No Faith in Science
Thousands of years ago, two cave men were wandering around pondering the meaning of life. They suddenly found themselves falling, falling ever more rapidly, through a gigantic hole which had suddenly opened beneath their feet. Unfortunately, they had inadvertently happened upon a meandering high velocity/time warp/black-hole. Quite abruptly, their precipitous (and very scary) fall ended. They found themselves sitting on a sloping pile of rocks supporting two long, shining slivers extending far into the distance. “Uga wuga da boogo meexi noc fi,” said the first cave man. (Translation-Hey, we’re sitting on a sloping pile of rocks with two long, shining slivers extending far into the distance.”) “Yup,” said the second cave man. (Translation- Yes.) “Noko yi yi vrun bi,” said the first cave man. (Translation-I think we have traveled into another time) “Yup,” said the second cave man. (Translation – “Yes.”)
Suddenly, there was a bright light in the distance at the end of the shining slivers. The light grew bigger and bigger and a distant sound of thunder increased in volume until it became earsplitting. The light and thunder roared by them as they cowered terrified and face down, screaming into the rocks against which their faces were firmly pressed.
The sound of thunder became less and less as it moved further away from them. Then, all was quiet. Abruptly, they were once again picked up by the meandering high velocity/time warp/black-hole and thrust back into their own time.
“Wa noc ex ti vlibt ku ci nik?” asked the first cave man. (Transaltion-Should we tell the others what happened?) “Nope,” said the second cave man. And, by the way, can you speak English? I’m getting tired of translating.
“Sure thing,” said the first cave man. “But, why can’t we tell the others?”
The second cave man replied, “Because the scientists will never believe us and they will hold us up to great ridicule.” The first cave man then replied, “You’re right. And that would cause us great annoyance and displeasure.” “Yup,” said the second cave man.
So the cave men never told the rest of the cave people that they had crashed through a time warp and landed in another time and found themselves sitting on the side of a railroad track just as a train passed. The fact that they did not tell anyone about this amazing experience is very important. (Translation: Yac ta li yu teo ai mip mip.) Oh, wait, I don’t have to translate from English back to “Cavemanian.” Sorry, my civility got in the way.
There is a key problem with science and their revered “scientific method.” No, no. My civility is not the key problem. Rather, the fact that the cavemen refused to tell the rest of their contemporaries about their astounding experience is the key problem. “Why?” the scientist might ask. Except they really won’t ask because if they even bothered to read this at all, they would have tuned out well before this point and already have retreated back to the safety of their outmoded “scientific method.”
But, come back and read further, Mr. Scientist. Don’t be afraid just because you’ve never seen a train. Can’t you understand, it’s about the mathematics of the whole thing? Things or events that you perceive as fantastic, superstitious, unbelievable, un-verifiable, outrageous, etc really may have occurred or exist. Think about it. Why have people reported these same things over and over down through time, even before history was ever written? And, in answer to the “Why?” in the above paragraph, if people don’t report facts, the world is deprived of the knowledge of these events and the even greater knowledge which could be uncovered by studying the initial events.
Conspiracy theories, supernatural experiences, miracles, UFO’s are often true. Do you really think Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy using a rusty rifle with a mis-aligned sight, with a shot that even an F.B.I marksman could not replicate? And, how did a piece of the curbing, which the F.B.I. quickly confiscated, fly up and cut a man’s face when the shots were fired? And, how did the “magic bullet” which hit Governor Connally in the arm and Kennedy in the throat and head, and ricocheted off the curb, end up on Kennedy’s stretcher looking as if it had never been fired? Why did Jacqueline Kennedy record a set of tapes regarding the assassination which are not to be listened to or published for fifty years?
How can the sighting of a massive (a mile wide in many reports) metallic disc (UFO) directly witnessed by thousands of people in several states be discounted? How can the sighting of military planes pursuing the object, again seen by thousands of people, be denied by the military? The military later stated it was mistaken and that several planes actually were operating in the area.
Supernatural experiences are so frequent that most people accept them as a fact of life. But, of course, science does not. But, how many millions of people have “seen ghosts or experienced some supernatural phenomenon?”
“Miracles” have also occurred so often that most people also accept them as a fact of life. But, of course, science does not. But, how many miracles have occurred over time?
In conclusion, there are two very important points.
1. The mathematics of the incredible number of rational, intelligent people who have experienced extraordinary and unexplainable events and sightings precludes the possibility that any other rational, intelligent person would discount the validity of at least some significant percentage of these occurrences.
2. But, then, once again looking at the mathematics, how many other extraordinary and unexplainable events have never come to the attention of anyone because those who witnessed them are afraid “they will be held up to great ridicule” to quote the cave man? Further, how many reports of these types of occurrences have been lost over time and will also never be known?
The mathematics don’t work in favor of science. On the contrary, the out-dated “scientific method” not only comes up very short but, in actuality is the security blanket for a small group of very afraid people to hide under.
Science embraces only what it thinks it can explain. Direct observations of events by witnesses don’t ever count unless they are backed up by some rationale according to their obsolete and anecdotal “scientific method.” No matter how huge the number of witnesses to an event may be, scientists find their own comfort in their universal rejection of “eye-witness” and experiential occurrences. No matter how frequently a phenomenon has taken place, even if it was over thousands of years and experienced by millions of people of different times, places, cultures, people with religious beliefs or not, science rejects anything that is not “concrete” or “tangible” in its “considered opinion.
