Comments on: The Limits of Science

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:40:01 +0000

The scientists of today are no different than in previous ages; they seek to expand the pool of knowledge. Some do it well; some get it wrong. As Phil notes, truth is not an absolute and even knowledge (not to be confused with truth) evolves over time.

As a teenager I was bemused by my chemistry teacher who pointed out that when she was a student the smallest particle was an atom; but went on to say that science had determined the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons and that these were the definitive particles of the universe. Sure enough, neutrinos were discovered a few years later and now of course there are many more sub atomic particles known to mankind.

That said, I don’t think science has lost any of it’s value or credibility. Throughout history mankind has developed knowledge about our world that improves out lot: the ability to smelt metals, build ships, grow food, create medicine, harness the electron. These changes have given us the opportunity to move up the hierarchy of needs and spend time writing articles on the internet about the nature of our existence.

We might have concerns today about the veracity of climate change science which will seem simple in 100 years when the “chaff has been separated from the wheat” and climate science is well understood. Imagine what it might have been like hearing about Galileo on the evening news talking about the earth revolving around the sun. How will we be viewed but our more knowledgeable descendants.

I don’t think it’s an “either, or” debate. Science versus Spirituality. Each informs the other. Religion has long been used to bridge the gap between the known and the unknown. This gap remains as large today as ever. With each advance in understanding of the complexity of our universe comes the irresistible urge to seek out a “god” to explain what our minds cannot understand. Religions that hold fast to ancient doctrine do not serve us well. Our spiritual search must be as vital and urgent as our science. Consulting mystics, philosophers and poets may well be a good start. If we are at disadvantage, it’s that our community doesn’t prepare us well for spiritual growth but rather favours indoctrination into “faith”.

This, in my mind, doesn’t diminish either but requires us, as a species, to continue to grow, to learn, to evolve, to continue the quest for truth.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:34:55 +0000

Not to oversimplify a complex issue, but perhaps one aspect of the solution is, simply, simplicity.
In observing my own experiences and feelings and interactions with the world, the things that feel destructive are always the things associated with over consumption, status anxiety, desire for material things…and these are the things that are driving climate change. So, by our connectedness, what is destructive on a miniscule scale is destructive on a universal scale (and multiplied when the scale of the miniscule destruction is massive, by the participation of our whole planet in consuming excessively or seeking to consume more excessively).
This also makes me think more about last week’s blog on the demise of the family. My parents fondly tell similar stories of their childhoods, dirt poor by today’s standards but delightfully muddied in happiness. If you look at household debt in Australia, we are actually more dirt poor than people have ever been (a recent article on this is available at: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/money/story/0,26844,26529653-5015825,00.html). Today we just have more credit to buy the things we don’t need to preoccupy ourselves with passtimes that distract us from the things that matter, like family, community, and what we might give today rather than what we might get (or for many anxious consumers lately, what we might lose).

By: Alex Gordon

Alex Gordon — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:57:02 +0000

Не могу сейчас поучаствовать в обсуждении – очень занят. Но освобожусь – обязательно напишу что я думаю….

……

By: Father Robin

Father Robin — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:16:31 +0000

‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’ So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: ‘A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation’ His was not a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith – a faith not capable of rational foundation – that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism and his optimism are illuminated by his remark: ‘Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not’ When asked by a colleague what he meant by that, he replied: ‘Nature hides Her secret because of Her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse’

‘Subtle is the Lord… The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein’ Abraham Pais, frontispiece.

By: Father Robin

Father Robin — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:48:59 +0000

Check with your local paper for details.

By: Father Robin

Father Robin — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:29:53 +0000

Scaremongerers are the squeeky wheels that get oiled.

By: Father Robin

Father Robin — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:50:47 +0000

Never forget Y2k.

By: Paul Chippendale

Paul Chippendale — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:23:51 +0000

In respect of climate change–I don’t think it matters whether their models are accurate or completely wrong. What matters is how they are advocating we should behave–i.e. in harmony with the planet rather than exploiting it–common sense says the latter is not sustainable. I Like Saul’s book, “The Unconscious Society.” In it he emphasises the role of common sense in our decision making.

By: Bruno Bertolo

Bruno Bertolo — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:53:33 +0000

This, in my mind, doesn’t diminish either but requires us, as a species, to continue to grow, to learn, to evolve, to continue the quest for truth.

By: Phil Harker

Phil Harker — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:48:04 +0000

Enjoyed your take on this subject Ted, as it reminded me of a couple of old sayings that came to me early in life and that seem to apply to all who find themselves in the human condition; “the mind can’t see what the heart won’t accept” and “the heart has reasons the mind knows not of”. Some scientists, perhaps not enough, do indeed recognise that at its core science is just as much dependant upon ‘faith’ in its basic assumptions as any other ‘belief system’. The search for objective truth, however, is probably a bit like the search for the Holy Grail – strongly believed to actually exist but ever out of reach. Perhaps this is because ‘truth’ is itself never really objective.

I recently came across a very well written passage to this effect by Paulos Mar Gregorios and thought you and your readers may find it of value:

“Truth is a quest, not a concept, not an idea or a proposition. And it is not a question for something objectively given; neither is it a quest for knowledge in the narrow sense. Truth is a state of being rather than a statement of fact. Truth is being without falsehood, light without admixture of darkness. Truth is what is, not what is stated.

What is stated above is not truth. It is a personal affirmation about truth, which needs validation. Such validation would not be of truth itself, but only of a proposition about truth. Truth itself does not stand in need of validation, but is self-certifying. Truth provides its own validation. Propositions about truth may be valid or invalid. A valid proposition about truth can be a help in the quest, but is itself not the object of the quest. The object is a state of being, a state of being properly grounded and established in the truth, beyond all subject-object dualism, and beyond the threefold distinction of knower, known, and knowledge.”

Gregorios, Paulos Mar. (1992). A light too bright: the enlightenment today : an assessment of the values of the European enlightenment and a search for new foundations / Paulos Mar Gregorios., Albany : State University of New York Press.pp.154—155

Thanks again for your thoughts.