Why does rationalism has to assert that it can explain the world (which it actually can’t)?

How on earth can we arrive to the thought that we can explain the world? This world created the communication means we use, that is, talk, and how can we even explain this creation? What happened when we followed the direction the forefinger pointed at and understood that the sound the pointing made when pointing represented a kind of this thing? How did we understand the concept of a kind?

How can something explain something that is larger than itself? Can a dog understand why it lives with humans instead of with dogs? Can a goldfish understand that it swims in an aquarium? If not, is this due to that the dog and the goldfish aren’t intelligent enough or that it is impossible to understand something that is larger than itself? I say that it is hubris to arrive to the thought that we can explain the world.

None-the-less, there are biologists (ie, cladists) that assert that they can explain the world, and physicists (ie, particle physicists) that assert that they THINK they have explained the world (for which they have been awarded the Nobel Prize). Luckily, particle physicists have not yet said that they HAVE explained the world, because it would be an outright lie. But, I guess it’s just a matter of time, because rationalists have to turn rationalism into a religion to be able to compete with religions as convictions (ie, faiths). This extreme (in Sweden represented by the humanists) is, however, already falsified by Russell’s paradox, a fact cladists and particle physicists must have missed. The rational hubris represented by cladistics and particle physics is thus already falsified, although not understood by cladists and particle physicists.

The problem with this fact is that it implies that over-simplification (ie, populism) is the ultimate winner, independently of whether it is dressed in religious or rationalistic hubris clothes, and thus that the ultimate loser is the only approach that isn’t contradictory, that is, moderate rationalism, or traditional science. Polarization is the ultimate winner over compromise. This end paints the picture of a holocaust between two ultimate (contradictory) faiths.

Why can’t rationalism confine itself to manipulate the world, which actually is the limits of its confines? Why does it have to assert that it can explain reality, when it actually can’t?

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/