SECTION VIII Chapter 4 - The "True" Role of Science in the Realm of Philosophy, and Rationalism vs Irrationalism "Whatever can be known, can be known by means of science; but things which are legitimately matters of feeling lie outside its province. Philosophy ... has consisted of two parts inharmoniously blended; on the one hand a theory as to the nature of the world, on the other an ethical or political doctrine as to the best way of living. The failure to separate these two with sufficient clarity has been a source of much confused thinking." --Bertrand Russell "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -–Arthur C. Clark "TRUE" Role of Science It has been said that there "should" be NO natural conflict between science and religion because science merely seeks PHYSICAL, MEASURABLE answers to such questions as "Where did the universe come from?" and "When was the earth created?"—where as philosophy/theology seeks to tie all the great issues and facets of the universe together into a comprehensive, meaningful/moral framework to answer WHY! That is, science focuses on ANALYZING data in purely physical terms--whereas philosophy/religion INTERPRETS the data along MORALISTIC (or "good" vs "bad") precepts. Science is neither a philosophy nor a religion, because it, in itself, attaches no morality to its discoveries. True, science may be used to determine the cause and effect of a given subject. Practitioners of science may establish guidelines for conducting all scientific experiments in an honest and truthful manner. But science cannot, by itself, be used to answer moral questions regarding whether its subject under scrutiny is either "good" or "bad". Instead, its analyses and conclusions must be "interpreted" within a broad philosophical framework, in order to answer moral questions. Take the question, "Is capital punishment a form of murder? (i.e., meaning "bad" in this connotation.) Science cannot definitively answer this question. It may be used as a TOOL to gather information relevant to the issue of capital punishment. Statistics may be gathered to prove whether or not punishment deters crime within society. Studies of various modes of execution (hanging, electrocution, poisoning, etc) can be made to see which ones minimize pain and suffering. However, science, in and of itself, can NOT define if capital punishment is MORALLY "wrong"!--For this is the role of PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS--be they based on religion, or some nonreligious system. As another example, take the question, "Is the nature of the world inherently good or evil"? Although science can be used to collect and analyze data -- it is moral philosophical systems that ultimately pronounce the nature of the world as "good" or "bad". It is philosophy/theology (and not science) that seeks to answer such questions as "What is the purpose or meaning of life?", "How shall one find happiness and fulfillment in life?" and "What is virtue?" Is the "Scientific" View-- a Philosophy? The "scientific" paradigm (i.e., the view that the scientific method is a valid measure of reality) is a key component of many philosophies. Still, this paradigm refers to the validity of using science as a TOOL. As such, it can not prove whether the subject matter under scrutiny is good or bad, unless this is viewed in tandem with some other morality system. Now, it IS true that science develops "theories" to explain HOW things work--and that these theories are modified (and in some cases discarded) as more information becomes known. Theories and data from science "CAN" be used to help debunk or prove various philosophies/religions. However this does NOT establish science itself as a philosophy! Thus, when people claim to be "men of science"--what they really mean is that they conduct their lives around rational, scientific explanations of the world around them.--Drill down further into their deeper beliefs, and one will see that based upon their PHILOSOPHICAL outlook toward the world, that various men and women of science would answer MORAL questions, such as 'Is life good?', and 'Do you believe capital punishment is wrong?' in VERY different ways! Faith and Revelation also as "TOOLS" To Better Understand the Universe For individuals who believe that there is some divine-like intelligence "out there" which can be "tapped into" by humans--REVELATION and faith are perceived as an alternative, if not SUPERIOR TOOL, with which to understand the nature of the universe. Unlike science--faith and revelation are NOT limited to man's senses nor measurements. However, even revelation and articles of faith must ALSO be interpreted within a philosophical (religious) framework to have true meaning—i.e., to answer great moral questions. For example, in Genesis of the Old Testament, we are told that God pronounced His creation of the world as "good". In contrast, other religious groups (examples Platonism and Gnosticism) viewed the world as materially "evil" or "sinful". St. Augustine reconciled his doctrine of "Original Sin" with the Genesis account as follows: The world was seen as originally "good" upon creation-- but had become corrupted and "evil", following the expulsion of Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. St. Augustine's moralistic interpretation of the meaning of Creation and sin (his paradigm of Original Sin) became an important tenet in both Catholicism and Protestantism. Indeed, some of the most important doctrines of Christian theology (such as St. Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin and the doctrine of predestination) were formulated by individuals to whom the revelation was NOT directly given--sometimes CENTURIES after the event. These individuals (theologians or religious scholars) were, in effect, devising philosophical systems that revolved around specific beliefs in God. Logic, rationality, and (in some cases) the best science from their time--were integrated by these theologians, along with matters of faith and revelation--into their philosophical/religious systems of belief. The point is, that it is the role of PHILOSOPHY to integrate and interpret BOTH faith AND reason together into a coherent moralistic system. Only philosophies develop ethical/moral systems--and not science which is strictly neutral on issues of morality! Some philosophies revolve around belief in a Creator. These, may or may not be, later accepted as the official doctrines of a religion. Other philosophies do NOT revolve around a belief in a Creator, but choose some another basis for their system. Some of these may or may not also be based on an ideology. Ideology Philosophies may be categorized between those that are ideologies, and those which are not. Using Hannah Arendt's definition, an ideology is a philosophy that "claims to possess either the key to history, or the solution for all the 'riddles of the universe' or the intimate knowledge of the hidden universal law which are supposed to rule nature and man." Typically followers of an ideology (ideologues) are insistent that ONLY their belief system can solve the ultimate problems of the world/universe. Many religions could qualify as an "ideology"-- since they believe in a powerful deity who can solve all the "riddles of the universe". One important exception are deists--ie those who believe in a powerful deity, but not necessarily one that intervenes in the daily affairs of humans. Practically- speaking, only CONSERVATIVE groups view their LEADERS as having perfect and exclusive UNDERSTANDING of God's Will--which will lead mankind towards some utopia-like state if they can only gain absolute power. More moderate to liberal religious groups believe they worship a perfect God and follow His essential doctrines.--Yet, they are more open-minded towards the possibility that they do not understand ALL of his "Will"-- and how this translates into daily living. Politically, this makes them more TOLERANT towards other groups who did not believe the same way that they do. Ideologies may, of course, be based on atheistic systems! Russian Marxist communism would be an example of an ideology--because its members have claimed that there is an invisible force progressively moving civilization towards a workman's utopia. If an atheistic group believes their philosophy will solve all of mankind's problems (essentially a state of "utopia") -- then this group of atheists may be appropriately dubbed as "ideologues". Again, the point is that BOTH religious and nonreligious adherents may be ideologues. A key mark of the ideologue is his/her INTOLERANCE towards all other points of view--because they believe that "their" FUNDAMENTAL outlook on the world will create a future heaven-like/utopia existence--and that ALL others views will lead to a hell-like existence! Philosophies based on humanistic principles (examples Stoicism, Secular Humanism, etc) are NOT religions/ideologies-- unless their followers PROMOTE knowledge of its principles as "the key to history", "the hidden universal law which are supposed to rule nature and man", etc. There are, of course, many forms of humanism--both religious and secular-- whose creeds are general statements of behavior, as opposed to ideologies. The Humanist Manifesto is an example of a general outlook on life, and is therefore a philosophy--as opposed to a religion or ideology. Religious humanists incorporate the philosophical moral system of humanism into their religious beliefs. (See Section XI). (Note: In the next to last section, I contrast ideologues with humanists as follows: An ideologue seeks to create a heaven on earth, and must therefore invoke authoritarian powers in order to police it. A humanist, instead attempts to prevent ideologues from creating a "hell on earth". That is, a humanist accepts that there will possibly never be a perfect ideal state that humans will live in. Therefore, humanistic philosophies generally stress a political-social climate that promotes toleration for a wide variety of views, while promoting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for ALL individuals (to borrow from a famous humanistic phrase.) Example of a Mushroom Society Let's take a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the above definitions, say a group who forms for the study/devotion of mushrooms. If this group determines to perform scientific rational analyses and tests on mushrooms-- say to objectively collect facts regarding uses for mushrooms--then arguably this group could be deemed a "scientific" organization. The group members' philosophical belief system would determine whether the overall discoveries would be viewed as "good" or "bad". For example, if the group members' philosophical system stressed good health--then medicinal features that promote one's health would be determined "good". If instead, the group members were an aggressive, warlike people who wished to find a poison to use against some enemy--then poisonous attributes might be deemed "good". The mushroom society would NOT qualify as a religion or ideology unless the club members began attributing "mystical or divine-like powers" to mushrooms. That