Against Fundamentalism

TL;DR

This paper challenges the notion of a most fundamental discipline by proposing a scale-free network model of knowledge, emphasizing equal importance of hubs across disciplines, influenced by science wars debates.

Contribution

It introduces a novel scale-free network theory of knowledge that refutes the idea of a single most fundamental discipline.

Findings

Knowledge has a scale-free network structure.

No discipline is ultimately more fundamental than others.

Discipline importance varies with context and perspective.

Abstract

In this essay, I argue that the idea that there is a most fundamental discipline, or level of reality, is mistaken. My argument is a result of my experiences with the "science wars", a debate that raged between scientists and sociologists in the 1990's over whether science can lay claim to objective truth. These debates shook my faith in physicalism, i.e. the idea that everything boils down to physics. I outline a theory of knowledge that I first proposed in my 2015 FQXi essay on which knowledge has the structure of a scale-free network. In this theory, although some disciplines are in a sense "more fundamental" than others, we never get to a "most fundamental" discipline. Instead, we get hubs of knowledge that have equal importance. This structure can explain why many physicists believe that physics is fundamental, while some sociologists believe that sociology is fundamental. This updated version of the essay includes and appendix with my responses to the discussion of this essay on the FQXi website.