This then implies questions that concern all sciences at once and especially their systemic interrelations. It follows that the emergence of an assortment of solutions without fatal irreversible risks could only be supported by a unified scientific model. This would require both filling the theoretical gaps of science in the change of scale (e.g. mega/macro/nano) and erasing the epistemological borders between sciences (e.g. physics/biology or neurosciences/psychology or biology/sociology), as well as the sources of uncertainty intrinsic to the sciences themselves, in the complex game between what Bailly and Longo (2011) call the principles of mathematical construction (mathematical models or mathematical semantics) and the principles of proof (mathematical syntax or proof by measurement and experiment in physics). This is without forgetting, of course, a consubstantial indeterminacy of matter on a quantum scale.
These sources of uncertainty are, for example, incompleteness, unpredictability, undecidability, quantum decoherence, etc. – concepts that will need to be clarified further in this book, I would say, above all, of a-certainty stemming from the subject/object interaction in the very conception of the scientific approach. I will distinguish here between uncertainty and a-certainty: uncertainty accepts the fact that there is approximation in the result, but that, disregarding this approximation, the result can be certain, i.e. reproducible, supported by a theory complete with its experimental, causal and autonomous dimension (isolable from the rest), while a-certainty refers to the idea that there is no certainty about the theory and its application.
Once a well-founded position has been asserted on this issue of technoscientific mastery, the objective of this book will be to highlight a learning dynamic at work in our socio-technical systems aligned with the learning dynamic of the living world and to describe the levers that would promote their triumph without irreversible risks.
All in all, this book sheds light on a crucial debate on the possible role of technosciences and tries to show that the contributory revolution under way is global and profound, and that it concerns the whole epistemological field, from the sciences to social organizations (episteme). Its objective is to dive into the epistemological dimension of the lightning transition that we are experiencing, in order to identify the levers of the salutary acceleration of collective learning, which has become essential, once the debate is settled about a possible future based on a headlong technoscientific rush forward (trans-humanism, geo-engineering, eugenics, mastery of evolution, etc.). However, after this call to move from an exo-distributive technoscience based on deterministic and Newtonian models, to more biological and endo-contributory models, or even from arrogant mastery to humble influence and alliance, its limits will have to be fixed to avoid entering into an eco-philosophical radicalism which would in turn come to oppose our humanization process. Only extreme humility, supported by strong spirituality, can preserve us from it.
The animal condition, the human condition, the divine condition: we observe a move to extremes. Unlimited human pride can only be countered by unlimited humility born of the spirit (Manent 2019).
I.8. Style and general structure of the work
I will probably never know why, although originally an engineer and mathematician, I have never been able to come to terms with linear, deductive thinking. I feel as if I am locked in there, as if the need to have the destination point, in order to draw the shortest line of reasoning, bothered me. For me, it is a condition that is too restrictive, not speculative enough. Still, throughout my four previous essays, I tried to define my objective first and then develop my reasoning as a flawless argument. However, each time I developed it, the network of argument nodes led me to new speculative links, impossible to control. The matter of knowledge is incredibly alive; it is complex, and submits us, like the living world, to unpredictable disruptions, to sensitivities to the initial conditions of reasoning which, when we simply seek to be serious, shatter many claims that we believe to be true. The beliefs are there, lurking in the corners of all science, of any supposedly certain evolutionary equation. They prevent us from seeing, or compel us to see only what we believe, despite the most rigorous formal reasoning. Faults appear, and they lead me into changes of direction which constantly transform the final objective, which should end with “Therefore…”, or “Consequently I can state that…”. I only know how to proceed in a circular fashion, but at each pass, my thinking becomes more refined, with more moderation, more nuance, more “maybe”. It distorts the trajectory of the writing, at the same time as the contours of the conclusion.
So, this book will not escape what is now a style that many reproach me for and consider a limitation. But there it is. Though an engineer, I could never read a plan, and follow it step by step. It is the same thing when I assemble a piece of IKEA furniture. In fact, I have always been more attracted by the method of certain painters of my acquaintance, who work in layers, without really having a model, without a precise sketch of what they want to achieve. They paint a background, then another layer of background, reworking the first background if necessary, add another layer and so on, and finally the finishing touches. The canvas does not appear in its overall meaning until the last detail is finished, small and discreet as it may be. It is like a sentence that only makes sense at its final point.
There may be a feeling of repetition, but each time the argument will be refined. At each layer, each of the shapes will be defined by the definition they lend to others. It is, in some way, a circular system of writing.
1 1 Cochet, Y. (2018). Tribune de Yves Cochet – Socialter 2020, special issue, December. Yves Cochet is the former Minister of the Environment of France.
2 2 The words of the French industrialist, Pierre-Georges Latécoère, written on a commemorative plaque at 79 Bis, Avenue Marceau, Paris.
1
The Major Dualities in How Things are Perceived
The term conception is used here in the sense of the “way of perceiving” a reality, an idea or a system. It is an act of creating intelligibility, in the etymological sense: “intus legere”, to connect the interior. It allows the human brain to memorize and apprehend a perceived reality by inserting it into a system of mental representations, a reality on which thought locates and operates rules, concepts and classifications.
The notion of system here refers to a set of entities that interact with each other, producing a collective or “systemic” phenomenon correlated to this interaction. The act of bringing intelligibility or the “way of observing” will then be exercised by conferring to the system a structure of forms and operating principles, describable within a set of norms and formal concepts conveyed by a language (the system of representation). Particuarly in the field of science, major dualities appear in the ways of conceiving these objects, especially those that make up a “system”.
From a structural point of view, there are two opposing conceptions. On the one hand, the corpuscular or atomistic conceptions (in entities, in places, in identified objects with minimal stability, with a membrane, with a well-differentiated inside and outside) and, on the other hand, the tissue conceptions, diffuse, non-localized or structures of links (vibrations, energy, waves). The notions of scale and the position of the intervening party creating the “way of observing” the system, as well as the way in which someone intervenes in the system, apply across these dualities.
A new duality then arises according to whether the intervening party is an entity that is exogenous or endogenous to the system and whether they contribute to the system from within it (endo-contributive – ENC) or distribute their actions and artifacts from outside of it (exo-distributive – EXD). It will be seen that the relationship of the intervening party with a corpuscular design system can be endo-contributive or exo-distributive, or even a combination of the two depending on the scale, whereas in the case of fully tissue-based, diffuse designs, it can only be endo-contributive, itself not being confined to a compact entity. It is possible to generalize these principles by considering the intervening