state of the agent), it becomes possible to perform a statistical analysis of the
outcomes, in order to discover possibly invariant “laws” that nomothetically apply to
all “adventures”. For example, such a series of experiments might find out that agents
who use a particular system of rules are more fit—in the sense of successfully
exploiting affordances and avoiding disturbances and thus surviving—than those
following different rules [Gershenson, 2004].
The formulation of such “rules of behavior” is the implicit goal of both
narrative and scientific worldviews. The typical function of myths, fairy tales and
fables is to teach the audience various rules of good behavior—both in the sense of
moral and ethical values (e.g. help the weak, do not strive purely for material gains),
and in the more pragmatic sense of problem-solving strategies (e.g. get informed well
before undertaking a major enterprise, exercise in order to build physical strength).
These rules are taught by illustrative stories in which the heroes who follow these
rules fare well, while those who do not get in trouble. The scientific worldview
eschews any notion of moral values, formulating rules or laws as “the way agents
behave” rather than “the way agents ought to behave”. But an accurate description of
how things tend to behave is easily and naturally translated into a strategy for making
things behave more effectively, as the endless technological and social applications of
science illustrate. In that sense, as many observers have pointed out, science is much
less “neutral” or “value-free” in its implications than it theoretically claims to be: the
neutral observation that some phenomenon A (e.g. smoking) tends to cause some
other phenomenon B (e.g. cancer), where B is generally considered to have negative
(or positive) value, will automatically lead to a negative (positive) evaluation of A.
Conclusion
This paper has tried to lay the foundations for a unification of the “two cultures”: the
scientific and narrative modes of looking at the world. At first sight, these two
perspectives are completely opposed: science strives to formulate objective, timeless
and context-independent laws, while narrative describes unique sequences of events
happening to particular subjects in particular contexts. Moreover, science seeks
rationality, predictability and certainty, while narrative delights in emotion, surprise
and mystery. Yet, on a more abstract level, both aim to provide dependable
knowledge, by formulating rules about how agents are supposed to behave in different
circumstances. In that sense, both science and narrative function as a guiding
framework that helps us to act, to decide, and to understand the complex world we
live in.
My approach towards integrating these frameworks was inspired by
cybernetics and complex adaptive systems (CAS), two relatively new approaches that
aim to extend scientific methods towards the more complex and dynamic phenomena
that are typical of life, mind and society. Possibly the most fundamental scientific
insight developed in the 20th century is the observation that there are context-
dependents limits to knowledge, or what I have called “horizons of knowability”. This
- 33 -