Navigatng the Chaos - Part 9 - When do People deny the Science?

 People deny science when they:

• Politicize the science

• Insist that the science in one area or another is settled (science is never settled)

• Argue that there is only one specific form of the scientific method

• Draw conclusions that extend beyond the specific area of investigation

• Prejudice Rationalism over Empiricism

• Insist that public opinion determines the result

• Deny whole bodies of research as the outcomes may be inconvenient to the status quo

• Fail to challenge the bias of authority (people in power)

• Fail to report on the limitations of a specific scientific model

• Use terms that have no meaning in a scientific sense

• Promote pseudo-scientific junk that has an emotional utility

• Selectively use statistics to distort the result

• Fail to insist that experiments ought to be replicated

• Fail to understand the limitations of science and employ its methodology in areas that extend beyond the material

• Insist that science 'proves' something when in reality, it provides more evidence in support of (or against) a certain model - science is inductive, not deductive.

Reflections LII - Dialing back Decadence

Western Europe is at a time in its history where it is paying Dangeld so that the barbarians from within delays its final meal.

An obvious failure that we made in the west was to assume that elitist intent was guided by integrity and a sound moral foundation. It never was.

Any fool can redistribute wealth but only talented people can create it. Socialism conflates this distinction.

A common feature of all radical collectivist ideologies is the negation of the individual human spirit. Human worth is recalibrated to fit the machine.

The more I study history the more I realize that this tremendous yet uncalled faith in big government drives us from one crisis to another.

No war is won with a proportionate response. The US repaid the Japanese almost a thousand times over for the deaths resulting from the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Hatred is one of the most powerful dynamics that define the human condition. People will literally destroy themselves and harm their own personal well being in order to satiate this demon. Islamism in particular is fueled by such caustic pathos.

The most dangerous common of human traits that one often encounters is the combination of self righteousness and stupidity. In the modern world this sits at the core of Wokeism.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 8 - Science and G-d

 It is amazing how many people on both sides of the political/worldview divide have the impression that if you believe in God, you cannot truly be a man of science. My students constantly bring this point up and are surprised when I tell them that the two are not mutually exclusive. While it is true that no likely definitive proof for God exists within the frame of logic that underpins science, this in no way invalidates God.

Let us not forget that science operates within limits - limits set by empirical evidence and the self-contained rationalism that allow us (as scientists) to infer from the evidence available. Like any system of knowledge, it also accepts certain constructs a priori, and as Kurt Gödel showed with his Incompleteness Theorem that even Mathematics (as a system of logic) could not be verifiable within itself. Nevertheless, science is the best system for elucidating the mysteries of the universe as it constantly requires more stringent levels of checking and retesting. Couple this with the strength of Karl Popper's falsification argument, and it is easy to see why science is successful as an epistemological tool.

I am most certainly not a biblical literalist in that I see what purports to be the bible as a mixture, albeit a valuable one, of oral history and ancient mythology. I have also dismissed the scientific validity of intelligent design. Darwin's descent with modification makes sense to me, but at the same time, I am skeptical of the random mutation arguments so favored by the various Neo-Darwinian schools. I am more inclined to see evolutionary changes being driven by systems of self-organization. A methodology that is likely to be explained by science, although not within the dominant paradigm from which it currently operates at present.

Physicist-theologian Ian Barbour writes extensively about the interaction of science and religion and posits a four-facet model dealing with the relationship between these two avenues of human thought to be very useful.

In summary, Barbour (a Templeton Award winner) sees the two mechanisms of science and religion through the eyes of four different models: 

Conflict: Where they butt heads viz. Scientific Materialism versus Biblical Literalism

Independence: Where they ignore one another - Separate Domains and Different Languages and Functions

Dialogue: Interaction in the area of Limit-Questions. Parallels and Common Methodologies

Integration: Incorporating the two dynamics together within the framework of Natural Theology, Theology of Nature, or Barbour's favorite Systematic Synthesis.

Barbour analyzes these models in the areas of Astronomy and Creation, Quantum Physics, Evolution, and Continuing Creation, Neuroscience and Human Nature, and finally, God and Nature.

From this work, I take much solace in an integrationist model that seeks to build connections instead of divide. For me, this makes the most sense, and it is from this platform that I see the world - open to reason but at the same time mindful of a greater presence that exists.

