…
Y: Is this really what we’re concerned with? Is our goal to sound intellectual?
M: You’re misrepresenting it. If the description is flawed, analysis becomes impossible. Otherwise, all our effort is wasted. We need to describe the situation impartially. You can’t begin an analysis by dismissing what you can’t reach as worthless.
Y: Reach what? A pile of pretentious jargon?
D: Let’s call it exaggeration rather than pretentious jargon. This is a bit much, my friend.
M: And how are we supposed to know what is “too much”?
Y: How can we live without deciding what’s necessary?
M: You’re right—we do need some sense of direction. But isn’t it also necessary, at least from time to time, to admit that we don’t know something?
Y: Is this your admission? More terminology?
M: It’s an attempt at admitting it. Is there no alternative?
Y: Religion already does everything you’re trying to do here.
M: Which religion? Everyone has a different understanding of religion.
Y: Everyone has a different understanding of philosophy too. Which one of the hundreds of schools that contradict each other are we supposed to choose?
D: Stop arguing and come over to science. Neither of you would be accepted within your own fields, but science is open to everyone.
Y: Science is knowledge turned into capital. It’s an enterprise that doesn’t exist without money. I wouldn’t trust it that much.
D: I don’t judge the people who produce it—I judge the product itself. We don’t reject a work of art because of the artist. If it’s beautiful, we appreciate it. Likewise, if scientific knowledge is true, we don’t reject it.
Y: Truth isn’t true everywhere. What matters is who uses knowledge. Knowledge means nothing by itself.
M: That kind of confidence corrupts people. Besides, the science in human hands…
D: That’s precisely why science exists as a distinct institution—to serve as an alternative to other institutions that become corrupted by misplaced trust. Don’t worry. As long as there are speculators like you, science will keep itself in check.
M: Then I’ll assume you at least recognize the importance of speculation as a counterweight.
D: Not its importance—its inevitability.
Y: You know, your science has become a religion, and you don’t even realize it.
D: How is that? I’m not trying to bribe some invisible supernatural force.
Y: Are you saying we’re bribing one?
D: You’re remarkably similar to the pagan religions you criticize—rituals, offerings, and eventually a whole pantheon of divine figures.
Y: That’s a bit harsh. You can’t equate paganism with the Abrahamic religions.
D: Every religion has passed through that path and eventually faded away. Yours won’t be the first.
M: That’s a deterministic claim. With such sweeping generalizations, you’re only reducing reality to fit your own ideas. Reality is far more uncertain and complex.
D: Am I wrong? And how is philosophy any different? Back when you could make grand speculative claims without consequence, no one objected. But now that we can know, there’s no need to believe.
M: At least you could have avoided equating the two.
D: What both sides have in common is that, instead of facing the difficulty of knowing, they retreat into belief and the ambiguity of words.
M: Tell me, then—what keeps you alive? Why do you live?
D: That’s outside the scope of science. I can give you an answer, but it won’t come from science.
M: Didn’t you just say that this is the age of science?
D: Science deals with knowledge—the history and order of the universe. Predicting the future belongs to speculative sorcery like yours.
Y: Stop dodging the question. What’s your motivation for continuing to live?
…
