We Need A New Type of Science (part 1)

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” --Albert Einstein ===================================================== Introduction to the problem My book, Metaphysics for the Commoner, ended with a list of “eternal rules.” I am not exactly sure what is meant by the term “eternal rules,” maybe “perennial issues” or recurring themes would be more accurate. What I do know is that people have been experiencing particular types of experiences throughout human history and those feelings, thoughts, and impressions have a particular gist to them yet are almost universally brushed aside by the scientific community. Religious beliefs, mythologies, spirituality, even archetypes, and other invisible, non-empirical based concepts are seemingly thought of as products of a second-class mentality by the elite intelligencia. ====================================================== Here, I would like to pursue a better understanding of those eternal rules in a common, non-scientific manner. I do believe we should be investigating evidence of these “eternal rules” with rigorous philosophical and scientific methodologies – only not the stogy, closed-minded current guard. ====================================================== Philosophers tend to ignore these perennial patterns of experience because they have adopted a phenomenological approach to “knowing” reality – yet they ignore repeatedly-claimed phenomena. Scientists tend to shy away from “religious,” “spiritual,” and other “meaning”-based claims because these claims are too philosophical or psychological; arguments given by realists generally avoid these topics because they do not seem accessible to empirical testing. How can one perform a repeatable experiment about “God” or “karma” or claims of predestination? These ideas do not fit into current scientific models of reality therefore are often considered superstitious fiction, the domain of the ignorant, or obsolete primitive thinking. At best, these “supernatural” claims are not considered applicable to scientific investigation; at worst, these topics are considered beneath serious thinkers. ============================================== I would like to remind those realists that all or nearly all of our current knowledge already comes from “meaning”-based inferences. Each word you are now reading can only be understood because we have mentally associated a meaning to the group of shapes we call written words. We do the same with the groups of sounds we call spoken words. If we simply discover intricate details of, for example, letter shapes, via empirical testing, this does not imply knowledge of the meanings of those letters. =============================================== Similarly, the important truths discovered throughout scientific, philosophical, and theological pursuits were truths of meaning, not of the mechanical – illusory – shell that surrounded the meaning. Theological pursuits tend to be interpretations of “revealed truth”; philosophical pursuits tend to be discovering a more accurate and rational meaning of everything – “How can that be?” “Why is it that way?” and scientific pursuits tend to explain the practical, mechanistic-shells (observable principles) that surround an underlying truth – the how and empirical why -- but not the meanings. Theology looks at grand declarations; philosophy looks at grand meanings; science looks at grand descriptions. Each perspective has its worth but none possess exclusive access to reality. ===================================================================== Science in the maze:

=========================================================== I would like to give an example of how people, well-intentioned, smart-as-whips people, might be led astray. Applied Science has seemingly contributed amazing benefits to people around the world for over 150 years (medicines, cell phones, materials technology, and so forth). Scientists seem to be learning more about the world and the way it works year after year. They are learning to understand the inner workings of the atom, the workings of the DNA molecule, and the larger cosmos (Black Holes, String Theory, etc.). ============================================================ What if, however, it is the scientist’s methodology itself that leads them to those conclusions? What if scientists’ assumed axiomatic premises can only lead to the conclusions that they are gradually concluding? In other words, the scientist is looking in a mirror and not discovering the truth about reality but only seeing him-or-herself (and his-or-her particular limitations) more and more clearly. Bear with me. ============================================================== Suppose our physical reality is like a maze. We make our way through the passageways by using our own “free will,” but the walls do exist – they are not illusions. At least, our senses tell us they exist. By using the scientific method, we can investigate the world of our senses (in this analogy, the walls of the maze) and gradually develop a picture of the empirical world. We have clear evidence that can be cited and tested. ============================================================== Science can move us forward through the maze. It can help us find the corners, the passageways, the right ways and the ways that lead us to dead ends. Science helps us discover the “true” path through the maze. What if, however, that regardless how closely we look at the walls and measure the hallways like a blind man through a funhouse, the maze is a very limited reality. What if we could climb up a ladder, above the entire maze, and look down at the intricate passages?

=============================================================== What if we climb up to one of the watchtowers and peer down on the maze from above and can see the people struggling to find their way through. From above, we can see where the various branches lead and also see which branch leads to the exit (or pot of gold or a Heaven-like place or a Hellish place). =============================================================== Then what? We look down and see the scientists testing the walls and making their conclusions but it is clear that their conclusions are based upon a limited perspective. They are in the maze and their activities seem somewhat petty from this new perspective. Are they wrong? No, not exactly. They are clearly discovering the details of the maze. How do we explain our point of view to the people within the maze? What words and ideas do we use to explain things that are not within the 3-D physical maze, words and ideas that do not fit within the parameters of the maze? Words and ideas that include new dimensions? =============================================================== How do we explain our point of view to the scientists, who study the maze itself and are not geared for phenomena outside the range of the maze? How do we describe what is all around the maze without people thinking you are imagining things, making up things, or being deceived? (end of part 1)