Science Today
Maybe there’s no need for any more thoughts about science, but I have a LITTLE one anyway…
It seems like another sign that science is wrong today is in how it handles those things it considers to be crimes.
It simply labels them as such. It removes the element of judgement. Theft is wrong, racism is wrong, social darwinism is wrong. Fit the label and be done with it.
The scientific approach doesn’t allow ambiguity, so basically it doesn’t allow truth. It denies history: people who thought this way in the past were all wrong in all ways.
It also doesn’t do anything to dispel the practice of taboo. Simone Weil is right when she says science is now based on fashion. If so it still supports taboo. –But taboo without basis except fashion (which is coercion plus whim). You better not try to talk about it dispassionately and scientifically! Especially among scientists, who more than anyone play the new power and prestige game. She’s right when she says we’re more primitive than the savages!
If we deny that things like prejudice have some basis in truth then we bury the true part along with the bad part and create a cancer. This should be considered when judging the EXTENT of evil in something. Does science today accept a little taint?
Ironically, since it’s about taboo, the science of labeling social situations as criminal, bad, evil or ‘offensive’ allows no room for public debate. So if one is labelled, or one attempts to debate and someone’s DESIRE FOR COMFORT *might* be hurt, one is in trouble. –Advocates abound for those who *might* be offended. Creating the chill of self-censorship even where thought should be unbridled. It thus gives power to any group which can label.
Maybe in an inner sense it’s turning to the lower elements of the soul, giving them power, then idolizing them.
Simone says we have to respect truth not comfort, not even needs.
Even so, as Simone asks, can science be given any credit for right or wrong? When civil rights first happened, many people experienced an awakening. But cultures often waken without law leading. Of course, it was the inspiration causing the change thru the law rather than the law itself.
But just because science doesn’t give virtue doesn’t mean it can’t take it away. What makes the effort toward scientific justice fail is when people lose the right inspiration and push for power and revenge instead of opportunity –with only the strength of a label, and the blessing of ‘neutral’ science and its current fashion supporting them. This can equally *inspire* backlash.
Maybe in an inner sense, higher elements resist being ruled by lower?
However, today things are in a muddle and no one can agree on terms. Everyone is scrambling for the ball. And which ball is more important anyway?! Can it even be discussed? If tested or even discussed, wouldn’t it be clear that some of the balls are obviously *flat*? Why call everything ‘belief’ and ‘opinion’ and then rule with an iron fist? So much for science!
Hmmm, maybe we’re like the old Soviets. We’re children who need limits. No room for idealism, no place for free discussion. We all know what would happen. If our iron fist of thought control were removed, if our mental Berlin Wall came down, we’d have the Balkans, inflation and warring tribes all over Western Europe and America, too! We can voluntarily let our souls enter the Abyss, but do we really want to let our societies do so? Maybe in the end, when dealing with society science is as equally pragmatic as when it makes a car: how to do our best without rocking the boat. Otherwise: chaos! “Truth, you can’t handle the truth!”
