the ground
Won't you please, please help me?
I never needed circular hermeneutics in any way
But now these days are gone I'm so self-assured
Now I find I've changed my mind and given up its law
Help me if you can, I'm tired of AI
And I do appreciate the logic of my
Help me get my ideas back on the ground
Won't you please, please help me?
Did not finish
December 11, 2023Not sure why he decided to write this book in this way.
1: assumes you have knowledge of philosophical concepts like Absolute Spirit already, without explaining them. Dude, I’m reading your book so I don’t HAVE to read Hegel. I shouldn’t need to be researching on my own.
2: endless allegories and creative writing exercises that distract from his main points, which are written like a difficult textbook.
3: hopelessly disorganized within topics, the combination of over-explained obvious concepts (you are not perceiving the world as it is but how your brain is deciding to interpret it) while under-explaining more complex topics to the point where I’m struggling to actually get to his actual point. Needs clear sections delineating point by point without getting distracted. Build upon the last section with the next. Start simple and work to complicated.
4: a chapter both starts and ends with a sentence fragment where words are cut off. Must be an editing error?
For such an interesting and ambitious title, the actual content is beyond frustrating. I’m not an idiot but these topics shouldn’t be described in such esoteric, annoying ways. Reference your actual philosophers in shorthand! Don’t leave giant, difficult to interpret quotes from them without context in the middle of the page!
Also, major weird vibes about his wife. Discusses her breasts and slicing her open to contrast her insides with her outsides in the introduction. Discusses her inappropriately, repeatedly throughout. Gross, unnecessary dude.
1: assumes you have knowledge of philosophical concepts like Absolute Spirit already, without explaining them. Dude, I’m reading your book so I don’t HAVE to read Hegel. I shouldn’t need to be researching on my own.
2: endless allegories and creative writing exercises that distract from his main points, which are written like a difficult textbook.
3: hopelessly disorganized within topics, the combination of over-explained obvious concepts (you are not perceiving the world as it is but how your brain is deciding to interpret it) while under-explaining more complex topics to the point where I’m struggling to actually get to his actual point. Needs clear sections delineating point by point without getting distracted. Build upon the last section with the next. Start simple and work to complicated.
4: a chapter both starts and ends with a sentence fragment where words are cut off. Must be an editing error?
For such an interesting and ambitious title, the actual content is beyond frustrating. I’m not an idiot but these topics shouldn’t be described in such esoteric, annoying ways. Reference your actual philosophers in shorthand! Don’t leave giant, difficult to interpret quotes from them without context in the middle of the page!
Also, major weird vibes about his wife. Discusses her breasts and slicing her open to contrast her insides with her outsides in the introduction. Discusses her inappropriately, repeatedly throughout. Gross, unnecessary dude.
January 28, 2011
If you just want a fun time thinking about impossible stuff, this is a good book for you. If you want a book that deals with the fundamental rigor of how to live, I wouldn't choose this one. Highly entertaining (and that's not a bad thing in philosophy, the ol' bones could use some animation), Gamez tends to follow the ad absurdium proof of our everyday existence which paints those of us who believe in our own bodies (although we can't prove them) into a very tight corner. Yet we (the sensible body-type folk) have an out: we all act as if we believe, and actions (as the saying goes) speak louder than words. This is a good book to give to someone who postures about religious or political differences. They are simple enough to be blown away by it.
April 17, 2011
i'll be honest. i did not read this book, i skimmed through it, only reading the bits that looks interesting. about 90% of the terms and concepts present in this book was beyond me to grasp and understand. i could, if i REALLY tried and made an effort. or have someone to explain some paragraphs i couldn't get. but i don't.
anyway, this book is definitely written for someone who is interested in both philosphy and science. probably someone who is majoring on those subjects. not really suitable for a 17-year-old girl who is only going to (re)sit for her O-levels this year. 2 stars.
anyway, this book is definitely written for someone who is interested in both philosphy and science. probably someone who is majoring on those subjects. not really suitable for a 17-year-old girl who is only going to (re)sit for her O-levels this year. 2 stars.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews