Thursday, August 21, 2014

Denying Philosophy - Part 2

Science and Philosophy - Twin Brothers from Different Mothers

There are commonalities within “Hard” Science & Philosophy:
Both seek to explain our Physical reality.  The physical reality melds the operations in the human mind - reason and language come from thoughts = Philosophy
Neuroscience and biology studies these physical operative systems = Science
Knowledge – is the fundamental declared pursuit of science & phlosophy.
Existence – Life is existence.  The Study of the causality of life and what supports life are interwoven. Philosophy wants life to interpret its existence and causality.. Science wants causality to interpret and explain life.  
Soft Science – Behavioral sciences typically align with philosophical objectives - but contain minute reservations of science.

Philosophy drove scientific pursuits, at least initially.  Man pondering himself and his environment and how those influenced his actions and thoughts gave birth to science.  There arose other pressures that desired a larger role for science.  Mankind wants to perpetually move forward.  Specific scientific discoveries that emanated from a philosophical dilemma originating in the European aristocracy, was centuries long.  Henry VIII took the first step to remove religious, and the philosophical controls therein. Secularity invaded kingdoms from the top down. Only the King could challenge religion. Technological advances and a loosening of moral restrictions that impacted investigative procedures permitted scientific discoveries that abetted the change.  

By the time Beagle set sail, Darwin knew the objectives desired by the wealthy and powerful.  He was determined to deliver them.  Darwin dared open Pandora’s Box.  Darwin didn’t anticipate the rigid delineations that arose - and persisted from his work and afterwards.  These demanded absolute fealty to the implications contained in (what he later asserted was a corruption of) his Theory(s). 

The reaches made, to underpin Darwin's theory, and the other, ancillary, theories specifically created and introduced to compound the original Theory, knew no bounds.  Haekles embryo diagrams, Java Man, Nebraska Man,  and others frauds and hoaxs did not restrain or derail the Theory or deter its adherents.  Science had chosen secularism.  One would think philosophy might aid in smoothing these inconsistencies...

Darwin’s Theory presented implications  that conflicted with, and challenged conclusions and truths held for millennia.  This strident division was a product of evolving, deviant human behaviors and ancient conflicts resident in mankind - their unwillingness to obey religion(s) commandments.  The Age of Enlightenment allegedly expanded man’s consciousness.  The scope of the several discoveries and technological developments hinted a sea change was underweigh.  That prompted scientists to reconsider their philosophy, or be considered a relic who refused to accept the recent facts unearthed - and be considered as one who wasn't grounded in clinically acquiring and evaluating fact and evidence.  Appearing slavish to some unproven being didn't scribe with the new requirements in science.  

Philosophy... man's input, didn't jibe with clinical investigations.  Adding philosophical addenda to discoveries introduced man, and his thoughts.  That polluted the sterile, sacrosanct, scientific environment new science demanded.  Science sought to divorce itself from humanity - as God had done.  Then, science deliberately choose to prevent mankind from knowing the weaknesses and contradictions within the Theory - upon which they based, their new perspectives, their careers, credibility, and profession.  They had to, or admit decades or prior work was erroneous - wrong.  That would impact other disciplines, and might allow religion to regain a foothold.  

Stuck in a Tar Baby of prevarication's pitch, science was positioned and chose to embrace distraction, deflection, and a policy to attack and silence any conflicting views within their ranks. Official, Organizations were formed - to control information, marginalize opposition, and prevent opposing views and efforts from reaching the light of day in an Approved Scientific Publication.  Contrary views were swiftly beaten down, and mocked - if they attempted to raise their heads.  

Despite science's want and wishes, divorcing itself from philosophy is impossible - and unwise.  Philosophy and/or science; physics; et al… collectively: pursuits to explain the workings and composition of matter in all is various forms; including capabilities known and suspected, must be reordered and redefined if science wishes to remove or isolate its pursuits and conclusions from philosophy.  Like it or not, the two studies are inexorably linked.  They compliment and require one another in covalent orbits that complete and satisfy their collective and individual objectives.  Knowledge, detected and delineated from any activity, fuels philosophical considerations.  Concordantly, “science” cannot adequately communicate information without objectivity, and the uniquely personal framework of objectivity, emanating from each scientist – is neither uniform or universal.  To declare otherwise analytically bypasses, and/or seeks to avoid, the inevitable collision of one man’s physical and cognitive senses and reckoning - polluting reports on findings. The perfect Precise’ – a worthy objective, is, objectively impossible.  Personalities and pre-conditioning, experiences, (and career ambitions in a heavily regulated profession) inappropriately color the end product.

Philosophical intrigue moves the scientist to investigate.  Past what the physical senses encounter, and the technical processes designed and used to explore; all other forms of study, including analysis, must be termed and include philosophy – at least in part. 

Philosophy is historically inured in science.  Men like Newton, Schrodinger, Bohm, and Capra practiced and recorded their philosophical considerations and decisions – often to their consternation. Implicitness, not withstanding, justifies why, and infers how, some scientists seek the divorcement.  It is the same rationale and belief system that imposes conjecture over an alternative interpretation and evidence that suggests the input or output or influence of a Higher Being / Creator on the physical universe.  When the physical universe collapses, and uncertainty mounts; to become unavoidable, undeniable, and problematic to traditional scientific pursuits and beliefs; compromising the analogous disciplines used for reference standards – as appears in quantum mechanics – philosophy must then enter the study – if only to motivate exploration; provide structure in the wheres or hows or whens; and... frame the information and consequences in the copious references used in corroborating studies/disciplines.

Seeking to avoid compromise, or being compromised, in antithetical philosophical interpretations..., interpretations preferred by the investigator/scientist, may prejudice the scientist to assert his findings subjectively, (but within the discipline’s accepted boundaries of tolerances) thereby providing parasitic weight to his preferred conclusions - while concomitantly and wittingly - closing his senses and sensibilities to alternative analysis and interpretations of the findings at hand.  

God cannot so easily be dismissed.  Gravity's causality remains unknown.  Ditto, the reason for matter changing states - when viewed/measured.  These and other phenomena that escape man's desire to learn why and how, propose evidence of their inability to determine the questions and solutions, and provide a potential explanantion - an explanantion science chooses to avoid and ignore.  Avoiding and ignoring, unfortunately, have become necessities embraced in modern secientific pursuits - as they wish to preserve the Theory - at any cost.  Analytical, detached reason and observation - the stated highwater mark for science's credibility, was sacrificed to maintain dominion over mankind's access to knowledge and the secularity of the Theory.  

There is a political counter-part that works hand in hand with science to advance the narrative of a God-less universe.  Most cutting edge studies are conducted within government agencies - FDA, CDC, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, and others, and/or combined with political gifts and grants to Universities, political objectives control the direction and discoveries science makes. Reasearch has increasingly become a political activity.  If you consider, Global Warming studies are specifically conducted to carve out a monopoly for energy production and delivery systems that would end the use of fossil fuels, limit and eliminate viable and reliable energy source options, you gain the proper perspective of the magnitude of this issue. 

Christians ignore this political reality at their peril.  Christianity and the modern Democrat Party are antithetical.  The Democrat Party finances science and expects science to provide them with information they then use to destroy morality, impugn the Christian religion, and to advance phony poly-scientific mistruths they apply to gain an advantage in government and then use the power of government to clear the marketplace, control worship behaviors,  for their allies.  Once Democrats achieve a permanent control, religious pratice will end.  They will severely modify or re-qrite the Constitution - which accurately describe every behavior and objective of that Party over the past 75 years.   

No comments:

Post a Comment