Science is supposed to be rational. But how can science be rational if it is done by scientists who often behave in an irrational way?
To start with let us touch here, briefly, the problem of Science vs. religion – we will discuss it in detail later on. The difference between these two domains is examined by Bertrand Russell in his “Religion and Science”.
Science is Bottom Up
In Science we start from observations, from data, and then we build general rules, or principles that are supposed to explain these data and predict new data. Once in a while, when new data are acquired, or when a new insight into their interpretation appears, our old explanations do not suffice, and a revision of general principles is needed. That is, in short, how Science is done, or how it is supposed to work. One can say that Science is built bottom-up, from a large number of observations to a unified theory.
Religion is Top Down
Religion, on the other hand, is constructed top-down, from general principles, by deduction, reasoning and interpretation, to simple rules that are to be applied in everyday lives. Once in a while the reasoning is revised and religious practices change, but the starting principles remain essentially unchanged. As Russell sums it up:
A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modifications in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one being logically incapable at a complete and final demonstration.
He notices also another important difference between religion and Science:
The conflict between theology and science was quite as much a conflict between authority and observation. The men of science did not ask that propositions should be believed because some important authority had said they were true; on the contrary, they appealed to the evidence of the senses, and maintained only such doctrines as they believed to be based upon facts which were patent to all who chose to make necessary observations.
Religion and Science in Society
Religion and Science also had different functions in society. One of the functions of religion was clearly pointed out in an old treatise “History ofthe Conflict between Religion and Science” by John William Draper, professor at the University of New York and the author of “A Treatise on Human Physiology”. He wrote in 1875:
A few years ago, it was the politic and therefore the proper course to abstain from all allusion to this controversy, and to keep it as far as possible in the background. The tranquility of society depends so much on the stability of its religious convictions, that no one can be justified in wantonly disturbing them.
How is the situation different today? Religion is still a convenient tool for maintaining the tranquility of society, but, in the meantime, Science, industry and technology have provided other efficient means. Nowadays we have drugs and other chemicals, globally controlled media, Artificial Intelligence, and psychological techniques – they are all at the disposal of those whose aim is to tranquilize society. Thus, religion is no longer needed by science and perhaps this is one of the reasons for the increasing conflict?
Are All Scientists Rational?
After this digression let us come back to the question of whether or not scientists can be rational? After all, just acquiring the status of being a scientist does not mean that a person is no longer subject to all the foibles of being human.
Rationality requires abandoning the blind attachment to any authorities. Religion, on the other hand, rests on authorities. Can these two different modes of thinking be separated in an individual?
Coming next: The Taboo of Subjectivity
Perhaps the biggest problem with modern science is the reliance on phenomena, on observations, from which conclusions are then often wrongly drawn. Paranormal phenomena provide a good indication that something is really wrong with science. Otherwise, science could capture them.
ReplyDeleteParanormal phenomena are also a form of observable phenomena, but nevertheless they reveal some of the deep mystery underlying this world.
How will physics explain the appearance of objects, their disappearance and the possibility of the mind influencing matter and events around us? Physics will not explain it, not with this methodology. Physics is very far from that. And so-called 'rational' scientists prefer to say that it just doesn't exist. Oh, they are so deeply convinced of this that even when they see it, they deny it because it does not agree with their accepted paradigm and common sense. Is this rational? I think that so-called 'rationalism' may be rather the height of stupidity.
On the other hand, simple explanations of unexplained phenomena are by no means better. Proponents of paranormal phenomena are sometimes no less stupid than mainstream scientists. They talk about undefined concepts like souls, ghosts etc. To some, the explanation that we see ghosts because the soul came out of someone's body after death is enough. This is another theory that leads to paradoxes when juxtaposed with other spiritual sciences.
So how do we resolve these paradoxes? I think the answer lies in a high level of complexity and abstraction. Reincarnation? And what is reincarnation? How do we relate reincarnation to a state of mind? I think that the explanations of these phenomena that are proposed today are very poor approximations of "objective reality"...
The theory of reincarnation is a bit like Newtonian mechanics. Simplifications sewn with thick threads...
And what is a soul? I think very close to it would be the concept of identity.... And very close to her time. For what is identity? Is it not a certain opinion of the temporalised mind about itself? And if the mind did not feel time, what would it be then? The 'One'?
And very close to her time -> And very close to this concept of identity is time...
ReplyDelete"The men of science did not ask that propositions should be believed because some important authority had said they were true; on the contrary, they appealed to the evidence of the senses, and maintained only such doctrines as they believed to be based upon facts which were patent to all who chose to make necessary observations.".
ReplyDeleteHowever, can the sensory observations be considered as full-fledged evidence if there is no theory that profoundly explains all apparently contradictory observations?
Paradoxes do not only exist in science.... They also exist within us. In our psyche and in our mind, sometimes in our feelings. Perhaps these internal paradoxes can help us to reveal some general method of arriving at the truth.
For for millennia we have been trying to understand (said external) reality, whereas the solution to the paradoxes may lie within our own inner self. Winning the battle with ourselves should be the first step in the fight against paradoxes in science.
Time impairs our cognitive abilities. Unless our mind rises above time, we have no chance of seeing what is 'objective reality'.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we reject authorities, who are we to listen to? To ourselves? Where there is no time, there is no identity. Outside of time, we are no longer 'ourselves' in that classical sense. And what is time? Perhaps nothing more than a story the mind creates about the soul's journey to the Absolute. The Absolute... This is perhaps the 'one law'....
"The men of science did not ask that propositions should be believed because some important authority had said they were true"
ReplyDeleteThe above is a theory. Data tell us otherwise. Quoting from Manjit Kumar, "Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality"
"Kronig, for one, had not published the idea of electron spin after Pauli ridiculed it."
Thus Russell's theory about science contradicts the data. Data tell us that authority is as much present in science as in religion.
Thus one should pay utmost attention to reality left and right, and not mistake theories and wishful thinking for facts.
@John G.
ReplyDelete"Conformal structures are fairly tolerant of the paranormal"
I am going to discuss the paranormal later on.
@Harrison
ReplyDeleteThanks. "The Matter with Things" is on my reading list.