Science is simply a tool, a means to, and a framework for understanding. The purpose and outcome of using any tool is subjective to the environment, and the user. You can use a pipe-wrench to effectively adjust a coupling, or you can use it to violently bash someone over the head with. Some people state that they ‘believe’ in science itself, as if it always eventually and reliably provides Universal truth, but they have become misdirected from the essential, unavoidable truth that science is simply the belief in observable reality, and the resulting carefully thought out explanation and documentation of such. It is a tool, and also guiding framework to achieve this. It’s not really something worth believing in, it produces such results instead, and those things are only valid as concepts worthy of belief until some greater, more unshakeable belief pushes them out of the way.
I absolutely believe in my power-drill, it undoubtedly exists, and its function is quite clear to me. It’s very good at gradually digging even, straight tunnels into things with little applied effort, and you can use the resulting tunnels to support other larger things using the principles of friction and leverage. While this belief holds true, I often find it unnecessary, or even frivolous, to confirm it with others, my understanding of its function, operation and requirements being adequate to use the device for its intended purpose competently, if not being enough to fundamentally understand its full mode of operation in detail. Therefore, I’m no more likely to state belief in my power-drill (under normal circumstances), than state my belief in science. I have full respect for the abilities of both, but little sentimental attachment to either, for me, they are essentially both replaceable if they lose their potential and can’t be repaired.
Often when modern science and scientists are contemplated, those who discovered the most fundamental, and productive truths, or have somehow solved the most longstanding logical paradoxes, are appropriately held in the highest regard. Usually, the most highlighted and cited characters are people such as Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and other seekers of fundamental Universal truths, they are usually are the most easily remembered, but of course there are many more. For me, one of the most obvious minds is Albert Einstein, as he lived closer in lifetime to my own, and his realisations were undoubtedly fantastic, and so simple as to be very difficult to comprehend for most, including me.
He was among the truly great scientists, not only with a brilliant open mind, but I believe he was also very mentally close to the ancient whisperings of his soul. He used his intellectual brilliance to translate the highly abstract concepts and feelings he opened himself to, into a form that his remarkably agile mind could comprehend, like having a fantastic idea and some fine quality clay to work with, and he then carefully presented the finished, perfected, and beautifully simplified sculpture to others in the most logical, and assistingly comprehensive possible form. The ideas themselves were concepts so inherently simple, that they had to be extremely carefully explored and thoughtfully described, the available scientific language of the zeitgeist being overly-complicated and inflexible in comparison to the simplicity of the thoughts themselves. This is how true genius can be described, by someone like him that also possesses the ability to use that same genius to formulate their description of it, and make it appear instantly logical.
The right ideas at the right times can lead to glorious outcomes, but the right ideas at the wrong times can lead to devastating ones, and sadly I believe he discovered this, and openly voiced his regret, like a parent who gives a unique gift to a child out of love, but their child ends up using it to badly harm others with. I doubt though that his soul itself will have to consider this for very long, and will quickly reach much deserved hibernation and contemplation. Through enthusiastically trying to provide clear explanation for inherent order, he inadvertently opened the door to potential chaos. He sought truth in its purest form, perhaps without fully realising what that truth represents, and how it can lead to all outcomes.
Paradoxes can only exist within the mind, and are the result of apparently unresolvable, fully conflicting, and opposing perceptions of the nature of reality. Most apparent paradoxes are not paradoxes at all, and are the result of lack of true understanding, sometimes of the nature of things that will likely never be fully understood. Unsolvable paradoxes of the mind however, are themselves paradoxical in nature, as they shouldn’t be able to exist anywhere at all. This is a testament to the agility and openness of the human mind, and the unfathomable results it can come up with, its extremely rare and precious ability. The nature of reality can be pondered to such a degree, that seemingly insolvable mysteries emerge. Sometimes these can apparently be solved by great thinkers, and clear explanation is provided for their invalidity. Sometimes they are not, and it’s often best to simply accept these occurrences, and admit that there is, and always will be, a limit to human understanding, which sometimes collides with the insurmountable and unfathomable wall of ultimate truth. Our biological minds, despite being the astounding result of opportunistic evolutionary adaptation, are limited for their own safety. If they fall too far into the unknown, and fail to remain open to basic environmental survival, then that would be hazardous for the survival of the individual, and is therefore largely discarded as an undesirable trait.
I fully appreciate scientists, and am in awe of their mental abilities, but it really depends on what they’re up to. Sometimes pure logic has thrown not only scruples, but the underlying and unshakeable logic of preservation of the species, out of the top story window of the lab, and the ultimate purpose of their research becomes highly dubious and even sometimes directly leads to destruction, and the emergence of chaos. If minds can be compared to cars, then it’s like my Volkswagen Golf being swiftly overtaken by a sleek, fast, road-hugging super-car, one that whizzes along the highways of logic and is fascinating to behold, but I know which one I personally feel safer in, especially with regards to potential collisions.
If you have gripped onto the mental scaffolding of science, or society, then you are inevitably surrounded by the sea of infinity. Perhaps a better explanation is that you are submerged in it. The scaffolding is safe, and familiar, and provides clear distinction between order and chaos, and even provides explanation for the nature of the sea. What is often not considered though, is that the scaffolding itself was constructed through foraging expeditions to the sea, and by those who were not afraid to swim, at least for long.
Or minds are the true miracle. They can be directed, and influenced, but never truly constrained, and are potentially capable of calculation on a cosmic, almost unfathomable scale.
I can guess what happened with us, but of course it’s just a guess. The biological realisation of our species meant that we became perfect hosts for an extremely rare successful evolutionary feedback loop, which greatly enhanced a single ability. What made it even rarer, is that it directly influenced powers of cognition. This went on relatively unchanging, and the biological computer that evolved, grew the capacity to support wonder about all things, and so biological evolution slowed dramatically in useful synchronicity, adhering to the natural negation of evolutionary frivolity. It all happened too fast though, and societal development and environmental awareness and responsibility took second place to devising ever more fantastic tools, and the rampant pursuit of fresh knowledge, any knowledge. So it still goes on today. Perhaps we should slow down a bit.. don’t we know enough to survive and flourish for now? Perhaps there are more pressing matters to deal with, perhaps an all-hands-on-deck situation for all science? And for society?
Sometimes science is purely exploratory and discovered principles are used mainly for general guidance, and while they produce documented and agreed upon results, what is also agreed upon is that the principles are workable assumptions as opposed to established facts. One such discipline is psychiatry.
I’m not a psychiatrist. That is a very difficult career path to follow, and they have to understand abstract concepts that would make other minds do immediate cartwheels and fall over. I can understand why they are valued and well remunerated, and their lives are otherwise comfortable, they attempt to analyse and reprogram the most complex biological device that we know of.
I’ll finish with a small mental exercise. If you’re honest with yourself, it will tell you something about yourself. If it has any merit, maybe they’ll make me an honorary psychiatrist and I’ll get to drive a BMW.
Imagine a day where you go outside and head to the local shop. Describe it. Make it up, or base it on something you remember. It’s up to you. Walk through the whole story in your head, from the beginning to the end. During the story, when you get home from the shop again, there is a single friend waiting for you. Part of the story is what you and that friend talk about for the first 5 minutes.