My pet peeve, Science is everything

Good links Tai:
Purpose - How does it come to a man? Sometimes it is an early childhood memory or thought that continues to grow until it overwhelms a a man to such a degree that it is greatly reinforced by a single sentence in a text or a casual comment from another. The pressure against purpose can be strong enough to reduce what was once purpose to some vague and prostituted construct and looses its glory in the desire for favor or lack of criticism from the vocal minority that often appears in many forms.

Some may call it social intelligence, others relegate it to chickens picking grain from the remains of digested food left by a cow.

The freedom of man through purpose is easily lost by many, most who do not realize the loss, but find less and more inconsequential means to justify their lives. Yet I believe purpose fortunately waits for another who can stand on his own and will feel the loss more deeply than bowing to "authority".

Long Live Jonathan Livingston Seagull.
 
tryppyr said:
If I understand the direction of this thread recently (having read the article Tai posted the link to in #170), the implication seems to be that some who espouse science as the be-all and end-all as a result of its inherent methods overlook the fact that much scientific gain is achieved through means that don't fit the "scientific method". The fact that many of science's greatest triumphs are achieved by accident or through inspiration (e.g. artistic means) as opposed to deductive reasoning is trivialized or dismissed altogether.

By neglecting those alternate means to achieving advancement, we limit the potential for future advancement. By redefining history to support one's beliefs about science as the ultimate arbiter of truth and fantasy, we become students of a different form of fantasy that ultimately deprives us of an appreciation for the truth.

- Greg
Click to expand...

This is where it gets tricky. My history needs some brushing up on, but let me try.

Scientists do use means other than those classically identified as scientific. Scientists are people too (who would have thought, right?). They are people first, and although science has distinguished itself as being a separate branch of knowledge and tradition, scientists can also belong to other older traditions as well, such as "humanity" and scholarship etc. So, the line between traditions and disciplines gets blurred. Science is and was part of "humanity" and scholarship, and humanity and scholarship can be a part of science through the scientist... the person. At this point it is no longer pure science, but melds back into and reunites with earlier traditions and disciplines.

It wouldn't surprise me if science comes full circle and at some point is no longer considered a separate, isolated field of study or knowledge,... but an integral part of everything. Not "everything" in and of itself, but part of everything.

Science is going through an identity crisis...
 
Last edited:
Ed Fowler said:
Long Live Jonathan Livingston Seagull.
Click to expand...

Jonathan Livingston Seagull and the Hero with a Thousand Faces:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Livingston_Seagull

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces

"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man."

It all goes back to caveman shamanism.

Shamanism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism

Quote:
"As mentioned, a (debated) approach explains the etymology of word "shaman" as meaning "one who knows"."

The scientist as modern day "shaman" and archetypal hero?... could it be? It fits the models and has most of the earmarks... :)

The 3 stages of the monomyth:
"Departure (sometimes called Separation), Initiation and Return."
 
Last edited:
Hey Guys - I get "both sides" of this thing. I am a scientist, and I study deception (how we trick ourselves, how we trick others, and how to tell when people are lying, and how to get the best possible information from someone about an event they saw or did).
The problem is simple, no one can be objective. The term, "objective" is a myth, like money. It doesn't really exist. We can all only perceive/think/feel in ways that we have learned through our lives, and our brain acts to cause us to perceive what we want and expect and excludes what we don't want and don't expect.

Scientists try to weed these things out, but its not always possible. We are always limited by the fact that we can only know, measure, perceive things that are consistent with our experience. Thats where ART comes in, to try and find other ways to percieve, experience, organize, relate, etc. Still, what we perceive as art will be governed by the same rules of perceptual processing and development.

There ain't nothing that is objective, nowhere (no-when, either).

trust me, I am a scientist...
kc
 
When your father taught you to light a fire, did he start by making you study the physics and chemistry of combustion? Or did he teach you about kindling?

Kindling?

Kindling?

Oh shock! Oh shame! How unscientific! How could he have done such a thing? Didn’t Daddy know that an undocumented fire lit by uncontrolled methods can never burn? An unscientific fire never ignites! Never! If it did, why, that would be...well...unscientific!

Science is wonderful. Scientific knowledge is great. But we live in the real world. The real world is large. Science is but a subset of the real world. Yes, science is important subset. But science will always be a limited subset of reality. Ask a chemist to start a fire in the rain with found materials. Does his table of the elements keep him dry?

Science is wonderful.

Scientism, not so much.
 
I see custom or hand made knifemaking as being an expression and study of what it means to be human,... a humanity not a science. It does involve some science, but the goal of knifemaking is not scientific in nature.

There is no purely scientific reason to make a knife by hand. Art and humanity validate the handmade knife.

When the importance of science is overstated in the arts and humanities it becomes a type of scientism.

Scientism:
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/)

"2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)"

Humanities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities

Quote:

"Through the humanities we reflect on the fundamental question: What does it mean to be human?"
 
Last edited:
kevin -the professor said:
Hey Guys - I get "both sides" of this thing. I am a scientist, and I study deception (how we trick ourselves, how we trick others, and how to tell when people are lying, and how to get the best possible information from someone about an event they saw or did).
The problem is simple, no one can be objective. The term, "objective" is a myth, like money. It doesn't really exist. We can all only perceive/think/feel in ways that we have learned through our lives, and our brain acts to cause us to perceive what we want and expect and excludes what we don't want and don't expect.

