Quantcast

«

»

Mar 04 2013

Piano Black – Science and Other Oddities

Science – what does it mean? Everyone talks about it, but have you noticed that no one really says a word about it? So, what is science?

Ironically enough, this was a bit of a brain scratch for me, so I had to look it up myself. As I embarked on this quest, I stumbled upon a website called “sciencemadesimple.com” and here is what I got:

The word science comes from the Latin word “Scientia”, meaning knowledge.

Hmmm…..Not surprising, a lot of words we use today are derived from Latin words. Consequently, that brings up another investigation… How do we defined science? It’s not as easy as it seems, to speak of the topic of science in it’s most generic form.  After looking through Webster’s New Collegiate  dictionary, this is what I also discovered:

Science is defined by the knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.

So, what’s the purpose of science? To understand ourselves, and most importantly, the world around us.

Putting science into perspective, it is an idea, a concept that creates everything in respect to each other. To create a connected understanding of society and the area we occupy and perceive through a provable methodology.

It is  to understand the physical  world around us; which we can use in order to help make this place simply a better one. But Why?

Although “Science” the way a good amount of us equate it to intimidation, cold, and dare I say it  even insufficient. What if we were to replace the word science with a word or words that everyone likes to associate their mode of thinking with? For instance, knowledge or an even a bolder word, truth? Would it be any different if I were to say that knowledge is infinite thus the reflexive properties of the ethical equation, would that mean that science is indeed infinite?

Alas, this is a mystery far more fascinating than any mystery would could create ourselves. If we could bring ourselves to stop seeing this art as a choice or a moral belief, I personally believe that we would progress that much more in our community. To admit that science is a fact, in the same way that knowledge, truth, and life is a fact.  This being said, science is a lot of things, but it is not dogmatic. Hence the advocators of this discipline should not be either. In order to help embrace this message and this concept more efficiently,  it helps to view ourselves and everything we encounter whether it be living or nonliving, a piece of art created formed and existing by science itself. Become curious again, understand that science does not have an expiration date or a grade, know that science is you and me. It is not a choice, it simply just is. That in science’s limitless entirety, is an oddity of itself.

- Piano Black

 

2 comments

  1. 1
    F [i'm not here, i'm gone]

    If we could bring ourselves to stop seeing this art as a choice or a moral belief, I personally believe that we would progress that much more in our community.

    I was wondering where yu were going with this, and there it is, above. Damn, that is a good point.

  2. 2
    tildeb

    I think we cause unnecessary confusion when we use the term ‘science’ to mean something other than a method of inquiry that produces knowledge about this shared reality that demonstrably works for everyone everywhere all the time. It is this knowledge produced by the method of science that informs all the applications, technologies, and therapies that work. Sure, disciplines that use this method are called ‘the sciences’ but it is confusing to call the product of the method – knowledge, as well its offspring in technologies, therapies, and applications – all by the same term.

    Whether we know it or not, all of us use this reliable method each and every day of our lives to navigate the world, so to suggest that only some of us are ‘advocators of this discipline’ confuses the issue just that much more and creates a false divide where there is none in practice.

    Those who reject this method of inquiry for specific exemptions – say, like religious belief of creationism rather than evolution – seem unaware that by doing so they are trying to have their cake – modern knowledge and all the products from it they use without much thought – and eat it too – rejecting this method only when it conflicts with a faith-based belief. And into this camp of hypocrites who say one thing but do another, falls anyone who cherry picks when to respect the method and when to arbitrarily reject it, be it to support ‘alternative’ medicine, claims about the supernatural, identifying conspiracies, participate in anti-vaccination misinformation campaigns, climate change deniers, and so on, as much as religious belief that produces claims about reality that are contrary to and in conflict with the knowledge produced by science. In this sense, those who are willing to substitute some other method of inquiry (some other epistemology) than the method of science to arbitrate and adjudicate claims about reality, are anti-scientific. They use some other method to serve some other intention than finding out what’s true about the reality we share, a method that has no equivalent means as science to test its claims about reality against reality.

    This, then, is the real divide: each of us must choose all the time and in every case whether to respect reality enough to judge our knowledge claims about it or respect something else – something other than reality – in its place… in which case, why on earth should we bother paying any attention whatsoever to anyone who admittedly doesn’t care enough about reality (or the quality of the knowledge then produced) to want to make any honest, non -hypocritical inquiry into it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>