by Sokolova » Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:05 am
Sorry Enkidu, I said I was afraid I wasn't being clear.<br><br>I didn't mean to give the impression David Bohm wrote the book, in fact I tried to say the book was <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>based on Bohm's ideas</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, and I'm sorry if that didn't come across enough. I also tried to say that Talbot's way of embracing <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>all</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> paranormal phenomena might turn off people who would otherwise be interested in Bohm's ideas (including me a little I admit). So my last post was intended to be about Bohm's ideas - and not Talbot’s book <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>per se. <br><br></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>Bohm is indeed highly respected as you say, but his ideas of 'wholeness' and universal consciousness are not well received. I think that's largely because he does step out of the currently accepted paradigm, and we are all naturally suspicious of things that require big changes in our thinking. <br><br>I like the quotes BTW. But I'd amend just one of them:<br>You say Feynman wrote: <br><br>"<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.<br><br>I think he probably should have changed '<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>is'</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> in the last part to '<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>should be'</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. Science definitely <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>should be </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->a culture of doubt, but, it seems to me, that it generally isn't. Generally it's a culture of exactly the same kind of faith as religion, wherein pre-existing permitted beliefs and paradigms play the major part in forming 'scientific truth'. <br><br>In fact - as many people have said – ‘science’ (I use the '' to differentiate it from true science in which I continue to believe) does now function in many ways as the religion of the western world, and its role is becoming the same as the worst kind of state-sponsored religion - to offer reassurance, quiet doubt, suppress dissent and unite the society behind a set of dogmatic beliefs. There's even a new Inquisition - in the shape of CSICOP and their completely unprincipaled, irrational and vindictive campaign to eliminate any consideration of anything that doesn't fit within the accepted dogma of 'science' as they perceive it.<br><br>Increasingly the concept of 'science' is being unscientifically used as a tool of social control, to set limits on thinking and to marginalise new ideas that threaten social cohesion; to maximise profits for drug companies selling 'cures' that make us sick, to sanctify the destruction of hope and give a seemingly rational basis to the monstrous hubris that seeks to define the universe as being bounded by our ability to 'explain' it in the most absurd and reductionist terms. <br><br>The ultimate heresy for 'science' is the suggestion of anything that can't be confined within its narrow, mechanistic and unscientific boundaries. 'Science' carefully circumscribes the unknown so that we can pretend it isn't there, even though this circumscription makes a nonsense of some of its own theories. For example, it's happy to believe in a 'Big Bang' as the 'origin of the universe', but won't engage with the fact that this only offers an explanation for how the matter of the universe is in current motion, and doesn't tell us how the matter itself came into being. Put simply, how did the stuff that went 'bang' get there in the first place? <br><br>That is not a question 'science' is comfortable with, because it can't be answered without confronting the edges of our ability to comprehend. It brings us up against the idea of ‘something’ being made out of ‘nothing’. It's too close to being 'mystical', so it simply isn't addressed. So, the question just floats in the ether, ghostlike, undeniable but inadmissible. As do so many other unaskable questions. This is what turns 'science' (not true science) into religion; its refusal to address the things which challenge it.<br><br>I suppose what I mean in a nutshell is that the word 'science' is being employed, Orwell-fashion to promote its exact opposite; a canting pseudo-religious set of dogmas designed to sanctify the 'known', and above all to silence <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>doubt</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> - which is, as Feynman said, the true culture of true science.<br><br>Sorry if you feel like I just yelled in your ear for five minutes, but you got me on a painful area, if you know what I mean. I was raised as a scientist, and with a tradition of respect for the scientific way, and it makes me mad to see it used as so many do now(not you enkidu of course!), to rationalise bigotries and smug hubris.<br>Ellie<br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>