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

Open Inquiry

OK. I really like open inquiry. I guess that is pretty clear while reading most of this blog. How the accumlated experiences of humanity affect our views of reality is a fascinating thing for me. And nothing is off the table, because I have found through my experience, and the experiences of those around me, that more often than not, growth produces flowers (quaint, eh?). It is part of nature, which we are a product of. Our brains produce flowers of thought, and thought is a form of art. Thought doesn't need to be always characterized as "true" or "false", but it may very well be so. But to safeguard humanity's collective freedom of thought, we must do all we can to not silence the voices of the "insane", who seem to at best generate tomorrow's fiction, and at worst create tomorrow's cults. Thought is art. Thought needs pure imaginative insanity to grow. With nothing to sift through, we cannot find truth. Neither about how we find our happiness and our place in the world, nor about how the universe is, and world around us and within us works.

With that in mind, I post and respond to two separate questions which I was asked recently. They both fall under the banner of open inquiry. They are valid questions, and I highly respect the minds of those who ask such things. That they all don't have the answers, is pure poetry to me.

1. What if we exist BECAUSE of faith?

Invariably those that ask this question are usually asking it to further YOUR inquiry into THEIR religion, and in America, it is usually christianity. This is indeed a viable question, but it is as viable as the following questions.

"What if we exist because of our past life karmic debt that we still need to pay during this life, and our desire to live once again, in pleasure and pain and not distance ourself by the buddha's middle path?"

"What if we exist because an alien race did experiments and seeded our world with life?"

"What if we exist because of a shared dream we all are dreaming together, thus creating a stable and consistent experience for each of us?"

All my point is with my examples above is that there is no reason to specifically quote jesus, anymore than mohammad, anymore than joseph smith or carlos castaneda. And there is certainly no reason to live one's life any different because by chance you just happened to be raised by parents or in a society which held this belief more dearly than any other faith generated by humans. So what if jesus was right? So what if shiva was right? So what if odin was right? The list goes on and on...

Jesus is but one card in a deck of tens of thousands. Why focus all of your attention there, or see his biblical claim of divinity as more valid or greater than any other? As Richard Dawkins states, "[Every single person] is an atheist when it comes to the countless gods that humanity has ever believed in... Some of us just go one god further."

Last point... sure some questions are just invalid, or just plain meaningless, but just because a question is viable or worth asking for investigation into our humanity and needs, it doesn't mean all answers regarding this question are equally valid.

2. What are we made from?

As science shows us, we are made of the very fabric of past stars. We are certainly nothing less, and there is no reason to believe we are made of something more. Indeed, one day we will return from whence we came (this time to our own sun). It is a glorious thought. Glorious!

+A