Beautiful Science

I have a moment of clarity today, and decided to air it out here. You know, see if it jives. After studying the philosophy of science for a couple of decades, this is, basically, where I am with the whole enterprise. So, here goes.

Science cannot ever demonstrate teleology. Teleology is “purpose”, “design” or “meaning” to life. This means that science cannot attach itself to these larger questions, and this is precisely what postmodernism appears to state. The larger questions are “metanarratives” that shape our lives and culture. Lives and culture encapsulates all things that make life, life. That’s the premise. Now, I have to argue for the defense of this.

When science enters into a discussion of “absolute” ideas, or is seen as “proving” a larger question, it attaches itself to that question and become inseparable to it. When it does this, science becomes scientism (naturalism) and has moved from its proper realm of expertise. It, in short, becomes competitive. This competition hampers its imagination. It stunts its growth. It crushes its purpose.

When, “science”, for example, “proves” global warming, it at once is set up in competition with views that deny global warming. The “scientists” that, equally, use science to disprove global warming are not off the hook, either. They are both in competition because they have both stepped way beyond the realm of what science can and can’t do. It cannot establish the future.

When science attaches itself to global warming, and this global warming is attached to anti-western, anti-capitalism, anti-creation, science at once has moved beyond its bounds. I mean, if the science is correct, and global can be proven true, then we have, nay must, make radical changes in the industrialized world. Radical changes. And, who can argue with science, once it can be seen that science establishes absolute truth and the future?

Yet, the science against global warming is just as detailed and sophisiticated. Which one is “right”? How can the non-specialist choose? Do we just accept it, and “moo” with the herd? I don’t think science can establish global warming, or not establish it. That’s a question that cannot be established at all because it moves into “purpose” and “design.” You see, if capitalism thrives, and Christians influence culture, and the political right have their way, the Mother Earth will respond with dead fish, extinct tit-mouse habitats, and dwindling rain forests. That’s what Mother Earth does to “evil” politics. See, then, how science establishes teleology?

On the flipside, if capitalism and left unchecked, and free markets are left open, then the environment flourishes because it’s really the environmentalists that are hurting the world. Science, here, is used to defend two things it cannot when it comes to purpose. Science should never, ever, be attached, one way or the other, to political ends. It’s not its purpose.

Post World War II France reacted strongly against an alliance with “science” and government. After all, Germany, in that time, and decades before it, produced some of the most brilliant and celebrated scientists of all time. Science was meshed with government. Science propped up the government. The results were disastrous. Postmodernists do not want to see these results ever again.

You see, if “science” establishes “Truth”, then anyone who argues against “truth” is, well, a moron. Plain and simple. If science establishes a young earth, then old earthers are morons. Vice versa. The problem, which appears to be missed by a generation raised on forensic television dramas, is that science does not establish these larger questions.

Let me explain, futher. John Doe is accused of murder, and all the “evidence” points against him. We all know one of the arguments against the death penalty is that some are innocent. True. But, the larger point is missed: science, even if forensic, may point to the culpability of a person in a given crime, but science itself cannot establish what “crime” is, or why putting a double-tap on your wife’s lover is a crime. What’s “wrong” with murder? Science cannot answer this larger question. So what, we can “demonstrate” that a heart beats a few days after conception. Big deal. What’s that prove? Precisely. It proves nothing.

The larger question of abortion cannot be answered through beating hearts, brain waves, or cells. That larger question moves into “personhood” and “the meaning of life.” It touches upon “God.” The same is true for the Genesis question. If science is true, then Genesis cannot possibly be taken literal. There was no “Adam”, no “Noah” and certainly no ridiculous story about the Red Sea splitting because Moses, who spoke to a burning bush, told him to lead out a chosen nation! I mean, come on, people! Burning bushes? Horses and chariots thrown into the Sea? Talking serpents? Forbidden fruit?

You see, if science can “establish” that people don’t walk on water, then only a moron would believe that people can. Only a moron would disagree with “established science.” But, this is because of the often missing premise: science can establish truth. Once that is removed, all conflicts go away.

