The Myths We Think With: Toward an Epistemology of Limits

Foundations of Perception: Human Metaphysics and the Scientific Endeavor

Human beings comprehend the world through the interplay of two distinct yet interdependent registers: the immediacy of embodied experience and the abstraction of the scientific method. On the one hand, our sensory apparatus constrains and contours our raw encounter with reality. Humans perceive only a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum, hear sounds within a limited frequency range, and navigate space according to an inherited, species-specific set of perceptive cues. These perceptual bounds are overlaid with deeper narratives—cultural, psychological, even mythical—that pre-shape our affective responses. Jakarta’s notorious traffic, for instance, provokes more than mere impatience: it triggers the internalized myth that velocity equals value, casting even a brief delay as damage to one’s worth.

On the other hand, the scientific method extends and refines our natural capacities. Through systematic hypothesis formation, controlled experimentation, rigorous peer review, and the demand for statistical significance, science has delivered profound breakthroughs: Louis Pasteur’s germ theory, which transformed public health; the mRNA vaccines that stemmed a global pandemic; and LIGO’s detection of gravitational waves, confirming ripples in spacetime first predicted by Einstein. These achievements demonstrate science’s unique power to convert anecdotal observation into replicable, consensual knowledge. Yet even the most exacting protocols rest upon human-devised concepts—measurements are interpreted through mathematical models, and “replicability” itself depends on standardized instrumentation and shared methodological assumptions.

Thus emerges a pivotal question: do these methodological triumphs grant us direct access to the noumenal “thing-in-itself,” or do they simply elaborate, with ever-greater precision, the manifold phenomena as refracted through the human cognitive apparatus?

When Science Falls Short: Consciousness and Empirical Limits

Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy exposes a fundamental firewall: phenomena are always mediated by categories of space, time, and causality, while the noumenon—things-in-themselves—remains forever inaccessible (Kant 167). Confronting this sensorium of limitation, the Hard Problem of consciousness emerges: subjective experience, or qualia, refuses full capture by objective, third-person descriptions. Attempts to reduce the vivid redness of a sunset, the pang of loss, or the warmth of communion to neural firings reveal a conceptual chasm that our truth-factory of science cannot bridge.

Quantum mechanics compounds this epistemic gap. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle shows that the very act of measurement transforms the observed system; electrons exist in superposed probabilities until an observation forces a single outcome. In this light, measurement ceases to be a neutral window on reality and becomes an active participant in the phenomenon. Slavoj Žižek’s provocation—“we have caught God with his pants down”—serves as a biting metaphor for the moment science exposes its own limitations, unveiling that reality resists the brute application of empirical probes (Žižek). This metaphor invites two complementary readings: one, that the universe itself is ontologically incomplete, thus paradoxically contradicting the very function of ontology—if existence harbors fundamental gaps, then metaphysical inquiry finds not certainty but confusion; and two, the more epistemological interpretation we have discussed thus far, where the act of observation reveals the structural limitation of human attempts to capture The Real. In either case, what emerges is not the mastery of reality, but the exposure of its radical inadequacy.

Moreover, the replicability cornerstone of the scientific method encounters a profound challenge when one considers consciousness beyond the human subject. Experiments designed by human investigators presuppose human modes of perception and cognition. If a non-human intelligence—be it cetacean, avian, or artificial—were to pursue identical protocols, would it synthesize the same laws? While simpler forms of cognition demonstrate consistent behavioral responses under controlled stimuli, the assumption that scientific laws universally apply to all conscious beings remains conjectural. This invites the reasonable hypothesis of forms of higher-order consciousness—or higher intelligences—whose experiential matrices might yield novel phenomena beyond our current epistemic reach.

Thus, empirical tools, however sophisticated, continuously reshape rather than exhaust the mysteries they probe. Every refined instrument and every repeatable experiment bolster our confidence in patterns of phenomena but never delivers the unmediated noumenal core of reality. Science, in its noble quest, maps an ever-expanding territory of appearances, yet The Real—the “thing-in-itself”—remains shrouded behind the inescapable firewall of human cognition.

