I've been trying to think of how science jives with my life. So I started to make a list of elements in my life that are scientifically determined. My genetics, including my naturally way-too-blonde hair; my daily activities, including the chemical compounds in milk that when activated by heat allow me to make awesome latte art. Or that I like pickles and drugs. And my curiosities, like with fish and how they see and this albino squirrel that hangs around. That I believe more in primordial soup than anything divine. And how I can't believe that dinosaurs ever existed, and how I'm so sad I missed it.
But when I hear a violin, I don't think about what is reverberating in my ear to allow me to smile so hard. Or when I fall in love, what chemical is being released from what gland. Or when I dream, that I am having mental misfires. Science is the mode by which people discover how these things happen, and uncovering this mysterious magic. I bet that if man had not created the discipline of science or had this 'drive to discover' (lol) the objects of that discipline would go on doin' its thang anyway. We'd still be hearing violins and squirrels would still be albino sometimes. So what do you call all of that before science came along? Was it just the world barreling down on a track? Is that what people call "nature"? Does that mean things just...happen? What is really going on?
These questions really don't get answers. For some, that means they give up right there. There's a saying, it goes: "shit happens". One thing I'm sure of is the opposite: shit is caused. And that is the jumping off point of science, that a cause and effect play out in the world and it is possible to understand. 'Whys' and 'hows' are worth being asked, because when those questions are answered, we are a step closer to truth.
What I've noticed that keeps getting forgotten is that science is not static -- year to year the latest science keeps contradicting itself. One year, we are told to eat margarine on our toast because butter is really bad for you. Two years later, butter isn't so bad, and stop eating that margarine! Our scientific truth keeps changing. So while truth is merely a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms, people keep looking for it anyway. I wish them the best of luck in finding it.
shoot I'm in February.
ReplyDeletein response to your thoughts amy quiet frankly i feel we are on the same page,
ReplyDeletei have a difficult time grappling with the scientist's constant bombardment of the declarative "truth" to be in fact truth must it to some extend remain true?
i believe that in contemporary society no scientific findings are considered of any value until they are NAMED (latour) and thus declared as truth, concrete quantitate production is essential for funding and for a reputation of authenticity. Yet, isn't this principle of declaring truth to some extent detrimental to our world? For if every scientist is scampering about constantly revealing truth only to change his mind every 4 years then how is one to measure legitimate truth from the other hoopla (like butter vs margarine debate)?
the realm of science is quite extensive, and yet the measurements for being a scientist are not necessarly concrete (opposed to that of a lawyer or a MD) The 3rd grade kid i nanny for came home proudly declaring he was a scientist having just created a paper mache volcano... science? truth? While this being a rather far-fetched and i'll admit dramatic example, the question remains. If truth is produced by scientists but to be a scientist is a matter of personal affiliation and identity rather than creation then it comes as no surprise to me that at the end of the day we choose to put peanutbutter on our toast because no one is trying to prove it is healthy.