“The cosmos that gave birth to us has always been open to becoming more. Through the human mind the universe anticipates an inexhaustible meaning and truth. Through our aesthetic restlessness the universe is now opening itself to an endless beauty. And through our moral sensitivity it is awakening to an infinite goodness. What faith adds to this cosmic stirring is a trust that meaning, truth, beauty, and goodness are everlasting. And if they are everlasting, then we can be assured that our responses to them not only matter, but that they matter forever.”
science
Morning thoughts on science /
Science is ahistorical. Although many contemporary scientists can name the pioneers who developed the foundational theories of the prevailing paradigm, they act as if these theories had always existed, as if they were eternal truths that never had predecessors. Scientists are generally ignorant of and uncurious about how and why the currently accepted theories came to be.
Science is un-self-relfective. Scientists take for granted and never question the metaphysics of the scientific worldview. They act as if there are no unfalsifiable assumptions whatsoever at the foundation.
Orthodoxy and Dissent /
I am not arguing against the present balance between the powers of orthodoxy and the rights of dissent in science. I merely insist on acknowledgment of the fact that the scientific method is, and must be, disciplined by an orthodoxy which can permit only a limited degree of dissent, and that such dissent is fraught with grave risks to the dissenter. I demand a clear recognition of this situation for the sake of our intellectual honesty as scientists, and I charge that this situation is not recognized today but is, on the contrary, obscured by current declarations about science. Take this by Bertrand Russell:
“The triumphs of science are due to the substitution of observation and inference for authority. Every attempt to revive authority in intellectual matters is a retrograde step. And it is part of the scientific attitude that the pronouncements of science do not claim to be certain but only the most probable on the basis of evidence. One of the great benefits that science confers upon those who understand its spirit is that it enables them to live without the decisive support of subjective authority.”
Such statements obscure the fact that the authority of current scientific opinion is indispensable to the discipline of scientific institutions; that its functions are invaluable, even though its dangers are an unceasing menace to scientific progress. I have seen no evidence that this authority is exercised without claims of certainty for its own teachings. In any case, it is a mistake to assume that it is easier to justify scientific opinion that merely makes claims of probability than one that makes claims of certainty. Both express a commitment, and to this extent both must go beyond the evidence.
Excerpted from “The Potential Theory of Adsorption: Authority in Science Has Its Uses and Dangers” in Science vol. 141, pp. 1010-1013 (1963).
(In the panel above, Polanyi at left, Russell at right.)
Science is not neutral /
Follow the science, bruh! /
“Most science is not credible. It’s not true; it’s not believable; it’s not useful; it’s not actionable; it’s done to inflate careers, and often [for] for-profit entities. People who are anxious and afraid and are concerned ... are likely to err in science. People who believe human beings are omnipotent, [that] we’re so powerful we can shape the natural world to our whims and desires, are much likely to make errors because the truth is the world is very complicated and we’re very small. And even though we think we’re so powerful and have a lockdown we may very modestly change human interactions in a space and we’re unlikely to sustain those interaction[s], those changes over time. So it’s very likely to be a very small effect and in the universe of things people have dreamed about for centuries, most of those things didn’t make us better off. They hurt us. They often were self-inflicted wounds.”