A More Abstract Layer of Reality: Language, Mathematics, and Power-Knowledge

Language is the operating system of thought: it defines the commands we can issue, the loops we can write, and the exceptions we even notice. Think of a research paper I read last month—simply swapping “risk factor” for “predictor” shifted the entire framing of the study, recasting causal claims into probabilistic hypotheses. A single semantic tweak can reroute whole debates, like a refactored function that unexpectedly breaks smaller logic and arithmetic.

Mathematics operates as a domain-specific language for nature: its symbols and axioms aren’t cosmic constants but human-devised notations that both unlock patterns and impose limits. When climate models compress complex fluid dynamics into matrix algebra, they reveal large-scale trends—but they also erase the eddies and microclimates that live outside their grid. In that sense, equations are not transparent windows but carefully coded scripts that shape what gets simulated and what remains invisible (Wittgenstein 76).

Beyond these symbolic lenses, Michel Foucault’s power-knowledge nexus reminds us that “objective” science often serves institutional agendas (Foucault 27). I’ve sat in project meetings where “statistical significance” became the trump card—even when the human costs told another story. Pharmaceutical trials, algorithmic surveillance, and standardized testing all wield empirical rigor as a means of control: they validate certain outcomes, elevate specific voices, and suppress inconvenient anomalies.

In sum, scientific methodologies—through their linguistic labels, mathematical formalisms, and institutional protocols—function as a mythic apparatus. They illuminate parts of reality even as they blind us to everything beyond their predefined scopes. Understanding this duality is the first step toward an epistemic humility that treats our most cherished data not as final truths but as provisional maps, always subject to revision.

Towards Epistemic Humility: Mythopoeian Epistemology and Metaphysics

Given these limitations, an attitude of epistemic humility becomes imperative. Etymologically, mythos denotes ‘story’ or ‘word’; genealogically, myths have guided communal values from pre-literate tribes to modern nation-states. Far from archaic relics, myths function as interpretive systems—cognitive frameworks that order experience, authorize inquiry, and establish criteria for truth claims. Just as scientific paradigms channel investigations through protocols of measurement and peer validation, mythic paradigms shape which questions appear meaningful, which anomalies warrant investigation, and which voices count as authoritative.

To characterize science itself as mythic is not to diminish its breakthroughs but to reveal its own narrative scaffolding: the myth of objective neutrality, the belief in progress as an inexorable march, and the dogma of scientism, which insists that only quantifiable phenomena deserve serious consideration. Recognizing science as one among many interpretive traditions invites a broader pluralism: it acknowledges that myth-making and empirical inquiry share a common logic of model-building, hypothesis-testing, and communal validation. This realization paves the way for a mythopoeian epistemology that treats myths not as obstacles to knowledge but as tools to be examined, revised, or replaced according to evolving cultural needs and ethical commitments.

A mythopoeian epistemology offers a constructive response by insisting on three interrelated procedures:

1. Expose: Employ psychoanalytic critique to uncover unconscious narratives that confer unquestioned authority upon certain beliefs, revealing the surplus enjoyment that sustains them.

2. Excavate: Utilize genealogical analysis to trace how myths have served particular power structures, thereby recognizing their historical contingency.

3. Enact: Engage dialectics and deconstruction to re-mythologize interpretive frameworks, generating provisional narratives that embrace ambiguity and foster creative renewal.

4. 
   

Such a praxis transforms myth from an enemy of reason into a tool of epistemic reflection. For instance, rather than reflexively unlocking your phone to scroll through an endless feed of notifications the moment you wake, you might instead brew a simple cup of coffee and step onto your balcony or into your garden. Spend those first five minutes attending to the weight of the mug in your hand, the steam rising against your skin, the sound of birdsong or distant traffic—thereby enacting an alternative narrative of sensory presence in place of algorithmic consumption.

“In the gap between notions and things, myths arise to contour the boundaries of inquiry.”

This analysis calls for active participation in narrative formation: every asserted “fact” invites scrutiny of the myth that undergirds it. Only through such continuous critique and creative recomposition can understanding advance toward, though never fully attain, the noumenal core.