Reflections LI - Messages from the Beast

An obvious human weakness is how we openly relinquish our free will to the tyranny of accepted opinion.

Most educational curriculum is centered on conformity at the expense of critical thought.

While your body may pay a price for resisting the insanity your soul is by contrast rewarded.

The destruction of the economy by Marxist principles is only matched by the evisceration of reason by post-modernism.

Life courtesy of its very essence has meaning. 

The barbarian hordes are forever at the gates. They have patience as they know that bad governance is not far away.

The evolution of sporting strategy involves the ongoing effort to neutralize skill by deliberate mechanical counterbalance. For great periods of time tedium dominates over flair.

Reflections L - Causual Observations

What is most tragic about the fine arts is that it likely peaked in the 17th century with a slight boost given to it by the Impressionists two centuries later.  Since then the decline looks to be terminal. AI may be the final nail in a once ornate coffin.

Anything perceived as free to use, will be ultimately abused by the public. Many people simply can’t help themselves.

The tragedy of the modern is that we are drowning in a sea of unoriginal sludge.

In an insane world it is even more important that one’s thoughts be focused, rational and reliably conceived.

To an extremist the danger is not the directly opposing viewpoint but the very truth itself.

A sad observation is that most people fail to understand the limits of science including many scientists themselves.

Any religion that uses excommunication as a weapon to ensure conformity has no understanding of the God-Person relationship.

A declining society has no problem relegating the truth to a position behind popular sentiment. The eventual aim is to eventually replace the former fully with the latter.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 7 - What is Good Science?

 Good Science is the pursuit of knowledge derived from questioning. It is the science that looks at a phenomenon and attempts to elucidate its workings through rational thought and empirical investigation. It strives to be as objective as possible in its process. Conclusions are eventually drawn following the thorough analysis of evidence, but the conclusions must not extend beyond the assumptions that so define the research.

There is no single definitive scientific method, but there are broad procedures that extend from the initial observation through hypothesis to the investigation, analysis, and subsequent conclusion(s) for any inquiry.

Scientists are not guardians of truth but agents of clarification that peel away the fog of noise in an attempt to model more accurately the workings of the world. They are, of course, free to philosophize and speculate about the significance of their findings (something I personally call the extended objective), but these speculations should not overwrite or even overextend the mandate of their original research. 

The individual Scientist is bound to understand the limits of their findings which ultimately calls for an appreciation of the restrictions of their respective disciplines. Science is not a religion, nor should it be vaunted as one; however, it is the best tool that we humans have for understanding the material world. It is indeed very powerful, but it is ultimately confined to the milieu of matter/energy.

Navigating the Chaos - Part 6 - The Purpose of my book Navigating the Chaos

 It isn't easy to make sense of the chaos that is modern-day reality. Transformational change, information deluge, and a preponderance of bad ideas often leave us feeling isolated in a world that seems to be edging closer to an expedited collapse.

Post-truth has made itself heard across virtually every intellectual discipline, leaving one navigating a turbulent pathway to a workable clarity.

It is my experience that if you wish to live a life of meaning that you also have to adhere to beliefs that are well thought out, clear, and based on sound reasoning and logic.

I would say that my eventual goal is making sense of the universe. A cynic would claim that such a task is futile, fraught with obstacles, and ultimately a bridge to eventual disappointment. Perhaps this is true, but I would not renege on the journey, its path may be convoluted, but the serendipity that it invites is overwhelmingly rewarding.

Navigating the chaos is a formed-in-the-fire product of me wrestling with a multiplicity of ideas that I have come across in my stay on the planet so far. It is a consequence of both my practical experience and independent inquiry that reflects issues as diverse as the nature of science, the ebbs and flow of history, and the trajectory of our future.

A great deal of what I write here is based on my judgment that I have endeavored to substantiate with evidence and reasonable speculation. I will admit when I am at a loss and most certainly welcome the reader to challenge my conclusions.

Over the years, I have learned that all issues are not as clear-cut as their champions make them out to be, and in virtually every case, one's personal position is a derivative of the net information available. While it is necessary to have principles, it is equally important to listen to contradictory standpoints, which is why the free flow of ideas is so critical to any debate.