Posted on 05/23/2020 8:00:23 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The alchemists and astrologists who were the distant ancestors of modern science believed in a world of absolute truths. Uncovering the right formula, searching the sweep of sky, offered total control over the otherwise mysterious forces of the universe. Our current knowledge of the way that things are tells us that while the universe may have absolute realities, our understanding of them will never be so.
Quantum indeterminacy has left us with a universe in which the drive to know is constrained by our search for knowledge. Existence seems to be built to challenge our hubris, forcing us to think about our flaws, limiting us to dimensions and points in time, and asking us to accept what we cannot know.
The universe is not a machine that we can take apart and rebuild. It is built to be partly unknowable.
And the more we study the universe, the more we understand the importance of the observer. Science is not the genius jumping out of his bath, shouting, “Eureka”, and running through the streets, without the benefit of his cloak, to jot down the formula: it’s the ability to defy the variability of the universe by achieving the intended results, and replicating them over and over again by different observers.
Science is too often centered around politics.
Good title.
Makes the right sound like a bunch of morons.
There is nothing wrong with actual science. BUT today there is a lot of radical ideology that is presented in the words and forms of science.
Feynman called it “cargo cult science”.
The natives had constructed control towers, runways, bamboo airplane models. The guys in the tower had headphones made from coconut shells. Everything “looked” right, but it was nothing but an ignorant activity. He said much of science today follows that model.
I like the theory of all possible outcomes.
It means somewhere I’m a success who’s still in shape, married to a great babe (Italian), have 6 wonderful kids and am CEO of a major corporation :)
Instead of some fat middle aged guy that types a lot on FR lol
I wonder if the successful me reads free republic
In rare agreement with the author, then I noticed it was Greenfield...
You’re quite the contrarian today... lol
I thought it might be satire, but I guess not. Next time I take my boat out, I’ll try to keep away from the edge.
Another thought, the three most murderous ideas to hit human history in the last 100 years were nazism, communism, and our eugenics movement. All three had “science” as the absolute centerpiece of their propaganda.
All three were adamant that they were “only following the science” and revealing a scientific truth.
And now we almost daily hear democrats saying the same thing. It is the shield of a tyrant.
The author obviously doesn’t know what science is. Never did the idiot state it.
Eisenhower pointed out the dangers of that in his farewell address.
Science.....Wackos & Nutcases......Pragmatic American Citizens....Heroes and Champions of Freedom and Liberty!!! CASE CLOSED!!!
Always prattling on about “following the science” makes people sound like communists, nazis, or egalitarians.
Our founders did not leave us a government of science.
The science is settled, don’t you know?
Ping for virtue and certainty, not offered by science.
>> In rare agreement with the author, then I noticed it was Greenfield...
that is, in rare agreement with an article that concerns “science”...
There is a certain other hubris in saying “the science is settled”, or that one is “only following the science”.
Go back 30 years, and much of what we thought was wrong. Go back 100, and its even more. Go back 250 and it’s almost embarrassing. Go back much further and the science had concepts we would find laughable today.
So the progressives today would have us believe that somehow, we are privileged to live in the first era in all of humanity that now finally understands our world and the science of today will no longer change.
Thats some real hubris.
It is a religion to liberals.
Science doesn't offer us virtue. Lots of new technology that we may use in good or evil or just plain pointless ways, and lots of science which we can't use, and may never be able to use at all.
So how does that make either the author or conservatives appear like morons?
This is hilarious. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.