Dialogues of Nodin and William - Science #8

Dialogues of Nodin and William

Science #8

Dialogues of Nodin and William Science #8

(PD) Rembrandt - Man With A Magnifying Glass

Larry Neal Gowdy

Copyright ©2008-2019 - updated May 11, 2019

Inquisitiveness, observation, wonder, curiosity,

are acts of man's; verbs,

are not deities; nouns.

Nodin: As you are familiar, William, my private studies and research hamper my contact with society, which has resulted in my often being quite unaware of the views held outside my door. The decades pass, and what was once public opinion is now changed and an unknown to me. Surely on occasions I must appear terribly naive on topics that the general public holds as common knowledge, and so it is with my desire to learn of the public's view that I request your permission to ask you questions. May I inquire of you William, of your knowledge of this thing that the people call modern science? I have heard many rumors from many individuals, who tell me that modern science is a marvelous thing, and that it is able to perform miracles beyond all the miracles known throughout recorded history.

William: Why yes, of course Nodin, I am always pleased to share what knowledge I may have acquired during my travels. Is there a particular thing about science that you wish to discover, or would you prefer that I begin by telling you all that I know of science?

Nodin: Thank you William, your knowledge of the subject appears to be vast, and since I myself feel to know so little of this thing called science, I would prefer to begin by asking questions so that I can first form a foundation of logic, and from that foundation will I then be able to weigh the other information. Therefore, my good fellow, please tell me, what is your personal opinion of this thing called modern science?

William: My personal interpretation of modern western science is that it nascented from the religious philosophers as a natural expansion of investigating the universe. As you and I also do, science seeks to understand how things work, like the weather and the heavens. It is the desire of science that it will someday be able to know and explain everything, from one corner of the stars to the next.

Nodin: Very interesting indeed! Please tell me, this science, is the word derived from the Latin, which infers 'to know'? Does the term refer to the knowing, as we often speak of in omniscience, the all-knowing?

William: Yes, I believe it is Latin based, but yours is a curious question, and may I ask why you asked?

Nodin: You may always ask me questions William, for it is within the answering of questions that we learn from others, and too, that we also teach ourselves how to answer with clarity of thought and intention. To answer your question about my question, I find it useful to have an idea how a thing originates so that I can then reason how the thing will evolve through the generations to come. Too, by my gaining the knowledge of how, why, when, where, and by whom a word originated, I can then formulate a reasonable conclusion of how the word's interpretation will likely be interpreted by the public. Do please correct any misconception I may have about science, but it appears upon what you have shared with me thus far, is that this science is an association of philosophers who study the universe and all that is in it?

William: Well, actually no. As I have observed, very few of the individuals in science are philosophers, or at least very few of the individuals know much about philosophy. Scholars of history have told me that western science, as we think of it today, had its important beginnings around the time of Bishop Tempier in 1277 when he opposed Aristotle's belief in the eternalism of the universe, and the scholars also tell me that present-day science is directly linked to the fellows known to us by the names of Pascal and Descartes, both of whom were of the Christian faith, and both of whom chose a method of investigating the universe with a hope of proving their Christian faith valid. In time, the methodologies chosen by Pascal and Descartes became increasingly popular among some scholars, and as all unprincipled methodologies are so apt to do, the scholars' belief in the methods blossomed into a new system of belief of its own, an ideology that today not only claims that it is disconnected from the Christian faith, but it also claims that Christianity is a false ideology. In recent years, through the manipulation by certain individuals, who themselves were fallen Christians, who self-professed themselves as philosophers while portraying no evidence of possessing a philosopher's logic, and it is the name of William James that is glowing steadily within my thoughts at the moment, has science been adopted and taken under political approval, and it has been from the politics of states that science is now taught in all schools as the one true truth. So today, instead of science being an association of philosophers, science is populated by individuals who rely on a specific methodology of investigating natural phenomenon.

