From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 19:00:00 GMT
Erin and all,
Erin said: "Seems to me you can believe the universe is
operating by chance or if everything is meaningfully connected....
I just honestly think your conception of a universe
has any more validity then Jungs."
I think you may have the wrong idea about my conception of the universe.
Let me explain.
I think that the pull of psuedo-science like astrology is a rejection of the
"reduction to oblivion" that science tries to pass off as "explanation." I
reject science in a way and then also reject the rejection.
E.g.
Seeker: What is substance?
Scientist: Substances are made of molecules
Seeker: What is a molecule?
Scientist: Molecules are comprised of atoms.
Seeker: What is an atom?
Scientist: Atoms have protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Do we know what substance is yet? Can we ever know by reducing in this way?
We can only understand these things in relation to other things, or better,
we only even understand these mental constructs in relation to other mental
constructs as all these "things" exist on the intellectual level.
Here comes a curve ball.
Seeker: What is an electron?
Scientist: We describe electrons as probability waves, probabilities of
existence.
Seeker: Probabilities of existence of what?
Scientist: We are not sure that it is appropriate even to ask.
To the skeptics society type who I'll refer to as the Skeptic, scientific
understanding means breaking the phenomenon down into smaller and smaller
parts until the person to whom the phenomenon is ³explained² is finally
convinced that he wasnıt really that curious to begin with or until the
listener is fooled into thinking that he understands when there is always
more reducing to be done.
The consequence of the Skepticıs reductionist understanding of science is
that it destroys the wonder that attracted the Skeptic to science to begin
with. This is because to the Skeptic science ³explains² reality in a way
the Scientist (like Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg) knows that it doesnıt.
Worse, the Skeptic doesnıt merely use science to explain but to ³explain
away.² For example, I was baking bread when a science teacher friend of
mine was visiting. I commented on how cool yeast is. ³Wow! Yeast is neat!²
I was in awe of my rising bread. Her first impulse was to agree and share
my wonder, but then her skeptical conditioning kicked in and she said,
³Yeah, well I guess thatıs just cuz(mumbo jumbo that prefaced differently
could have been interesting),² This friend usually does not take this
perspective, but the Skeptic definitely shares this ³thatıs just cuz² idea
of science.
The ³thatıs just cuz² way of thinking about science appears to have a
strange consequence: once science ³explains² something (i.e. breaks it into
bits) it no longer exists. I heard a news report that scientists located
the part of the brain that is responsible for feelings of empathy. The
Skeptic can now tell you that empathy is just a chemical response. Empathy
no longer exists. If you are near a Skeptic when you bring up altruistic
behavior among certain species of animals, the Skeptic will use an
evolutionary argument and will ³thatıs just cuz² altruism into oblivion.
Watch out! Physicists promise that a ³Theory of Everything² may be just
around the corner.
What the Skeptic doesnıt realize is that what has been destroyed by
understanding science as reduction is not altruism or empathy but the
Skepticıs own wonder. You can hear his wonder dying when he throws in the
word ³just² as in ³thatıs just because like a billion years ago(something
silly and dull-sounding but an explanation of something that is actually
neat)², he really means ³no wonder.² Not ³no wonder² as in ³no wonder the
Skeptic is so miserable!² but ³no wonder² as in no amazement, no awe, no big
deal. Wonder is not simply curiosity. It is an attitude toward the world.
I'll call the type who is attracted to psuedo-science the Romantic. The
Romantic recognizes the problem with the Skeptic's attitude toward the world
and rejects science to some extent. The Romantic recognizes that science
doesn't really explain anything.
E.g.
Seeker: Why is it that if I want to accelerate a 2kg mass by 3 m/sec per sec
it requires a force of 6 N?
Skeptic: Thatıs easy, because force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma.
Seeker: Thatıs not an answer. Youıve just generalized my question. Why
does F=ma?
But while the Romantic rejects science, he still tries to explain the world
with causes. (I don't see synchonicity as "acausal," just mysteriously
caused.)
The Romantic sees causes everywhere. We hear him say things like, ³Iım not
surprised you donıt believe in astrology cuz Capricornıs never do!² But,
unlike the Skepticıs Materialism, the Romanticıs pseudoscience increases
rather than destroys wonder. The Romanticıs ³thatıs cuz!² does not
contain a ³just² and is said in excitement and in awe of nature.
Pseudoscience, despite its irrationality, has the redeeming quality that it
preserves the wonder necessary to fully appreciate life.
One of Winston Churchillıs famous quotes applies: ³Any man who is not a
liberal before the age of 30 has no heart. Any man who is not a
conservative who is over 30 has no brain.² Churchill seems to assume that
the choice to live without a heart or a brain is an ³either/or² and that a
person should prefer being heartless over being brainless. From the
Romanticıs point of view, the Skeptic is choosing to be heartless. To the
Skeptic the Romantic is choosing to be brainless. Is this really an
irrational choice for the Romantic? The way that the Romantic thinks about
the world may be irrational, but the choice to view the world romantically
rather than the way the Skeptic sees it may be a completely rational one
considering the alternative of the Skepticıs reduction to oblivion.
But we also know that the Romantic solution has an important casualty, the
Romanticıs brain. Is there another way? The Scientist for one has been
able to keep his brain and hasnıt lost his sense of wonder. Albert Einstein
describes the Scientistıs sense of wonder:
³A scientists religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at
the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, in comparison with it, all the systematic thinking of
human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the
guiding principle of his lifeıs work.²
Niels Bohr echoes this sentiment:
"Whoever talks about Planck's constant and does not feel at least a little
giddy obviously doesn't appreciate what he is talking about"
While maintaining a respect for what the tool of science still has to offer,
our worldview should differ from the Skepticıs view of the world, which is
filtered through the lens of science. (Science models reality but its
models should not be mistaken for reality.) Thus, if we think like the
(capital "s") Scientist rather than the Skeptic we can avoid the
irrationality of the Romantic and the Fundamentalist Believer while
preserving an attitude of wonder toward the world. This is just to say that
I think it is possible to have a heart and a brain.
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 18:49:45 GMT