If scientists are so smart as they think, why can’t they answer two simple questions.
1. If all life, as they propose, came from a single molecule, then, where did the molecule come from?
2. On a slightly larger scale, if the universe came from a single mass smaller than a baseball and everything started with the big bang, as they propose, who made the single mass and who lit the fuse?
That’s actually three questions instead of two. But, at least, I admit my errors.
Finally, why would we ever trust any “body of knowledge” which cannot explain either one of the smallest things (a molecule) known to man, nor the largest thing known to man, the universe itself?
Look Spot. See the train.
Copyright
James Wharton
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, again, I don't know where to start. I really think you're just baiting us with these posts, but I guess I'm just a sucker for it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're really referring to when you say "scientific method." Do you just mean the insistence on evidence to back up claims? That seems pretty timeless to me. Aren't you from the "Show Me" state? I'd love to hear a better explanation of what you believe the scienticif method to be, because using the word "anecdotal" to describe science makes me wonder. Science is the antithesis of anecdote.
A person of a scientific or skeptical mindset isn't closed to new ideas. This is a common misconception. In fact, it's more often the True Believer that won't consider alternate hypotheses. You say supernatural experiences are part of everyday life? I say unexplained phenomena are part of everyday life. The difference is that you've indignantly assigned an explanation, and I haven't. Who's really more open?
There is a facinating and ironic phenomenon at work here and it has to do with uncertainty. While True Believers represent themselves as champions of the unkown..it's the unkown that frightens them...so much so thet they are all to quick to assign an explanation. No matter how implausible, it must be *something*. If you pay attention to a scientist/skeptic's discussion, they will offer alternative explanations, but will often settle on the fact that they just don't know WHAT it was...and they're okay with that. The universe is a vast and complicated place that we do not fully understand. But where there are gaps, the scientist/skeptic just waits, until there is a verifiable explantion. Was it a UFO? Yes: an Unidentified Flying Object. Was it a spaceship? Can't really say. The fear of the unkown doesn't frighten a scientist/skeptic. If anything it excites them--thrilled by the possibilities, but grounded in reality.
Let's talk about those numbers. How big are they really? How can you say how intelligent or rational the individuals might be? Read a little about Anna Mitchell-Hedges and the Skull of Doom. True Believers are very compelling. People's perceptions, recollections and motivations are so malleable and unreliable...intelligence and rationality has nothing to do with it. Some of the parents and families ripped apart by repressed memories of sexual abuse implanted by well-meaning but misguided therapists might not be so quick to agree with your assessment.
And seriously with the UFOs. The days of military and government cover-ups are LOOOONG gone. Do you really think that presented with the opportunity to generate another BIG BAD to add to his Axis of Evil that George Bush wouldn't have jumped on it? If that UFO was a mile wide, am I supposed to believe that not a single person who saw it could produce a decent picture? There is a camera in every other person's cell phone these days. CNN will cover and ape suit in a cooler, but won't put a mile-wide UFO on screen? Earth's orbit is littered with private satellites broadcasting radio, television and cell signals. There are astronomical observatories in all corners of the globe (and above it, and beyond it), all of these recording every minute of their observations. And still these interstellar spacecraft avoid detection by this dense network of sophisticated, technological devices only to be captured by the naked eye?
And then we come back to "the questions" and the sticky wicket of uncertainty.
1. Don't know.
2. Don't know.
There are many theories for the latter, from string theory that supposes alternate and invisible universes on separate vibrational planes and such, to the idea that our universe is just a snapshot in a series of expansions and contractions. I wish I understood it better, but again, I can live with the uncertainty. It doesn't minimize my existence. For the former, I hate to point to Wikipedia, but they have a decent summary of the competing theories (http://tinyurl.com/crg383). You'll be happy to see that one of them is extraterrestrial in origin.
You're building straw men again. No cosmologist or biologist would claim they have all the answers to these questions. All knowledge is tentative, pending a better explanation and stronger evidence. And yes, there is evidence involved, but you have to move past direct, personal experiences. When scientists study these sorts of topics, their evidence comes from the predictive power of the models they create. If the predictions made based on your theoretical model are accurate, then you have confidence in its explanatory power. Until we find your cavemen's high velocity/time-warp/black hole, it's the best option available. The only restriction is that the explanation is "natural." If the origins of life and the universe really are supernatural, then science will never be able to prove it...or disprove it. Gods, angels and Flying Spaghetti Monsters are outside the purview of science.
You can point to these restrictions or "rules" and say that they limit science, and they do, but you can't say they're rigid. When observations of the sub-atomic world ran affoul of our expectations, science adjusted, evolved, and recognized that quarks played by different rules. Science is NOT dogmatic...even if sometimes scientists are.
Finally, you ask why you should trust any body of knowledge that cannot explain "either one of the smallest things (a molecule) known to man, nor the largest thing known to man, the universe itself?" I say be very skeptical of any that tells you it can...at least for now.
Post Script: The idea of science as a safety blanket for the fearful is tragically backward. Why would I be fearful of the idea of fate, or of heaven? Why wouldn't I want to believe that someone "has a plan" for me or that the crap we go through and the horrors of war, famine, hunger, disease and the ocean of human suffering throughout the world happens for a reason, that it isn't completely pointless? Who would WANT to believe that when we die, we're...just...gone. I may be afraid...but it's not of what you suppose.