is, unless they held that there is some unknown, mysterious force at work, which will somehow solve major problems in the world which are beyond the capabilities of ordinary human beings. Moral Philosophical Systems-- Categorized as "Religious" vs. "Non-Religious" Moral philosophical systems incorporate outlooks/attitudes regarding the nature of the individual RELATIVE TO society and the world around us. As such, these philosophical systems pronounce moral judgments on what is "good" or "desirable" for the individual and society. One obvious way to categorize philosophical systems is along RELIGIOUS vs. NONRELIGIOUS lines. Both religious AND nonreligious philosophical systems have incorporated within them various gradations of outlooks that range from outright rejection of the scientific method, to acceptance of science's findings within their doctrines. Thus, one may find BOTH religious and nonreligious (or secular) individuals who are also scientists. Alternatively, one may find BOTH religious and nonreligious individuals who are strongly ANTI-science. Moral Philosophical Systems-- Categorized "Humanism" vs. "Fundamentalism" vs. "Hedonism" A more relevant categorization of philosophical systems (in this author's opinion) is along the lines of the VALUE these systems place on the INDIVIDUAL, in relation to SOCIETY. Using this criteria, there emerges three major groups of moral philosophical systems. (Note, these three moral philosophical categories may be further divided into religious and nonreligious systems.) * HUMANISTIC philosophies (both religious and secular). These are generally concerned with the improvement or quality of human living--both in this generation, and those to follow. Humanistic philosophies stress toleration, individual liberties and freedoms within an "imperfect" society. Hedonistic activities (such as conspicuous consumption, pollution, etc) are denounced-- although there may be weak laws to prevent these. * FUNDAMENTALISTIC/IDEOLOGICAL philosophies (both religious and secular). Fundamentalists, as with humanists are also concerned with improving society both for the current and future generations. Unlike humanists, fundamentalist believe in invoking a powerful AUTHORITY in order to enforce their creed upon society--and in so doing, bringing it towards some heaven-like/utopia state. Fundamentalists decry individual freedoms and democracies--as these can never lead to a "perfect" world. Religious fundamentalist groups may be found among Christians, Muslims, and Jews. It may also be among nonreligious groups such as Russian Marxists. * HEDONISTIC philosophies (both religious and secular). These focus only on the selfish, materialistic wants and desires of the individual. As such, hedonists do not care about other people, or society in generally. (Note: As will be covered in Section XI, Chapter 3, fundamentalists have attempted to DISTORT the term " humanism" by grouping this with "hedonism.") In the last century, science has at different times, been COMBINED with each of these three moral philosophical systems--humanism, hedonism AND fundamentalism. Humanistic scientists looked towards technological and medical advances that would improve the quality of life for current and future generations. Hedonistic scientists focused on producing materialistic goods (an example would be large, luxurious cars) without any consideration for cost, efficiency, or pollution-- ie costs to current or future generations. Science, can also be combined with fundamentalist philosophical systems. A classic example of this was Nazis German science during WW II. Here, Hitler's butcher doctors claimed that they were conducting "scientific" medical research-- while torturing their victims for the "good" of Nazi Germany. Most Nazi research was INTERPRETED according to an ideology that viewed themselves as members of a morally superior (Aryan) race. Because of the strong entanglement of their science with their fundamentalist IDEOLOGY, this led Nazi scientists to introduce a large number of fallacious, even outrageous assumptions into their studies. It is probably no coincidence, that during this time, Nazi science was also heavily involved with belief in the occult. (See Section V, Chapter 19) How a "False" Assumption can Lead to a False Conclusion--Regardless of How Rational a Person's Reasoning Processes are. Human knowledge is NOT 100% accurate--nor will it EVER be! Therefore it is necessary for certain assumptions, or premises to be accepted by individuals, to bridge over gaps in knowledge--and form the foundation of belief on which a person can first build his philosophies. It is important to realize that because every philosophical system MUST start with some assumptions--some of these may in reality be FALSE: And REGARDLESS OF HOW RATIONAL AND LOGICAL ONE IS-- Whenever false assumptions are used, any carefully reasoned conclusions relying on these false assumptions are likely to be FALSE! The most obvious example of this can be seen in studying history, such as when the most RATIONAL, LOGICAL people, still believed in the existence of witches. Of course, one reason why rational people believed in witches is because the Bible appeared to acknowledge their existence through the commandment "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." That is, many people accepted the existence of witches based on BIBLICAL authority. Once this premise was ACCEPTED as fact, then people devised the most rational and logical means for "discovering" witches in their midst-- determining the nature of their