I like thinking about the Jedi because one way to understand them is as (military-)priestly-experts-of-nature who can (partially) control forces. This control of forces is, as Chaim Saiman notes, generally superior to mere weapons technology. In the first three episodes of Star Wars, they are an extra-democratic power in the (proper, and increasingly disorderded) functioning of the galactic democracy.* Unlike modern conceptions of the scientific-priestly, they are not really rule (technocratic-bureaucratic) followers, but rely quite a bit on contextual judgment. (It's not that they lack rules, but (recall) they violate them.) All episodes explore the ethical and political dimensions of such access to and control of natural power. But occassionally, the movies also explore the epistemic dimensions.
One of my favorite moments in The Last Jedi is Rey's remarkable confidence in her ability to see the future. She literally gambles her life on it. Even if one allows that her decision to do so may be influenced by her attraction (in all dimensions) to Kylo Ren (and her desire to save him), she has the courage of her convictions. And she can see the future: she correctly predicts it.
But it turns out that the succesful capacity to predict the future is not sufficient for wise action. For, the movie reveals two limitations: (a) she fails to interpret properly the nature of the predicted outcome--she thinks (the correctly anticipated)) Kylo Ren's rebellion against Snoke means that he will join forces with her [she never considers it may be a tactical alliance to depose Snoke]; (b) she fails to foresee the further, unintended consequences of her action, namely opening the way to Kylo Ren's supreme rule. Her failure of interpretation is caused (c) by her inability to understand Kylo Ren's soul/character (or by wishing the best for him, etc.).
In what follows I focus on a-b, but I should remind the reader that in (c) she merely echoes the original Jedi order's failure with Anakin Skywalker (it is an odd mistake because Luke emphasizes the failures of the Jedi);** again it is notable that Jedi powers themselves are revealed to lack knowledge of characters/souls. Of course, the suggestion is not that Jedi powers prevents knowledge souls--Yoda has such knowledge--, but there is a consistent hint that Jedi power creates a form of overconfidence in which one fails to pay attention to other insights worth having. The original Star Wars trilogy showed that lack of knowledge of souls is destructive to the political art, and this theme is continued in The Last Jedi.
These days, many of our sciences of nature are betting on data-driven prediction devices (bayesian, artificial learning, etc.). Increasingly such devices are black-boxing the source or grounds of the predicton. Because such approaches dramatically outperform others, we should increasingly expect the ruling image of science to emphasize prediction (rather than explanation, or exposing causal structure). [I have already seen papers doings so!] In the old days prediction was also valued, but predictive capacity is quite compatible with instrumentalist, anti-realist conceptions of science (and so it was thought that realism required something more, etc.). Being able to foresee the future in virtue of control of the force is like black-boxed predictive machine. One does not, thereby, have the tools to correctly interpret the future.
The Last Jedi teaches us that predictive capacity is not sufficient for practical judgment and may, in fact, sometimes undermine it. (It's an open question, of course, if getting rid of Snoke is an improvement over what follows it--stay tuned for the next episode.) The suggestion is not to give up on the force and do without prediction. But throughout the series we are taught that control of nature and predictive power are not sufficient for wise action. (Perhaps wise action would make a boring movie, too.) Something more is needed: such something more is interpretive capacity of human character. (I am not suggesting this is exhaustive: the importance of faith/steadfastness and trust in human goodness are recurring themes, too.)
But there is a more fundamental point lurking here: throughout the last centuries we are constantly offered a choice between hermeneutic and exact sciences. So much so that 'science wars' have become a cliched trope to be rediscovered every generation (by folk who too frequently lack historical self-awareness of their own rediscovery). The intellectual and disciplinary divisions of labor merely reinforce these divides. But Star Wars correctly suggests this is/are (a) false opposition(s). The interpretive and predictive sciences can complement each other when agents rely on them to make choices; and to allow myself a moment of melodrama, we may say that -- in light of the huge challenges facing humanity -- without welcoming the insights and predictions of both forms of understanding we are likely to make (ahh) sub-optimal decisions.
*Writing in the Atlantic, Saiman is incorrect to suggest that the failure of organized religion is a novel feature of The Last Jedi. As I noted yesterday; it has repeatedly failed.
**Han Solo had also misjudged Kylo Ren, but his flaw was that (in addition to counting on filial loyalty), he trusted his own rhetorical/persuasive abilities too much.
Comments