Scientists try to weed these things out, but its not always possible. We are always limited by the fact that we can only know, measure, perceive things that are consistent with our experience. Thats where ART comes in, to try and find other ways to percieve, experience, organize, relate, etc. Still, what we perceive as art will be governed by the same rules of perceptual processing and development.

There ain't nothing that is objective, nowhere (no-when, either).

trust me, I am a scientist...
kc
Click to expand...

Science is a humanity not a science!

It’s an expression and study of what it means to be human. There is no “transcendence” of humanity in science.

No lie. ;)
 
Last edited:
Humanity is everything!,... for humans.

Humanity: The quality or state of being human.

I think it was a big mistake to separate the sciences from the humanities. It’s something the scholars and academic community need to fix. It should all be updated and re-integrated... or, I fear the worst.

Cherish our common humanity.

Make us whole again.

... It's time.
 
Last edited:
Fields of knowledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_disciplines

We need to know something about all of them... or we don't know squat!... zip!

We need a broader and more well rounded curriculum and less specialization.

We need at least 20 years of higher education,… just to get a glimpse.

We need people that can see the bigger picture.

We need people that will try.

We need people that believe.

We need "Jonathan Livingston Seagull". :)



Strawberry fields of knowledge forever. :)
 
Last edited:
Raymond1000 said:
When your father taught you to light a fire, did he start by making you study the physics and chemistry of combustion? Or did he teach you about kindling?

Kindling?

Kindling?

Oh shock! Oh shame! How unscientific!
Click to expand...

Kindling is part of the SCIENCE of getting a good fire going.;)

The unscientific approach of throwing more wet leaves on top a pile of logs and dumping more lighter on top hoping it'll work isn't as good (I saw that in action on May 24/"Rapture Day" last year...)
Science didn't start in a lab, but repeatable results have always been a desireable thing.:thumbup:
 
If it wasn’t for the virtue of humor and playfulness, listed under "transcendence" (strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning) in the CSV... I think we’d all have lost our minds. ;) LOL
 
Last edited:
stabman said:
Kindling is part of the SCIENCE of getting a good fire going.;)

The unscientific approach of throwing more wet leaves on top a pile of logs and dumping more lighter on top hoping it'll work isn't as good (I saw that in action on May 24/"Rapture Day" last year...)
Science didn't start in a lab, but repeatable results have always been a desireable thing.:thumbup:
Click to expand...

If you mean science in the pre-scientific-revolution sense of “knowledge,” sure.

But that’s not what this thread is about. Tai seems to be talking about scientism; the attitude that only knowledge conferred by full modern scientific investigation matters. By that standard, fire making doesn’t qualify.

Recall that fire was domesticated by Homo Erectus. I do believe Peking Man predates Kepler and Newton. Whoever figured out how to light a fire, he didn’t publish the discovery in a peer-reviewed journal.
 
One thing you can bet on, he was possibly criticized in the manner of Prometheus, for stealing fire from the Gods. But the fire was warm and some liked man made fire, recognized its usefulness and the fire makers thrived while those who depended upon the gods for fire became fewer in number and either vanished or joined the fire makers.
 
Ed Fowler said:
One thing you can bet on, he was possibly criticized in the manner of Prometheus, for stealing fire from the Gods. But the fire was warm and some liked man made fire, recognized its usefulness and the fire makers thrived while those who depended upon the gods for fire became fewer in number and either vanished or joined the fire makers.
Click to expand...

Somehow Kipling forgot that verse.

The King

"Farewell, Romance!" the Cave-men said;
"With bone well carved he went away,
Flint arms the ignoble arrowhead,
And jasper tips the spear to-day.
Changed are the Gods of Hunt and Dance,
And he with these. Farewell, Romance!"

"Farewell, Romance!" the Lake-folk sighed;
"We lift the weight of flatling years;
The caverns of the mountain-side
Hold him who scorns our hutted piers.
Lost hills whereby we dare not dwell,
Guard ye his rest. Romance, farewell!"

"Farewell, Romance!" the Soldier spoke;
"By sleight of sword we may not win,
But scuffle 'mid uncleanly smoke
Of arquebus and culverin.
Honour is lost, and none may tell
Who paid good blows. Romance, farewell!"

"Farewell, Romance!" the Traders cried;
Our keels ha' lain with every sea;
The dull-returning wind and tide
Heave up the wharf where we would be;
The known and noted breezes swell
Our trudging sail. Romance, farewell!"

"Good-bye, Romance!" the Skipper said;
"He vanished with the coal we burn;
Our dial marks full steam ahead,
Our speed is timed to half a turn.
Sure as the ferried barge we ply
'Twixt port and port. Romance, good-bye!"

"Romance!" the season-tickets mourn,
"~He~ never ran to catch his train,
But passed with coach and guard and horn --
And left the local -- late again!"
Confound Romance! . . . And all unseen
Romance brought up the nine-fifteen.

His hand was on the lever laid,
His oil-can soothed the worrying cranks,
His whistle waked the snowbound grade,
His fog-horn cut the reeking Banks;
By dock and deep and mine and mill
The Boy-god reckless laboured still!

Robed, crowned and throned, he wove his spell,
Where heart-blood beat or hearth-smoke curled,
With unconsidered miracle,
Hedged in a backward-gazing world;
Then taught his chosen bard to say:
"Our King was with us -- yesterday!"


Kipling knew something about mixing art and science. But then, he was a Victorian.
 
"The Jewel" by James Wright

There is this cave
In the air behind my body
That nobody is going to touch:
A cloister, a silence
Closing around a blossom of fire.
When I stand upright in the wind,
My bones turn to dark emeralds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top