powers, and what punishments to apply, etc. It was not until people began to question the ASSUMPTION that witches even existed -- that people eventually came to see that their conclusions were not only false, but absurd! This concept of bad assumptions or "input" is familiar to those who work with computers. That is, it has been commonly observed that sometimes the PERFECTLY, logical computer will produce FALSE, or erroneous output. The cause? Bad or FALSE INPUT was given to the logical computer to work on. This principle is known as the GARBAGE IN-GARBAGE OUT principle. The Garbage In-Garbage Out Principle Using the analogy of the computer to that of the rational human mind, there are actually TWO ways for output (conclusions/knowledge) to be erroneous (ie garbage): (1) GARBAGE IN-GARBAGE OUT. That is, where erroneous input (GARBAGE IN) is used by the rational computer/human processes--The result is erroneous conclusions (GARBAGE OUT). or, (2) BROKEN COMPUTER/BRAIN - Using the parallel of the human mind, this occurs when its reasoning is faulty (broken). Again, typically the result is GARBAGE OUT. Rationalists may experience the first error (GARBAGE IN-GARBAGE OUT), where they have used bad assumptions in their reasoning process. Rationalists may also reason incorrectly, but this is less likely where the individual honestly and carefully reviews his/her reasoning, with the intent to correct all such errors. Those who oppose rationality-- ie "Irrationalists"-- actually expose themselves to BOTH types of errors listed above-- UNLESS OF COURSE THEIR FEELINGS/REVELATIONS TURN OUT TO BE "ABSOLUTELY TRUE"! That is, unless their feelings/revelations are accurate, then they are susceptible to both types of error: (1) bad input (GARBAGE-IN) (2) irrational thinking (BROKEN PROCESSING UNIT) Because Irrationalists are convinced that their answers (OUTPUTs) are correct, they frequently do NOT believe in the importance of checking out either their INPUT (to see if it is garbage), or their REASONING process (to see if it is computing/thinking properly) to look for errors. The Example of the Gigantic Turtle Holding Up the Weight of the Earth. An interesting example demonstrating the use of rationality can be seen in a story told by Bertrand Russell. One day, while discussing the scientific view of the universe, he was confronted by an Indian who stated that his religion viewed the earth as supported on the back of a giant turtle. Russell politely pointed out that if this were true, then the gigantic turtle would, in turn, require a support for it to stand on. Angered by Russell's response, the believer shot back, "You think you're so smart!" "But, I tell you, it's turtles ALL THE WAY DOWN!" In the above example, BOTH individuals -- ie both Bertrand Russell and the Indian religious believer -- were using rationality to describe their version of the physical structure of the universe. The difference between their points of the view, corresponds to the importance both individuals placed towards using scientific observation of the physical world as an INPUT to their reasoning process. That is, Bertrand Russell would argue (if he were alive today) that because scientists have mapped the entire earth using satellites, and have monitored our local galaxy with powerful telescopes--that we should have "seen" giant turtles out there by now if they truly existed. The "Turtle" believer had accepted the premise (input) that a gigantic turtle was holding up the weight of the earth-- and rather than question his assumption, rationalized that there was a turtle there--regardless of whether anyone had seen it or not. Possibly by this, he believed that the turtles existed in another plane of reality--and thus could NOT be perceived merely through physical observation and measurement. Only through faith/ revelation could this "truth" be known. The Philosophy of Rationalism vs. that of Irrationalism During the early Dark Ages, feelings of faith were emphasized over reason. Physical inquiry and reasoning (via the scientific method) was condemned by Catholic religious authorities as sinful in God's eyes;--For this might lead individuals to question the Church's pronouncements on orthodox or "correct" religious doctrine. This was pronounced a deadly sin. RATIONAL INQUIRY began to play at least some role within medieval society during the later Dark Ages--through the efforts of such men as St. Aquinas and the Scholastics. However, although the Scholastics stressed REASON, this was subordinate to Church doctrine. Reason was to be kept within strict limits, so as to never question the basics of Church doctrine itself. Most of the Scholastics' rational inquiry was applied towards the SUPERNATURAL realm (ie proof of the existence of demons, angels, and witches--starting with biblical verses), as opposed to inquiry of THIS world. Scholastics did not follow Aristotle's interest in physically observing the natural world--but were instead interested in his methods of LOGIC and reasoning. Consequently, Scholastics developed brilliantly reasoned expositions on how to discover witches operating within their society, and how to interpret astrological signs in daily living. They, however, never felt the need to question their INPUTS--such as their assumption that witches might not really exist! (They believed they had biblical authority that witches did exist, and so never questioned this.) Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther recognized that scholastic rationalism was limited to the narrow world of the observer--and as a solution argued that one should return to faith as the ultimate source of truth. It was not until the period beginning with the Renaissance, and culminating in the Age of the Enlightenment, that PHYSICAL AND RATIONAL INQUIRY (i.e., the "scientific" method) was held to be an equal, if not superior approach towards determining truth. The scientific method was applied toward the physical world, to uncover new knowledge and even more importantly -- to produce and TEST new theories. It was during this time, that medicine and the sciences began to slowly make progress, as some individuals began to QUESTION earlier fallacious ASSUMPTIONS (or INPUTS) regarding the nature of the world. Examples included the existence of four humors within the body, the influence of the stars on human events and illnesses, etc. The scientific method was also used for the first time in such areas as history and sociology. As we have seen, much of the strength of the Enlightenment, came from the reaction to centuries of religious wars and strife, after it became obvious that no ONE dogma could be successfully imposed on EVERYONE. In an attempt to resolve their conflicts, emphasis on reason AND physicals inquiry was embraced by some RELIGIOUS and NONRELIGIOUS groups alike. (Conservative religious groups of course decried what they saw as a movement that veered away from absolute FAITH and obedience.) The Romanticists, represented a group who attempted to COMPROMISE between the position of RATIONALISM on the one hand, and absolute FAITH on the other. On the one hand, Romanticists believed in the importance of the role of FEELING, INTUITITION, and REVELATION in mankind's search for truth and meaning. Not all Romanticists abandoned REASON and physical inquiry-- but instead, subordinated these to their FEELINGS. Romanticists were split according to their attitudes towards authority. Hegelian Romanticists--from which evolved both the Nazis and communist doctrines--praised strong powers in the hands of the State. Spiritual Romanticists (such as Emerson)looked INWARDS to find truth and beauty, and were overall suspicious of powerful institutions such as the State and the Church. Instead, they emphasized the ability of the INDIVIDUAL to find the truth for themselves. Emphasizing humanism in their philosophy, they were strong supporters of individual freedom and toleration. Followers of the Enlightenment tradition, disagreed with the romantic outlook. Historically, they argued, one could clearly see that people who followed their FEELINGS (as opposed to physical and rational inquiry) in their search for meaning and truth, more often than not reach very DIFFERENT conclusions! This would seem to indicate that there is NO vast reserve of sublime truths within a supernatural realm, from which people can tap into using their feelings. For if such a supernatural dimension were to exist, they asked, would not one see different philosophers around the world discovering the SAME truths--truths that clearly are not just a result of our shared HUMAN experience? or because some AUTHORITARIAN power stamped out all opposing thought? As we shall see next, the use of our emotions to discover truths often leads to a large variety of religious views. This invariably leads to some counter-effort or reaction to bring these diverse outlooks back into conformity to another group's "orthodox" (or "correct") view. How Irrationalism Naturally Lends itself towards AUTHORITARIAN, NONTOLERANT Solutions in a Society. The rationalist philosopher Karl Popper argued that if IRRATIONAL groups do not value the use of reason to resolve their differences, that this inevitably lends itself towards appeals to an authoritarian body to solve this for them. Popper described this as follows: "... if a dispute arises [among IRRATIONAL individuals], then this means that those more constructive emotions and passions which might in principle help to get over [the dispute--ie] reverence, love, devotion to a common cause, etc., have shown themselves INCAPABLE of solving the problem. But if this is so, then what is left to the irrationalist except the appeal to other and less constructive emotions and passions: Fear, envy, and ultimately ...violence? This tendency is very much strengthened by another...attitude..., the stress on the INEQUALITY of men." "I do not overlook the fact that there are irrationalists who love mankind, and that not all forms of irrationalism engender criminality. But I hold that he who teaches that no reason but love should rule opens the way for those who rule by hate." "...Loving a person means wishing to make him happy. (This, by the way was Thomas Aquinas's definition of love.) But of all political ideals, that of making the people happy is perhaps the most dangerous one. It leads invariably to the attempt to impose our scale of 'higher' values upon others, in order to make them realize what seems to us of greatest importance for their happiness; in order, as it were, to save their souls. It leads to Utopianism and Romanticism. We all feel certain that everybody would be happy in the beautiful, the perfect community of our dreams. And no doubt, there would be heaven on earth if we could all love on another. But the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell. It invariably leads to intolerance. It leads to religious wars, and to the saving of souls through the Inquisition. And it is, I believe, based on a complete misunderstanding of our moral duties. It is our duty to help those who need our help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy, since