Science
INTRODUCTION
Looking at the real scientific breakthroughs in history, it is clear to me that there have been a handful of ’scientists’ and a mass of unthinking ‘lackeys’ who attempt to keep a scientific ‘truth’ going. This is, actually, against what science is - an on-going process of the acquisition of knowledge. This insistence on a kind of orthodoxy is bad for knowledge, though I admit new ideas must pass a rigorous test. Science is also dangerous in its fallacy that without scientific proof of something, it cannot scientifically exist. It can - its just that science has not yet caught up with nature.
Anthony North
The following essays are on this page:
To the Stars - After offering a brief history of our knowledge of space, I ask: Is it correct that our ideas of the universe are true to what the universe is, or do our mind-models of the cosmos assist in creating the universe?
The Moral Question - To what extend does science accept a moral code? And if they don’t, who should make sure there is morality in science? Indeed, can anyone do so?
The Hard Universe - The history of physics from Classical times, through the understanding of gravity and electromagnetism, to conservation of energy.
Science and Neurosis - We accept scientific decree as absolute in today’s world, but could it be that there is a worrying aspect of psychology and sociology creeping into the nature of science itself?
It Don’t Add Up - Mathematics is seen as an essential aid to science, and it is. But science is abstract thought. Can such a practice actually lead to truth?
Biology - In this account of the history of biology we end up asking if genetics is good or making us more like a god, as we interfere more and more in the codes of life itself.
Evolution - How true is the theory of evolution? Is it proof that an intelligent design is not required? Here, we discuss the possibilities.
Anti-Superstition - Science seems to rule in the modern world. Yet science is the opposite of the previous, more spiritual society. In its insistence that this previous world was wrong, does science itself have a serious problem when looking at the world - a problem that could prove dangerous?
DOCTOR WHO POSTS
3 Jul 07 - Time Travel
19 Jun 07 - End of the Universe
11 Jun 07 - Observation
7 May 07 - Longevity
Related essays elsewhere:
History page:
Isaace Newton - Charles Darwin
October 2, 2007 at 9:12 am
I agree with your simple yet profound conclusion. It has been a matter of fascination to me as an avid reader of science history and research that the massiveness of the material covered for the last 100 years precludes it all being investigated in depth. There seems to be waves of “popular” subjects. Then some practical interest is realized, and this pushes certain topics back so far they are forgotten. An example in the 20th century was the development in chemistry to reproduce natural molecules synthetically. The sources of these new products were by and large derived from petroleum by-products. We saw the great amount of money the Rockefellers put into science and science was helped a great deal by that, but also, organic or so-called “natural” sources became less interesting. If you look at the pharmacopeias of the 1890s to the early 20th century, they were 90 percent natural extracts. Today, the reverse is true, but now there is a resurgence in looking at herbs and foods and the idea that diet is primary rather than secondary in health maintenance and disease prevention. In older scientific literature, especially physics (natural science) one often finds the phrase: “This can be shown on theoretical grounds alone”, as if proving an experimental facts’ right to attention. I think this trend lead us away from experimentalism and strict attention to observable phenomena, but nothing as close to commercial interests in the scientific arena.
October 2, 2007 at 9:26 am
Hi Roger,
Thanks for that. A good assessment of the situation.
December 29, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Hi Anthony. I posted to:
http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/to-the-stars/#comment-24625
In posting it at first, I didn’t get a response, and so decided to look at what I wrote, and then posted the edited comment. Then reloading found there were two comments. So comment 10 and 11 are like a lesson in editing, both mine. I hope you could find a way to erase 10. Thanks for great articles and a lot to think about. R.
December 29, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Hi Roger,
Looks like I deleted the right one. Obviously, until I did so, the outcome was uncertain, but I think I seem to have created the correct reality.
I’m pleased you like my work. Many thanks.
May 13, 2008 at 12:13 am
The gobbledygook of ignoramus from humanitarian sphere.
You don’t know science, why do you dare to judge about it?
May 13, 2008 at 7:11 am
Hi She-Liger,
I’m not a scientist, but I observe people. Science is created by people, so scientists come under this category.
That’s why there’s such a thing as a ‘philosophy’ of science, to put science itself under the microscope.
It can point out the difference between the ‘purpose’ of science (to go, openmindedly, into a mystery and try to exlain it), and the ‘reality’ that presents itself, of an increasingly closed mind-set.
Thanks for providing a little more proof of the latter.