Ignoramus et ignorabimus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Latin maxim ignoramus et ignorabimus meaning "we do not know and will not know", stood for a pessimistic (in one sense) position on the limits of scientific knowledge, in the thought of the nineteenth century. It was given credibility by Emil du Bois-Reymond, a German physiologist, in his Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens ("On the limits of our understanding of nature") of 1872. It generated continuing debate.
On the 8th of September 1930, the mathematician David Hilbert pronounced his disagreement in a celebrated address to the Society of German Scientists and Physicians, in Königsberg:
| “ | Wir dürfen nicht denen glauben, die heute mit philosophischer Miene und überlegenem Tone den Kulturuntergang prophezeien und sich in dem Ignorabimus gefallen. Für uns gibt es kein Ignorabimus, und meiner Meinung nach auch für die Naturwissenschaft überhaupt nicht. Statt des törichten Ignorabimus heiße im Gegenteil unsere Losung:
Wir müssen wissen — wir werden wissen! |
” |
| “ | We must not believe those, who today, with philosophical bearing and deliberative tone, prophesy the fall of culture and accept the ignorabimus. For us there is no ignorabimus, and in my opinion none whatever in natural science. In opposition to the foolish ignorabimus our slogan shall be:
We must know — we will know! |
” |
Hilbert worked with other formalists to establish concrete foundations for mathematics in the early 20th century. However, Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed in 1931 that no finite system of axioms, if complex enough to express our usual arithmetic, could ever fulfil the goals of Hilbert's program, demonstrating many of Hilbert's aims impossible.
The sociologist Wolf Lepenies has discussed the ignorabimus with a view that du Bois-Reymond was not really retreating in his claims for science and its reach:
- it is in fact an incredibly self-confident support for scientific hubris masked as modesty
This is in a discussion of Friedrich Wolters, one of the Stefan George circle. Lepenies comments that Wolters misunderstood the degree of pessimism being expressed about science, but well understood the implication that scientists themselves could be trusted with self-criticism.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Hilbert's radio address, and transcription and English translation.
- ^ Lepenies, Between Literature and Science: the Rise of Sociology, ISBN 978-0-52-133810-3.