this does not depend on us, and since it would only too often mean intruding on the privacy of those towards whom we have such amiable intentions." (Karl Popper, "The Defense of Rationalism" 1945, POPPER SELECTIONS, edited by David Miller, (Princeton University Press, 1985) p 38-42). (The above might explain why many religious reformers, from St. Paul to Martin Luther began with egalitarian, humanitarian views--but later moved towards authoritarian methods in their efforts to deal with those "heretics" who refused to comply with their doctrines. See Section VI, Chapter 3 on Ethics.) Popper also stressed that rationalists can be JUST as dogmatic as irrationalists-- if they do NOT critically examine their OWN positions with an attitude based on the belief that, at times, EVERYONE makes mistakes. Popper makes an important distinction between the "dogmatic rationalist" and the "critical rationalist"-- stressing that the latter believes in the importance of evaluating the views of himself and others: The "critical rationalist" maintains the view that, "I may be wrong in some areas, while you are right in others, and together we might arrive closer towards the truth." Or to phrase this another way, the "critical rationalist" believes not only in his OWN reason, but also in the REASON OF OTHERS in arriving at the truth of a proposition. (Using the computer analogy above, one can say that the "critical rationalist" tests for Garbage In-Garbage Out errors, while the "dogmatic rationalist" does not. The irrationalist, on the other hand, takes the risk that even their reasoning faculty is wrong!) According to Popper, the critical rationalist's questioning for truth, leads towards an attitude of TOLERANCE to those who have different opinions than ourselves. And tolerance to the views of others leads to social-political institutions that stress individual rights and freedoms. Just the opposite is true of irrationalist views which in the end too often appeal to authoritarianism, and with it an "anti-humanitarian" attitude towards mankind.(Ibid, p 42-3,5) Many examples can be examined to test Popper's conclusion that irrationalists tend towards "anti-humanitarian" attitudes. Some examples, *Some fundamentalists have declared AIDS to be God's "JUST" retribution against homosexuals--ignoring the fact that AIDS also takes the lives of heterosexual religious individuals, not to mention newborn babies and children. Hemophiliacs are of course another "innocent" group that is at great risk from contracting AIDS, because their genetic ailment requires them to undergo numerous blood transfusions. *Some New Age spiritualists are insensitive to the misfortunes of individuals around them--attributing the "cause" of their unhappiness to "bad karma" or "negative energy". (Unlike ultra-conservative religious groups, New Age spiritualists tend NOT to be interested in ENFORCING their views upon society. That is, typically most spiritualists are highly creative individuals who are happy to "do their own thing"). Can Scientists be "Dogmatic"--ie Intolerant on the Ideas and Opinions of Others. Science, by definition, uses RATIONAL methods for inquiring into the nature of the universe. However, as science is by definition a HUMAN (as opposed to divine) endeavor, it is not surprising to find that it has made a large number of errors--most of these through overly simplistic, or simply WRONG assumptions. A study of the history of science shows many examples of this-- the sun's output of radiation was simplistically considered constant, instead of variable. Time was once considered an absolute constant.-- Einstein proved that time is NOT a constant, which has been confirmed by scientific tests. As long as scientists are open to evaluating their ASSUMPTIONS, then GARBAGE IN errors are more likely to be kept to a minimum. In theory, these errors "should" keep declining as more and more discoveries expand our knowledge of the universe. Still, as chaotic theories have proven, some errors--however small, will ALWAYS be present to some degree. Despite the ADVANCES made today in modern science, I believe it is instructive to also review ABUSES(!)-- whereby some self-proclaimed "scientists" have taken a few facts, interjected their own PERSONAL ideology onto these facts--and called the overall results "science". Sigmund Freud was probably a good example of Popper's DOGMATIC RATIONALIST. Although some of his psycho-analysis theories were useful in tandem with brain discoveries, many others were clearly dogmatic assertions of belief--and therefore NOT science! That is, some of his theories did not arise out of clinical observation and testing, but from Freud's INTUITION as to what he "felt" was the right answer. For example according to the biographer Allen Esterson, Freud refused to test his own initial analyses for errors. He quotes Freud as saying at one point, "We must not be led astray by initial denials [of patients regarding his diagnosis]. If we keep firmly to what we have INFERRED, we shall in the end conquer every resistance by emphasizing the UNSHAKABLE NATURE OF OUR CONVICTIONS." (emphasis mine. Quote taken from Allen Esterson's SEDUCTIVE MIRAGE: AN EXPLORATION OF THE WORK OF SIGMUND FREUD, Open Court) Even worse, some biographers of Freud claim that the famous psychologist had fudged some of his earlier results--claiming success on patients that had in reality relapsed without showing any long term improvements from psychoanalysis. Because Freud had dogmatically insisted that everyone accept his conclusions--these were not appropriately