Nodin: What you have told me thus far is already very interesting, and I must admit that the irony strikes me deeply with humor, that the two individuals, Pascal and Descartes, who thought it wise to attempt the rationalization of the spiritual, have instead aided in the creation of a beast that denies the existence of the spiritual. I now believe what you said is surely correct, that there are few or no philosophers in science, for it is known to you and I that no philosopher worthy of his name would be so foolish as to attempt a rationalization of a thing that can only be experienced. I must state that I find the concept of an ideology vacant of philosophers' logic to be highly peculiar. Peculiar indeed is it for individuals to be investigating Nature who are not themselves of the logics background! Please do tell me more William, that if the science adherents are not knowledgeable about logics, then by what measure can the individuals' investigations be deemed of accuracy?

William: I have observed several individuals, they who call themselves scientists, who follow a specific methodology of thought and action. As I have spoken of before, the scientists call the methodology "scientific method". The method entails the observation of a thing, followed by a hypothesis of what the thing may be or do, followed next by a set of experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis, and then a conclusion is formed as to what the thing is or does. Almost the entire world's population now believes that science and its methodology are the sole source of acquiring knowledge of the universe.

Nodin: Interesting, interesting indeed, most bizarre actually, but quite intriguing in its varied implications. I do not wish to appear as though I am questioning your knowledge William, and please forgive me for asking, but are you confident that the method you described is the one that the scientists follow?

William: Thank you for your consideration of my feelings Nodin, and please rest assured that your questions have not offended me in any degree. But yes, I have watched the scientists at work; and the sequence of their methods, as written in the canon of science, changes little. The sequence is observation, identification, description, experiments to validate the descriptions, and lastly there follows a theory that explains the thing being observed.

Nodin: I am curious; this scientific method, of which includes only a small few of the thoughts and actions of philosophers, while omitting the most important thoughts and actions of all, does science claim the sequence as its own creation?

William: To my knowledge, yes.

Nodin: So then, it appears, science gives the illusion that it self-created itself from out of thin air, like a self-created deity. Ah, yes, human folly always busies itself sculpting new deities upon old ruins.

William: Oh, no Nodin, that is one dogma of science, that it denies the possibility of any deity existing. It is written in the canon of science that all things deemed to be supernatural are outside the realm of science and scientific investigation.

Nodin: Oh? My previous comment alluded to an analogy of how we humans are prone to invent personal nouns for actions, which, too often it seems, leads to the creation of new ideologies which by their very nature insist that there exists a ruling personification, which in the end, whether acknowledged or not, becomes the ideology's omniscient deity. But now, from what you have told me, this science then, it claims to investigate the whole universe, but science also declares that it will only investigate a portion of the universe? Can that be rational?

William: That I cannot say, but now that you have mentioned it, I believe you may have a point. It would appear most rational for science to investigate all things, and not just a few objects as it currently does. Perhaps the illogical behavior of science might in part be the result of science excluding the logics of philosophers?

Nodin: Forgive me William, for my hesitations and awkwardness of thoughts, but I am perceiving that there exists too numerous contradictions within science, and I must take a step backwards to regain my footing. Please allow me the opportunity to begin anew, but this time with questions that better aim more correctly at the heart of the topic that you and I are discussing. Now, if the scientists are not philosophers, nor do the scientists hold firm the principles of logic, as you properly pointed-out, then by what principles do the scientists stand?

William: To my knowledge, the only principles claimed by the scientists are those of deriving evidence of a thing that other scientists can also measure. If an experiment cannot be repeated by another scientist, then the theory is either rejected outright as invalid, or the theory is deemed to be inconclusive and therefore not accepted as fact.

Nodin: My my, William, so then this science, it does indeed exhibit itself as omniscience incarnate? That unless a thing receives approval from science, then the thing is either false or at least not yet accepted as valid?

William: Yes Nodin, I perceive that your question does describe the nature of science. Now, please be patient with my own misunderstandings of science, but I have been told by some individuals, who they themselves profess themselves as scientists and unwavering believers in their scientific method, that science itself is not perfect, but rather that science is self-correcting.

Nodin: Ah, I suspect that I might have an idea of what you are alluding to, that science admits it is not omniscient, and yet science also states that nothing can be known except through science, that it alone is omniscient?

