Science. It just doesn’t quite meet.

Science is amazing 🙂

Science has brought us thousands of benefits as a species, and many benefits to other species too. It has elongated life, taken us to the moon, enabled medicine the likes of which would have been considered miraculous only generations before, and continues to inspire us.

The Scientific method is a great tool 😀

The scientific method, (‘systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.’ – Google), is a wonderful tool. Time and again it has been the best way to filter out unhelpful or noisy results, and show us the good stuff; the things that work, the theories that hold. Without this form of critical observation we would not have scientific discovery.

I wouldn’t be here without science 🙂

I’ve needed antibiotics about ten times in my life. Some of those times after an operation. Without that medicine, and without those operations, I wouldn’t be alive at 39.

Science is limited 😦

Anthropologists of science, however, note that the human brain (the thing that uses that wonderful scientific method tool) is not as capable of objective thought as scientists like to assume. In an everyday sense this means people intending to do good science will nevertheless discount results they don’t want to see, postulate theories whilst not giving others due consideration, and build new assumptions based on previous ones when those previous ones are still works in progress.

Science is also limited in the sense that once we’ve got our story complete, once we’ve got our narrative, our working theory, we tend to go home and give up the search for anything else. We currently believe there isn’t much left to learn about the physical universe because the levels we now explore this at are pretty fundamental – perhaps they couldn’t get any more fundamental. So we assume we have physical laws sewn up.

Science takes that assumption and treats it as fact.

Science is also limited because, as George Monbiot said recently in conversation with James Lovelock, it is split into disciplines and the disciplines don’t talk to each other. That’s why Lovelock’s ‘gaia’ theory was so ground-breaking; it required employment of several disciplines to bring together a unified holistic theory.

Scientists stopped being holistic when our body of knowledge started to exceed that which could be mastered by one person in one lifetime. However, physical reality hasn’t stopped being an integrated whole, so we have a cognitive problem.

Science tends to save itself from itself 🙂

Every now and again, perhaps once per generation in a given field, someone makes a discovery that challenges one of those assumptions, such that the assumption has to be rewritten. That then becomes the new fact.

Science saves itself from itself through the bloody mindedness of the few, or the egotistical ambition of the few.

Scientists vs. superstition :{

Some scientists dread that we may be returning to some sort of superstitious age, or that we haven’t left the previous one behind. For Richard Dawkins this is evinced in the fact that we haven’t left behind the idea of ‘God’ in our culture and thinking.

Superstition is indeed still rife, of course. And you can find it in the ‘new age’ / ‘enlightenment’ arena just as much as in Evangelical forms of Christianity, or just about any culture.

In the ‘enlightenment’ camp we sidestep ‘God’ with glee, nodding to ourselves that we are so over that simplistic idea of God. But we tend to spiritualize things as signs because we have esoteric evidence that the universe does have a kind of serendipitous life-logic to itself the likes of which science is a million years from understanding.

But that means we also over-spiritualize, making us no better than medieval farmers fascinated with the fortune teller’s crystal ball.

I don’t think science is bad. I just think it’s limited.

Science from a different tack :\

I wonder what it would be like to try science from a different angle. Start with something esoteric like all life in the cosmos has one common source existing in a different dimension and this results in a level of singular consciousness, or like telepathy, or like seeing the future, or like the people of Andromeda are humanoid and involved in contact work with Earth. How are they doing it?

Then work backwards, taking that esoteric idea as the working theory, to look for the blank spots in science. Then start doing science in those blank spots.

Nobody’s gonna take me up on that are they!

I can’t wait for science

How come it’s going to take millenia for us to have a scientific language for things which as a human being I can feel and experience on a day to day basis? I don’t have millenia to wait! So, I can’t wait for science.

Science is going to be amazing one day. Will we even call it science by then?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s