I get really annoyed when some people seem to think that science is ‘the answer to everything’. That if we only use science we’ll be fine. It is not like that. Thinking this makes science nothing more than another religion. Firstly, we have to distinguish between ‘science’ and ‘the scientific method’. Today, when we talk about ‘science’ we mostly think about ‘natural science’. In the beginning, though, ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ was often used interchangeably.
Science, in today’s terms, does not have the answers to everything, and what science does have the answer to isn’t always correct. This have been proven over and over again over the millennia. Even a scientific ‘proof’ have to be believed by other scientists and society at large to be true. And even then, it might be disproved later.
There are also several different directions within the different fields within the scientific community, where some scientists agree upon one thing, while others agree upon something else. Thus, science doesn’t give any homogenous picture of the world, and is not as ‘all knowing’ as some people might believe. The scientific community, where ‘science’ comes from, is just like the rest of society, with a lot of compartments and prestige. They also live in a high degree within a created ‘paradigm’, where some things are ok to say and write, while others are taboo.
What is science, really? Commonly, philosophy isn’t regarded as ‘science’, since it deals with ‘non-provable’ concepts, deriving ‘science’ from a definition that everything has to be ‘provable’ according to a certain set of criteria. Still, I would argue that you can not have science without philosophy. Often times I hear so called scientists, highly regarded ones also, speak about ‘the age of the universe’, or ‘the distance from the earth to this or that galaxy’, measured in lightyears.
This is the same as being an ant and try to say something about the size of the planet, or even the forest it is in. It climbs up in the tallest tree and tries to look as far as possible and comes up with a measurement unit to measure the size of the forest. ‘Tree’s’ is say’s. The forest consists of so and so many trees, and this is it’s size. To me, this is humans trying to measure the ‘size of the universe’.
To say that the universe even has an age is philosophy. For it to have an age, you have to have time, and space. And you have to believe that everything you see around you actually is real, that it actually exists ‘out there’. All the physicists I’ve seen speak takes this for granted. And this is really a HUGE thing to take for granted. To build all your science upon something that you actually don’t know for sure.
A galaxy is like a rock. A rock lies there, apparently still and unmoving. A galaxy also seems to by ‘lying there’, apparently still and unmoving. Still here on earth we experience that the days and years go by from the earth’s rotation around itself and around the sun. According to scientists the earth moves around itself in the speed of about 1000 miles per hour. Hm, I use the metric system, so I would say about 1,600 km/h. Miles, kilometers, hours. It’s all created by us, by ‘scientists’.
Back to the rock that ‘lies there’. We now know that inside that rock there are atoms and particles that move around in infinite speeds. Thus, it’s not as ‘still’ as it looks like. We are in the middle of that rock, experiencing our lives. From the outside, there seems to be no movement, while being on the inside, you experience all kinds of movement. So, what is time? And what is space? These are not externally verifiable units. Time and space is subjective and experienced. Thus, everything that has been said about ‘the age of the universe’ and the ‘distance between stars’ is made up. It is fantasy. It is created in the minds of the scientists, trying to understand their experiences.
How can you know anything around you is real? The answer is; You can’t. We are creating this world as we experience it.
Science is, as stated, far from something homogenous. Science is very diverse, and there are many types of sciences.
The scientific method, on the other hand, now that is probably a better yardstick to go by, than ‘science’.
So, what is the scientific method? There are several methods within science. But the most common one is described as ‘the hypothetic deductive method’. This method starts with a question, hypothesis or theory, and from that question one deduces certain logical consequences that are testable and verifiable by others. After testing one draws conclusions and determine whether the theory is true or false. It’s a pretty simple and straight forward method, and it is the method that have been utilized to build the world we have today. It is good and sound and gives answers to many things.
Still, it is highly dependent of the creativity of the researcher. The questions asked and theories derived can only be as good and deep as the mindset and ability of the scientist. A scientist with a closed mind gets one type of results, while a scientist with an open mind gets another type of results. It has been proven many times that different scientist with different theories about the same subject gets different results when testing. They get results supporting their own theory.
And this leads us to quantum physics. Science have gotten so far now, that the most open minded (and even a good deal of the closed minded ones too) now acknowledges that we, humans, are affecting the world around us, simply by being in it, thinking, feeling, talking, acting and having an intent. And this is proven in many experiments in several fields. It is proven that when particles are observed, they are influenced by the observer.
We are all co-creating this universe through our own thoughts. Even though scientists have researched, tested, researched and tested again, trying to seek out the truth, thinking, and thinking again, they haven’t thought about the one thing that obviously plays a big part in this: Thought itself. Now, though, even science, is acknowledging this. That our thoughts and our intent is crucial to the results we get.
So, what does this all mean? If science per se is not the answer to everything, then what is?
We are the ones who are creating everything through our minds, desires, intents, thoughts, feelings, words and actions. Not science. Not religion. Not money. Not God.
So, we have to ask ourselves: What do we want, then? What kind of world do we really want?
Sure, we can take the scientific method and use it for what it’s worth. We can listen to science, but not make a religion out of it. We can listen to religions but not be blinded by it. We can listen to spirituality and not be overtaken by it.
But most of all, we can listen to our selves. Build up trust in our selves. Because we all have the same ability to give answers than anyone else. Not in the same fields, maybe, but that’s not the point. We all have the same ability to create. We are all creators by default. Because simply by thinking, experiencing and acting in this world, we create. We can not not create. It is impossible. Every interpretation of something is a creation. Every step is a creation. Every movement is a creation on some level. Every thought is a creation. And what you think about yourself creates yourself. And what we think about the world creates the world.
Now is the time for co-creation and trust in ourselves. We create by choosing consciously what we want to focus on. What we focus on we get more of. And the only limit is our imagination. If it can be imagined, it can be created.
So let’s imagine the world we want and create it together. This is what it is all about. Putting our trust to ‘science’ is again putting our trust to someone or something outside of ourselves, just like we’ve done with religion for so many years.
Now, the turn has come to us. And when I say ‘us’, I mean all of us. You, me, scientists, artists, everyone. We are the ones who now will create this world and our future together. And it will happen by someone proposing suggestions to what the future can be like, to what our society can be like, and we will all take more or less part in giving feedback, coming up with new creations, tweaking and developing.
The one major new idea we have before us now is a society without money. Even the greatest scientists of the times seems to have taken money and the monetary system for granted. For something that has had to be there, like air. Something that it has been impossible to be without.
Now has the time come to imagine a world without this thing called ‘money’, and without the usual notions of ‘ownership’ and ‘property’. And we are now faced with the challenge of imagining and creating how this world will work and how we can move from where we are now to where we want to be. ‘Science’ alone will not get us there, but using it as the tool it is, I highly recommend.
All this said, I think this guy deepens my point: