Got Questions?

[jaybreak]

Part of the issue is that "science" as we know it is an artifact of our civilization. As Sheldrake notes, the sociology of how scientists do science is nothing like the common perception. It was never the thing we are taught to believe it is. I recall reading the book (1970s) on how DNA was discovered and the petty rivalry between the various scientists, competing for funding, trying to be the first to publish so as to get the credit for it. I've never seen anyone acting selflessly in academic scientific research in universities, nor even heard of it.

I suppose if we decided to talk about inquiry into the mechanics of life, the universe and everything (heh), and call it something other than "science," it might be easier to answer the question. Then we would say that God calls and drives people to investigate such things. In that sense, there is no proper role to articulate. Each of us is called to attend or ignore such things as it fits our mission. Since I entertain serious doubts about our ability to perceive reality in the first place, I'm not sure it makes that much difference. I don't think it's necessary to lay down some common perception of the nature of reality. We can't prevent people from trying it, but there's not much point in us trying to advise others on the matter.

I would expect that heart-led people would know not to take themselves too seriously. If someone's mission in life is scientific research, there's no real conflict. Materialism is just a model, not ultimate truth. It's appropriate in some realms of investigation because we know that the people who fund such research want only certain kinds of results. We don't tell everyone everything we discern. There's not a lot of use in me trying to submit for wide publication my experiences in computer tech support using the heart-led approach. I can record my findings, but my hacking methods won't make sense to most computer enthusiasts.

So I think we can just take what we can use and let folks who don't understand our approach just go and do what they do. In the long run, it won't make much of mark in eternity, anyway. Maybe someday we can watch scientific inquiry take a different approach, but I'm not expecting it in my lifetime.

Thanks for this response. I suppose I meant the scientific method itself, or the philosophy of science, not necessarily the really bizarre industry of modern science itself. Modern science has wonderful PR that hides a lot of the nastiness and garbage methods and assumptions that go on in the stockroom. Vox Day has some good breakdowns on his various past posts that bring this to light. I wish he'd write more on that topic.

It was probably more tolerant in the mid 1800s until Einstein, when science was referred to more as "natural philosophy." There weren't perverse incentives and . The squabbles were still there but it was more often about the ideas than grabs for fame and money (though that was part of it, too). A lot of those folks put themselves at great financial/practical risk to prove out their cockamamie ideas.