i agree with what you've said, although i would prefer to say there is a scientific reason for everything-- explanations only result when we can see it and study it enough to describe it correctly and accurately, which as you noted is not possible just yet with certain things. i don't pretend to think there isn't some kind of scientific reason for the personal cognitive capacity commonly referred to as a soul, but i'll be damned if someone has a good enough explanation for me for the whole messy business.
however, just because there is a scientific reason or explanation for everything, just because everything works in some consistent way, this is not a be-all and end-all. for a completely random and entirely off-the-top-of-my-head example: emotions. just because there are chemical explanations for how they work and why someone feels the way they do is not an excuse to treat them like they do not matter. just because language and interpersonal communications is the result of millions of years of evolution and development to ensure
( ... )
Definitely! Perhaps "potential scientific explanation" would be a more accurate phrase.
And I agree, that's another thing that bugs me about discussions of science: all too often, there's an attitude that explaining a thing makes it go away somehow, or relegates it to the World of Solved Things. I might know that having a crush entails a state of unbalanced serotonin release and intense dopaminergic activity associated with the focus of my affection, but that doesn't mean that I can get over the person any more easily. I think Sonia and I wrote papers on that very example freshman year, come to think of it ...
But, yes, it gets under my skin when people think that once we find a scientific explanation for a thing, that makes the thing somehow less than it was before - less worthy of respect, or awe, or even just attention and practical care. It's hard for me to remember, when I see incredulous news articles with headlines like "Scientists Find Some Emotion In the Brain - OMG Is That Where It Happens?!", that most people don't take
( ... )
Yes, we did! And I use the knowledge I gleaned from studying it to be able to deal with my own emotions in a healthier way. For example, using my knowledge that being in love results in low serotonin and spikes of dopamine, I have gotten better at forcing myself to get out and do good things like exercise and see friends when heartbroken rather than sit inside and mope or eat ice cream (neither of which will raise serotonin levels).
Same here - I read an article called "Love, desire, and the suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives" that was the catalyst for a much-needed breakup! I've also been reading about mindful meditation lately (and thinking about changing my thesis to study conscious emotional regulation), which is proving to be a useful thing to remember. I'm getting back to my roots here!
This question struck me much the same way, and I really like what you've written on the topic.
Perhaps a better question would be "Do you think phenomena exist which cannot be understood through investigation, now or ever?"
or...
"Do you think there exist phenomena which are not in some way consistent with a rational cause?"
I -think- this is the better question, but I am not sure. Doesn't it boil down to questioning the central scientific assumption: "The universe follows hidden rules which are rational and consistant, no matter how illogical or obscure they may be or seem."
Suppose, for a thought experiment, that we could somehow find the finite limit of phenomena. We could then turn this assumption into a hypothesis and test it. Then, we would know, empirically, that The World Is Knowable. What would Knowing mean for us?
And now back to reality: What does it mean not to know for sure?
Comments 8
however, just because there is a scientific reason or explanation for everything, just because everything works in some consistent way, this is not a be-all and end-all.
for a completely random and entirely off-the-top-of-my-head example: emotions. just because there are chemical explanations for how they work and why someone feels the way they do is not an excuse to treat them like they do not matter. just because language and interpersonal communications is the result of millions of years of evolution and development to ensure ( ... )
Reply
And I agree, that's another thing that bugs me about discussions of science: all too often, there's an attitude that explaining a thing makes it go away somehow, or relegates it to the World of Solved Things. I might know that having a crush entails a state of unbalanced serotonin release and intense dopaminergic activity associated with the focus of my affection, but that doesn't mean that I can get over the person any more easily. I think Sonia and I wrote papers on that very example freshman year, come to think of it ...
But, yes, it gets under my skin when people think that once we find a scientific explanation for a thing, that makes the thing somehow less than it was before - less worthy of respect, or awe, or even just attention and practical care. It's hard for me to remember, when I see incredulous news articles with headlines like "Scientists Find Some Emotion In the Brain - OMG Is That Where It Happens?!", that most people don't take ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Perhaps a better question would be "Do you think phenomena exist which cannot be understood through investigation, now or ever?"
or...
"Do you think there exist phenomena which are not in some way consistent with a rational cause?"
I -think- this is the better question, but I am not sure. Doesn't it boil down to questioning the central scientific assumption: "The universe follows hidden rules which are rational and consistant, no matter how illogical or obscure they may be or seem."
Suppose, for a thought experiment, that we could somehow find the finite limit of phenomena. We could then turn this assumption into a hypothesis and test it. Then, we would know, empirically, that The World Is Knowable. What would Knowing mean for us?
And now back to reality: What does it mean not to know for sure?
Reply
Leave a comment