tested by him or his followers for a long period of time. This attitude towards science is very similar to Hegel's "philosopher armchair" approach towards learning the secrets of the universe—and belongs to the Romantic as opposed to the Enlightenment philosophic tradition. (See Section V, Chapter 19 which discusses Freud's interest in certain occult ideals, such as telepathy.) Today, psychologists have refuted many of Freud's theories, especially those that associated general psychological problems with one's childhood sexual fantasies. As noted earlier, Karl Popper specifically singled out Freudism as an example of where an ideology had crept up, in the guise of "science". The overall effect from this can be to impose one's own ideology forcibly onto the belief systems of others, with disastrous results. Why are Irrationalism and Anti-Science Attitudes Becoming More Popular? Has Science Undermined the Sacred/Religious Experiences of Individuals? Science has often been attacked for destroying the "sacred" dimensions of life and experience. A passionate article on this subject was written by the psychologist, Maureen O'Hara: "Spiritual questions [have become] the new heresies, and the scientific establishment the new inquisitors. Nowhere, ironically, [is] this more true than in psychology, and it is obvious to all, but especially those of us in clinical practice, that the psychological and spiritual cost has been very high. By rendering the transcendental explanations "unrealistic" and declaring them superstitions for the intellectually faint-hearted, by undermining the broad sweep of the Christian story, secular science weakened-- for many, destroyed--traditional religion's ability to provide access to the sacred, symbolic, ritualistic, or transcendental dimensions of experience that for eons had offered humanity a way to address its non- material concerns." (Maureen O'Hara 'A New Age Reflection in the Magic Mirror of Science." THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 13, No.4/Summer 1989 p 370-1 O'Hara goes on to note how science has not proved a good substitute for this "sacred" dimension of life, and the result has led to an increase in pop religions and pseudo-sciences: "Although for some practicing scientists "science itself may provide a glimpse of the Infinite, and be every bit as mystical an experience as can be found in established religion...modern science has been unable to inspire the lay public with anything like the same kind of wonder. On the contrary, people have become confused, dehumanized and isolated." (ibid 371) "The freedom of religion allows individuals to construct for ourselves what is true. We often look to leaders in our community for direction-- With all the controversy and differences, the question arises "When the witchdoctors disagree, what are ordinary folks to do?" "In this 'abyss of uncertainty' arose the pop religions, pseudo-sciences-- including psychotherapists, drug dealers, and charismatic faithhealers. Early inspiration came from various psychologists/sociologists--Abraham Maslow, Eric Fromm, Rollo May and others who rejected a purely "objective" scientific basis, which essentially reduced everyone to the status of rats in exchange for a 'higher' plane of consciousness that stressed our spirituality. "The result was an outright rejection of all authority, and a belief that one could tap into their own feelings--their own spirituality to attain higher realities of consciousness. However instead of a harmony of experiences, there was literally thousands of personal "individual" realities, many of them obviously "loony". As a movement, the New Age taught there were many paths on the road to truths, and thus validated other points of views. However this widely divergent set of beliefs, meant that collectively, as a movement--there was no universal truths." Ms. O'Hara believes that the New Age movement represents one attempt to rediscover this lost sacred dimension: "Although it is easy to debunk and easy to laugh at the crystals and the spoon-bending psychics, in my view we must look at the New Age movement as a symptom of a much graver illness that infects the late-twentieth- century soul. The New Age movement represents an attempt to create a world-view that can ease the pain of the alienation felt by a population that has discovered the limitations of its science, that has lost faith in its religious traditions, that recognized that its 'reality' is at least in part a social construction, that has seen its government authorities caught in lies and corruption, that has been psychologically manipulated by millions of manufactured images. It is both a product of and an answer to the hubris of secular science. It is a protest against a science that negated the centrality of human consciousness in its story of reality and that has yielded a society in which individual persons have been reduced to the status of "consumer", of everything from automobiles to ideologies. That the New Age movement, as a religion, ultimately falls into hubris and fails to deliver, should not blind us to the fact that so does scientific materialism..." "We live in dangerous times. We all have to learn to live in a world where different truth systems coexist. If we don't, and instead take the position that one truth system is superior to all others, we could easily end up in global holy wars." (Maureen O'Hara 'A New Age Reflection in the Magic Mirror of Science." THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 13, No.4/Summer 1989 p 373) Maureen O'Hara has presented one