William: Nodin, I am with an uneasy feeling that my lack of experience with the scientists is surely influencing my opinion and description of science, but I must agree with your observation, that science simultaneously claims itself imperfect while also claiming itself to be the sole source of all knowledge.

Nodin: Oh William, you have presented before me an astonishing conundrum! There exists a comedy of fallacies, from the origins of science to the very end of the beast that has apparently now placed itself above all knowledge and wisdom. William, my dear friend, I trust your opinions to be those of a learned man, who is wise with the desire for correctness in thought and behavior, and my spirit cries for the confirmation of your thoughts, and so I must beg a question and an answer; has not science therefore established itself as a god, as a god of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence?

William: You ask difficult questions Nodin, for if I say yes, then I must support my conclusion with reason and evidence, of which I do not possess, and if I say no, then still I must support the conclusion with reason and evidence. If I do not have the reason and evidence to answer yes, then I cannot have the reason and evidence to say no. It is upon a similar manner of reasoning that believers in science claim there can be no Deity, because there is no scientifically-accepted evidence for nor against the existence of a Deity. Please endure my rashness and unlearnedness of the topic at hand before us, but within me is felt an emotion that tells me the answer to your question is both yes and no. It appears to me that science has indeed climbed itself upon the pedestal reserved for the one true Truth, and yet science is not conscious of where it stands, nor are the masses conscious of science standing upon the pedestal even though the people worship science at the pedestal.

Nodin: Ah, a fine analogy William, and I perceive that your metaphors are likely to paint an honest view of this thing called science. Is it not ironic, that the Christians invented their own devilish antithesis, and now with the same behavioral belief that the Christians once held towards their religion, that of an omniscient ruler, the people now hold for the beast they created? I perceive that there is a good lesson learned here, that we can remove a man from his religion, but we cannot remove the religiosity from the man.

William: Forgive my laughing Nodin, but I share with you the humor of the irony. Was it not written in the Christian holy books that there would arise a false religion and a beast which would hate Christians and rule the world as a false god?

Nodin: Yes William, I am familiar with the writings, and it is within my drawing upon the memories that my humor increases. According to the prophecies, the whole world would worship the beast, the false god, and until now the prophecies appeared to not be capable of possibly being fulfilled, but now, at least metaphorically, it appears the prophesies very well describe the beast and false god that is science. Ah, but my mind is wandering with the seemingly endless possibilities of analogies, and I do apologize to you William, for it has been unbecoming of me to swim so deeply into fanciful analogies, regardless of how entertaining they may appear. Please allow me to return to the seriousness of the topic before us, that of the nature of science itself. William, I do trust that you remember our previous discussions, and the one about observation?

William: Why yes indeed I do remember the discussion Nodin, and I have found that the knowledge of observing has been very profitable in my life.

Nodin: So then, with our being armed with the knowledge of what observation implies, the knowledge that all men of logics know as well, our questions will naturally gravitate towards asking whether or not science observes as it claims. Please offer me an answer William; do scientists observe, or do the scientists only make claims of observation?

William: Nodin, as you fully know, your questions speak of a knowledge that exists within you, which you communicate to others through questions. If not for the knowledge of the correct answers, you would not be capable of asking the correct questions, and I thank you for asking me questions so that I might learn. In answering your question, no, scientists do not significantly observe anything. In all of the theories and written knowledge of science, the quantity of information written about observations is so infinitesimally small that it almost appears as if science has purposefully prohibited all people the right for observation.

Nodin: Forgive me for my presumptuousness, but I suspected as much, for what other conclusion could possibly exist if this thing called 'science' was spawned without men of logics? William my friend, you and I need to speak to one of the scientists that you spoke of, so that you and I can learn firsthand what the scientists do and believe, for as you too well-know, only through personal firsthand observation is it possible to derive a useful knowledge of a thing. Is there a scientist nearby that you and I can speak with?

William: Yes, his name is Archibold, a scientist and a true believer in science. Allow me leave Nodin, and by tomorrow I will persuade Archibold to visit here at your home, where he can explain to you in person his interpretation of science.

