"But, in the name of the experimental method and out of our poor knowledge, are we really entitled to claim that everything happens by chance, to the exclusion of all other possibilities?"
About this Quote
Claude’s question lands like a scalpel on an intellectual bad habit: using “chance” as a dignified way to say “we don’t know yet.” Coming from a scientist, the provocation isn’t anti-science; it’s a defense of scientific humility against a certain swagger that can creep in when “the experimental method” becomes a badge rather than a tool. He’s calling out a subtle category error: mistaking the limits of measurement for the nature of reality.
The line “in the name of the experimental method” is doing heavy lifting. Claude implies that method can be invoked almost like a moral authority, licensing sweeping metaphysical claims. That’s the satire embedded in the phrasing: science, meant to discipline speculation, can be repurposed to sanctify it. “Out of our poor knowledge” sharpens the indictment. If our knowledge is poor, why would we treat randomness as a conclusion instead of a placeholder?
Historically, this anxiety fits mid-20th-century science, when statistical thinking and quantum indeterminacy were filtering into broader cultural narratives: not just that some events are unpredictable, but that the world is fundamentally accidental. Claude, a pioneer of cell biology and microscopy, lived in a domain where apparent noise often resolves into structure once instruments improve. His subtext is pragmatic: don’t confuse ignorance with ontology. Chance may be real, but “everything by chance” is an overreach dressed up as rigor.
The line “in the name of the experimental method” is doing heavy lifting. Claude implies that method can be invoked almost like a moral authority, licensing sweeping metaphysical claims. That’s the satire embedded in the phrasing: science, meant to discipline speculation, can be repurposed to sanctify it. “Out of our poor knowledge” sharpens the indictment. If our knowledge is poor, why would we treat randomness as a conclusion instead of a placeholder?
Historically, this anxiety fits mid-20th-century science, when statistical thinking and quantum indeterminacy were filtering into broader cultural narratives: not just that some events are unpredictable, but that the world is fundamentally accidental. Claude, a pioneer of cell biology and microscopy, lived in a domain where apparent noise often resolves into structure once instruments improve. His subtext is pragmatic: don’t confuse ignorance with ontology. Chance may be real, but “everything by chance” is an overreach dressed up as rigor.
Quote Details
| Topic | Science |
|---|
More Quotes by Albert
Add to List