of the most eloquent challenges to the use (abuse) of science that I have come across in my readings (which is why I have quoted her so extensively above.) Of course, the problem that she is describing does not belong ENTIRELY to the realm of science--but can be considered more broadly to include ANY system of thought that destroys the "sacred" or "transcendental" dimension of human experience. This of course, can include any philosophical system competing with the majority one --including other religious beliefs. For example, when Christian missionaries successfully ridiculed the ancient ritualistic beliefs of Indian and African tribes, some sociologists reported that this caused disruptive, anti-social behavior. Old ties or feelings of BELONGING to a culture were severed-- with no immediate replacement (as many of the natives found it difficult to switch to Christian beliefs). Established churches and IDEOLOGICAL organizations (such as the Inquisition and the communist party) have historically used this to JUSTIFY declaring all competing beliefs that questioned "orthodox" (ie "correct") values and beliefs as "heretical". An emphasis on scientific thought, therefore, represents merely one among many "heresies" that might compete with other, more orthodox beliefs. Why is there a General Disillusionment with Science to Solve the World's Problems? Critics have charged that an over-reliance on science and technology has DEHUMANIZED mankind! That whereas during the Age of Faith, people looked to priests and religions for the answers to all society's problems-- after the Industrial Revolution, people REPLACED religion with science and technology, looking simplistically towards science as the hope of our future. Some scientists, such as Albert Einstein argued that because our philosophies have not kept up with our science and technology, that the latter merely gave us the vast powers to "drift toward unparalleled catastrophe", (by which he was referring to unleashing the powers of the atomic bomb). There has, no doubt, been some backlash against science--as governments and powerful corporations have released powerful, destructive new technologies without regard to the harm they cause to social infra-structures and to the environment. Still, this is clearly not the only explanation. After all, the Japanese--who were the only people to experience the horrors of atomic war first hand-- generally hold science and technology in high regard. In my own personal opinion, overall disillusionment with science in the West has arisen, largely because many people had expected science to find a world that clearly operated under the laws of an intelligent creator. Instead, science increasingly discovered a very complex, uncertain universe-- one where (as Einstein was forced to admit later) if there were a God-- then He must be throwing dice at random. No empirical test devised by man has ever directly "seen" God in the cosmos. One by one, the "rational" proofs for the existence for God, have been conceded to have had flaws in them--ie had an underlying assumption in them which when analyzed properly--and really proved nothing. Therefore, increasingly much rational speculation for the existence of God has shifted OUTSIDE the realm of science--and into the realm of theology, or even mysticism. Human nature probably explains most of this shift. People like to believe that there is a force in the universe that is NOT INDIFFERENT to the state of humankind in the world, and especially towards their own PERSONAL life and destiny. Modern astrology teaches us that the earth is a relatively "insignificant" world within the galaxy and the universe. Modern geology views the earth as billions of years old, while humans are thought to be relatively new on the scenes--around for only a few million years--or since .1% of the age of the earth. Humans seem relatively unimportant against such a vast, cosmic backdrop. Take for example Professor Steven Weinberg's scientific review of the creation of the universe in his book THE FIRST THREE MINUES: A MODERN VIEW OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE (1976): "It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe...[which] has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." Thus, science is often characterized as being COLD and UNFEELING--not for its "sterile" methods-- but because it leaves the impression that the universe is not a warm and caring place for humans. It is not surprising then, that under these circumstances, many people would feel that something is "missing"-- and thus rebel altogether against science to look for other, more "emotionally satisfying" alternatives. Isaac Asimov took a more cynical view on this subject when he wrote: "Inspect every piece of pseudo-science and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What have we [scientists] to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!" This would explain why during the 1800's and early 1900's, mystics often held a POSITIVE view towards science--indeed some going so far as to proclaim their mystical methods as "scientific". Actually, this was relatively easy to do during this time, as it was not until the mid-twentieth century, until the paradigm for rigorous testing began to be applied toward the sciences. Or to put this another way, it was only after scientific measurements (conducted under strict testing conditions) could NOT locate ANY trace for mysticism--wave emanations, mysterious forces, etc--that the modern rift between science and mysticism became so pronounced and bitter.