Nodin: Thank you William, I am indebted to your generosity, but please, let us meet in the village square, and not in my home. My home is my only place of refuge, and if the soul of Archibold is as I suspect, then I do not wish to create memories of him within my dwelling. Before you leave, and so that I will have time to muse on the information before meeting Archibold tomorrow, I ask that you answer me this: what does science claim that is has accomplished?

William: Science has provided us with our modern technologies; the wheel, medicines, clothing, and everything that man has created.

Nodin: Oh my! So this science, it claims to have been the creator of everything man-made, even though you and I both know that the items you spoke of were in existence many thousands of years before science was invented. I suspected as much, for all false ideologies do claim to be the god of all, which now brings me to ask, that surely, if science has laid claim of being the source for everything man-made, then science must have made similar claims about creation itself, has it not?

William: No Nodin, you are wrong there; science does not claim that it created Nature.

Nodin: Forgive my disbelief William, but never have I before observed a false god that did not lay claim of being the origin of the Universe. Surely you and I are simply not recognizing the cleverness of science? Perhaps it has used words that appear innocent, but instead still make claim of its omniscience and omnipotence?

William: None that I know of Nodin. Science appears to have not made such a claim.

Nodin: Let us investigate science's claims of the origins of the Universe then. By what means does science claim that the Universe began?

William: At present, scientists believe that the Universe is about three to fourteen billion years old. The estimated ages change frequently, and so none of us have a good idea of what an accurate age should be for Creation. The most popular theory of creation is that of a big bang, where all that exists today came into existence from nothing. Expanded theories include thoughts of two dimensional branes, that like bed sheets, bump up against the other in little bangs to create what appears to us as a three-dimensional existence.

Nodin: So then there is still no theory of Creation in science that is based upon observation or evidence?

William: None to my knowledge Nodin.

Nodin: But did you not previously tell me that unless a thing can be proven true by science, then it is either false or cannot be accepted as valid by science?

William: That is correct; that is the general stance of science.

Nodin: But then I must ask the obvious question, that if science has not yet proven how the Universe came into being, then there can be no knowledge of how the Universe functions, and must not science then claim that the Universe does not exist since it cannot be proven?

William: My sigh is towards science, not you Nodin, and yes, it is true, that if we were to hold science to its letter of canon, then scientifically speaking, the Universe cannot yet be accepted to exist.

Nodin: Ha! We humans are a peculiar creature! But surely there exists some form of reasoning behind science's theories of the origins of Creation. If science does not rely on observation or evidence, then what could possibly fuel any theory?

William: To my knowledge, the only evidence known to allegedly support science's theories of Creation is based on mathematics.

Nodin: Aha, perhaps that is the sneaky devil that we are looking for. Tell me more about the mathematical evidence.

William: Since the Universe is built upon mathematical laws, scientists can investigate and measure the Universe with mathematics, which then validates scientific theories.

Nodin: The false god is ingenious! I must applaud the god of science for its cunning and ability to deceive the world. Must I say more about which existed first, Nature, or man-made mathematics? Nature cannot be built upon man-made mathematical laws, but rather it is upon the laws of Nature that man has developed the language of mathematics, and an inaccurate language at that.

William: Again within me is felt the pangs of discovery. I learned well from you the sacred geometry, and how it is that mathematics is man's invention to implant straight lines within circles, and I am now grieving for my having allowed myself to not recognize how ominous the use of mathematics had become.

Nodin: As there exists throughout Creation, there are two relative polarities of every action, and as Nature can be observed through its natural cycles of creation, so is it possible to mentally divide that which is created. As we discussed in days earlier, formulas can be determined from both the analog cyclic and the linear mathematical, with the two formulas speaking of an object's presence, but one formula speaks of the object coming into existence, its creation, while the other formula speaks of the object leaving its existence, its death. Mathematics is the linear measuring of death, not life, and mathematics, it appears, is the spirit of science.

William: I feel that we have found a beast amongst humanity, and it is humanity itself.

Nodin: Unfortunately, I must agree. The beast is here and now, and the people perceive it not, for they are of the beast, they are the beast, and they do not know what they are doing. I look forward to speaking with Archibold the scientist tomorrow.