A discussion about experience

[DonSchaeffer]

I didn't think we were so far apart. I just think you like discipline more than me--maybe. I believe that soon we will find out something that puts a lot of argument to rest or at least moves us along. The human enterprise in space and new neurological studies really look exciting. I may not live long enough to see it while I'm alive. But that is part of the mystery.

I am not a biologist but I love to study protozoans and bacteria. So many questions and wonderment about the lives of those blind little bits of life--what does that even mean?

[Polymerase]

I just think you like discipline more than me--maybe.

It’s not about liking discipline. More of realizing the benefit of a disciplined and systematic approach. I too, have dreams. Wild and spectacular dreams. But in order to put your dreams under scrutiny, one must have the required tools for doing so. If you do not have tools that fit, then your dream is either just a dream, or represents an idea that cannot be methodically investigated. Maybe it won’t remain that way forever - but there is no point in wasting time and money on a hypothesis that cannot be properly tested, and is bound not to yield any result.
But every once in a fluorescent moon - or even at an even lower frequency - someone conjures up a dream that can pave the way for new understanding, because it will let itself carve with the tools we have at hand.
Maybe we won’t reach the point were we can put divine entities under scrutiny, but we are always stepping forwards - at an ever increasing rate. With a lot of counterproductive sidesteps along the way. I’ve already proclaimed my worries about the de facto elimination of the universities,because of the enormous pressure put on science from corporate funding. Short term financial gain is killing long term systematic research. Academia has failed in protecting the autonomous nature of the universities. My dreams are revolving around living in a world more conscious of the value of basic research without a profit motivation. Scientific accomplishment is a merit itself.

[DonSchaeffer]

Oh I am in complete sympathy with your statements about the inadequacy of science education (at least in the "softer" sciences). I do see a path forward into a wide new orientation in the sciences. I am too old to be much of a part in it. But scariness is coming. It's exciting as observations trickle out of the research. We have such great tools now.

[DonSchaeffer]

Idle Questions

I won't ask
about words.
I know what the
answer will be.
But I will
ask about meanings.

How many meanings
will fit in the mind
of a germ?
And what does
a meaning feel like?

I watch them
every day and
see them
navigate the simple
puzzles of their lives

and wonder
what are they feeling?
And how long
do their
feelings last?

[charlie g]

Hi all, say polymerase, just this 1998 physics/ astronomy/ cosmology community embraced..yet with worries ( what are we to do in a paradigm shift?) embraced the stark 'reality' that we only understand 1/3rd of our universe,

2/3rds are : dark energy..we to 1/24 still do not know what 'dark energy is''. So please, polymerase gently have caution with the concept that; 'data will be a lantern to understanding our reality'. data sets come and go..gently understand we are further refining

the 'reality' that our universe is accelerating in expansion..not ( as we expected) slowing down in expansion . Dark energy ( we as yet 1/24, have no clue to what it is..yet we refine proof of: 'it's existence'.)...it is the force which has our known universe
accelerating in expansion.

Late cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, wrote in 1999: 'it was a missed opportunity for theoretical physics, Newton could have predicted the expansion of the universe.'.Newton himself, was troubled by the absurd aspect of his:

gravitational mechanics/ stating a universe in perpetual equilibrium ( gravitational mechanics asserts : bodies attract one another..masses come together..so why has not matter squashed together?!).

In 1693 ( six years after publication of: "Principia" ) a cleric asked Newton how gravitational mechanics keeps all apart, all in equilibrium? Newton noted..'with a divine power' [ 12/23 Sci.American, pg 64-65).

Data sets come and go..I cheer you all for 'riding the wave to shores unknown' with data sets...but let's ( is this a pun?) be real..certainly humble ...shared forum communities are wonderful. charlie guevara

[DonSchaeffer]

Just relax and enjoy the passage.

[Polymerase]

So please, polymerase gently have caution with the concept that; 'data will be a lantern to understanding our reality'. data sets come and go..gently understand we are further refining

And this, my friend, is the beauty of science. Data sets come and go, and they are all we have. Any data set that no longer support our current understanding of the likelihood of a particular conception being true, is discarded. We are not governed by feelings, opinions or preconceptions. Whatever underlines our current understanding will be incorporated into new understanding, paving the way for new data sets, leaving the disproven ones behind.
I am not sure what you are objecting to, or ask us to be cautious of?

Following the data simply means not claiming ownership of, or clinging to an established “truth.” A systematic and methodical approach will yield useful results, even if it takes you away from what you thought to be known facts.

Post scriptum: We cannot examine that which cannot be tested. But history has shown us that such unscrutinable areas sometimes are unlocked by new knowledge, allowing us to find a way to put them under methodical scrutiny.

[charlie g]

Right you are, polymerase, the dignity and adherence to 'scientific method of seeking reality outside ourselves'...is the way to go deeper into experiencing objective reality.

My 'caution' is my sense that we are quite approaching a paradigm shift...and troubles arise when we educated westerners can not now agree on our shared historical foot print...be it anthropocene climate alterations, exploitations of regions on

our globe for benefit of the few dominant cultures...all to say the nobel scientific method of reaching objective truth. with data sets...well it's put in a dark closet when convienient to policy makers, and it is 'trotted out like a one trick pony'..

when dominant policy makers push an agenda.

