The Balance and Humility of Science

Science is often built up by the balance of observation and hypothesis, the empirical and the insightful, measurable facts and intuitive awareness. This can come in the purest methods of observation followed by trying to concoct a theory, or a theory followed by trying to fit observation. Usually it is a mixture of both, and is not often performed solo in a vacuum. Rather advances are often a result of a collaboration of multiple researchers, all pulling in several directions, but not necessarily simultaneously. This zigzag pattern of science is what helps define it as non-dogmatic, and not dependent solely on pure thought or insight as the Greeks would have had it. Beauty and harmony, while often the soul of the mathematician, the musician or the mystic has not been the core of successful science.

Occasionally the scientist must move away from elegance to observable fact, and occasionally away from accurately matching observation toward pursuit of a new and appealing idea, wherever the appeal may lie, no matter how silly and "unscientific" it appears to others. It is in this balance we are helping create a better world.

It is through our failed attempts, and reworking of them that success is born. Sadly, as history (including scientific) is written by the winners, a common criticism of science is that it is self-serving and overly dogmatic and proud. And scientific research does little to dispel this belief. Often, as was started with Newton, the presentation of ideas is performed as if the scientist was fortunate enough to be handed the laws of nature as divine rules, head held high, demonstrating often only their success. Not often are the limits of contradictions or alternate theories expounded upon, and for rightful reason -- his peers will. Science is built on peer review, and falsifiable theory.

Science is humble in general, no matter how much the individual human researcher can have the tendency to be self-serving and boastful. Science is one of the rare institutions which helps mitigate this.

Yes, science only approximates reality.
Yes, science is always rewriting itself.
Yes, science can be quite analytic in nature, and much of what can be appreciated in reality is not... or is even diametrically opposite of it.
All, thankfully so.

Einstein asked, "How can it be that mathematics being a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" Well, to quote Gershwin, "It Ain't Necessarily So"!

+A