You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Where Science and the Humanities Meet

in #deepthink7 years ago

The problem of modern-day scientism is that the fanatics assert that science is the only valid method at arriving at truth. They forget that science is an inductive reasoning process and is only useful for examining certain aspects of the world that can be repeatedly observable. Also, science can be used to understand our environment as it currently exists, but is somewhat unsuited for evaluation of origins.

Mathematics is a deductive reasoning process that is another tool that can be used to examine and evaluate our environment. Many scientific research uses mathematics in their analysis. But mathematics exists only in the logical framework of the mind, yet no sane man would deny that mathematics is a real phenomenon. The assumption that only deductive reasoning process, science, is the only method at arriving at the truth is itself an inductive conclusion and not "scientific."

"Capra states: 'For example, when government wants to ask some experts about a political decision, they would invariably ask scientists. They would not ask poets - but they should, to get a broader spectrum of human experience.'"

The above trend is a dangerous trend. I will conjure up another scene from the movie Star Wars: New Hope to illustrate a point.

"The rebel fleet is still a threat."
"They are a threat to your star fleet, commander, not to this battle station. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it."

Science answers the question of can this be done, how is it done, but it cannot provide the answer to the question ought this be done. For political questions to be left only to such amoral quantity will invariably result in the above scene from the movie. We have the technology, so we will use it; the justification has neither a moral dimension, nor even a political practicality. The justification of the Imperial admiral is that since we know how to blow-up a planet, let's blow one up.

Capra is correct his suggestion to include members from other fields in deciding important policy decisions. As a carpenter would not attempt to build a house only with a hammer, so too should society attempt to examine our world using only science.

Sort:  

Image Credit: https://elinatrance.com/tag/soul/

things get quite deep in this analysis and govt's may need to hide while scientists and truth seekers reside in actually finding out the properties of ...reality.

Naked yogis from long ago, figured out this entire show

+1 for such a great response! and
+1 for using a Star Wars reference!

I think your comment on the oughts of policy is important. While science can give us statistical analysis of likely outcomes (which is very important data!) it cannot speak to whether we should do something or not. It may be statistically likely that obliterating a rogue nation state with nuclear weapons would make the world safer, but for many that crosses an ethical line of what it means to be human.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.16
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 55255.10
ETH 2314.82
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.33