I sense our nobel scientific methods have since time ago..been controlled by dominant policy makers...let the light shine only when prudent for some. I wonder how we mature through this upcoming paradigm shift?

[Polymerase]

Right you are, polymerase, the dignity and adherence to 'scientific method of seeking reality outside ourselves'...is the way to go deeper into experiencing objective reality.

My 'caution' is my sense that we are quite approaching a paradigm shift...and troubles arise when we educated westerners can not now agree on our shared historical foot print...be it anthropocene climate alterations, exploitations of regions on

our globe for benefit of the few dominant cultures...all to say the nobel scientific method of reaching objective truth. with data sets...well it's put in a dark closet when convienient to policy makers, and it is 'trotted out like a one trick pony'..

when dominant policy makers push an agenda.

I sense our nobel scientific methods have since time ago..been controlled by dominant policy makers...let the light shine only when prudent for some. I wonder how we mature through this upcoming paradigm shift?

Thank you for clarifying, Charlie!
I am in perfect concordance with what you describe. The world is complex, and its complexity is growing exceedingly fast at such a velocity that grasping the full extent of our current understanding is nearly beyond the point of what we could expect the “common man” to be able to process. The results are clearly showing, as neither schools, nor universities, nor any other authority has managed to communicate knowledge in a proper way, rendering people prone to simplified and erroneous “truths.”

There are several mechanisms at work. I’ve already talked about how corporate funding and financial interest “en fait” has killed independent, autonomous research, as should be carried out by universities. No university has the funds to achieve its own academic independency, and they are all dependent on government funding, which is never sufficient. As scientific institutions, they are supposed to be autonomous, not letting commercial interests govern what to study. The murky reality is, that not only corporate funding puts demands upon the focus of research and desire to gain specific results, but most governments seem to also try directing what scientists are to put their efforts into. This means the very nature of science is challenged, and long term studies absolutely necessary for a broad knowledge base as a basis for scientific breakthrough is sacrificed for short term profit results, under the threat that funding will be retracted if the institutions do not comply. This is a tremendously serious threat both to science and to humanity, and it is not sufficiently recognized. Not even by the scientific community itself, let alone the individual researcher.

Another mechanism, is “the death of expertise.” I tend to state that the internet is one of most tragic events of human history. As a platform for sharing knowledge, the internet is a delightful concoction, making us able to share information instantly, and pushing us into an accelerated process of understanding our very existence. This, unfortunately, is not the case. The internet creates a murky den for all of those striving to navigate the complexity of the modern world. People are like water. They will always strive to take the shortest, easiest route with least resistance. That means listening to those who offer simple, easily comprehensible solutions, requiring little effort, and placing you in a position where a notion of self importance is meritable. With the advent of youtube and its likes, recognition of expertise has died. A general perception, is that anyone can learn everything from googling and watching youtube videos. 2-3 ph.d.’s and 30 years of research experience is not qualifying anyone to have an opinion. On the contrary, this puts you in a position where you are perceived as a spokesman for a global effort to oppress the common man, by confusing the general population with a gibberish of incomprehensible rubbish called “science.” You are feeling a lot more important by believing those who present simple solutions, putting you in charge of understanding you have been duped by authorities, and putting the pieces together to have the world make sense. The likelihood of such an understanding being true is non-existent, but it provides comfort to those who are scared by the complex chaos our world represents. Hence, science is an enemy standing in the way of their freedom. Anyone unwilling to accept simple solutions are part of a conspiracy, and must be eradicated. These movements are extremely dangerous, and not recognized properly.

The class differences of tomorrow will not stand between financial resources or social status. It will stand between those able to process knowledge, and those who don’t. It is quite probable that ignorance will win, and the scientific communities will crumble as the failure to put one’s “weltanschauung” under critical examination causes ignorance to eradicate complex thinking on a societal, or even global level.

The coming paradigm shift may very well be a noesdive into another dark age governed by superstition and ignorance, making only those of greed and physicla power succesful in surviving. There are three mechanisms regulating mankind when we fail to regulate our coexistence. These are war, famine and epidemics. They present in a random order, but each and every one of them triggers the other two, and they are self reinforcing.

The fight for recognizing knowledge, authority and science is ever more important. We may be on the brink of a revolution tossing us into another dark age, unless we as scientists find a way to communicate science in a way that prevents people from joining the dark sode of conspiracies and ignorance. So far, we have failed in our efforts to do so. I am not optimistic. Actually, I am very, very, very scared.

Sorry for the long rant. But this is a great concern, and I am not the only one seeing it. But what shall we do? How can we turn the tables, and point humanity in a constructive direction? Democracy is a shrinking entity in our time. We are running out of resources, also in the field of intellectual progress, and the ominous clouds of declining political freedom about to unfold is not providing any hope.

Otherwise, I am doing great…..

[DonSchaeffer]

Nobody used to read science except those who made an investment in it and understood the code of science. At one time it was a more or less secret code that kept the words of science in a closed group, safely. Now the dispensation of science or the banner of science, the license of science has slipped into the popular culture and the popular anti-culture. Both are now of equal value. It is nearly criminal for someone to claim they have access to knowledge more than others--people who make those claims are dismissed or worse. Science did best when it was the province of documented experts. Now anyone who can make a guess is a scientist. Look at me for instance, I spent half my life getting a Ph.D. and I use it to claim more than I own. Thank goodness I am not in a position to claim expertise and espouse anything. Everyone is safer without me.