Science, to be what it is, cannot ever attach itself to any political view. It cannot establish the truth or falsity of any religious claim. It cannot establish the truth or falsity of any philosophy. It was never meant to, and it never can. It is only when it attaches itself to these other “truth claims” that it has the potential of creating “morons” who oppose it. And we all know what eventually happens to the “morons.” They were called “Jews” just 80 some years ago. Today, they are called, “the religious right.”

You see, science is precisly beautiful because it has no motive to establish “truth.” It is free from that obligation, and as free, it can operate within any institution. It can become anyone’s friend. A Muslim can use it, a Christian, and an atheist. Science would ever remain “neutral” as an enterprise, and this is why it is so cool. Here, we have a true empirical ability to investigate and occassionally by accident “discover” something never envisioned. The imagination in science should never be hampered or halted in the name of some religion or ideaology. It should never be hampered by anything except falsification, and even that doesn’t hamper it. It, oddly and paradoxically enough, helps it. Science, since it is not knowledge, can thrive on contradiction, paradox and antinomy. It is precisely because of these uncomfortable dilemmas that science constantly runs into that makes it what it is: ever imagininative, ever explorative, ever seeking, ever striving, ever evolving. Once science claims it has “arrived” – it has killed itself.

Science can talk about biology, but it cannot talk about biological beginnings. Science can talk about life, but it cannot talk about what “life” is, it’s meaning. It can talk about suns, moons, and stars, but never talk about how it all began, and for what purpose. This immediately sets it up against other human beings. When it makes these claims, it places itself into competition. Competition that does not agree with it has to be dealt with. The morons have to be exterminated, or at least made to look like what they are: boneheads.

Science cannot establish “evolution.” It can posit it, though. When it sets itself up as established truth, then what of the religions and the billions that hold to it? They are all morons. You see, if science cannot comment on these matters, then neither can it name call. It cannot be used to support a religion, a religious view, an anti-religious view, a political view, a socialist agenda, global warming, the politics of better morals, the purpose of ants, or the reason why whales occassionally beach themselves. I am arguing that science is neutral information. It is entirely and completely a pragmatic enterprise, only caring about what is useful, helpful for all. And, even here, it must be careful, for “caring”, “useful” and “helpful” imply purpose. See, it’s entirely neutral.

This is true, too, in the realm of morals. Science cannot demostrate whether pornography is evil. In fact, science has “helped” that industry. It has also “helped” the Christians in getting out the message through computer outlets that pornography is evil (the computer sciences). See, it “helps” antagonstic sides in the debate, and justifies neither of them at the same time. Beautiful! Does watching too much TV “effect” a person? Maybe. Who knows? See, “cause and effect” implies “purpose and design” and “prediction.” I mean, rock music is obviously the tool of satan, for when the third chord triads are studied, it becomes known as the devil’s chord, and causes certain brain waves to act in a violent manner so that the listener becomes so entranced while listening to Aerosmith’s 1976 “Rocks” album, they are prone to drugs, sex and violence. Science proves this. The Bible confirms it. Burn your Aerosmith albums.

This is inductive logic. We are bombarded by this type of useless reasoning all the time. Rush Limbaugh uses it. Bill Maher uses it. Barak Hussein Obama uses it. And so did George W. Bush. All science operates on the above logical formulation. And, if the above formulation about Aerosmith is silly, then so is the law of entropy. It’s based on the same logical form.

Science cannot tell me about the end of the world. How many Christians have used science against Preterism? Why is that bad, there, but good over here when the form of the argument is the same? It’s the form that can never establish any truth that should be seen for what it is.

This is what makes science beautiful. It is a unique form of wonderful “knowledge” making, like “make believe”. As one person called it, it is “useful fiction.” It’s a fiction we cannot do without, and has the support of the Bible for daily, practical, pragmatic affairs. But, it cannot go beyond that. When it does, it completely becomes something of a dangerous tool in the hands of the mob. And, we all know what mobs do to morons.

Related Posts