Science has had its time . . . whoopi!
We’ve had all the research, the technology, and products of science thrown at us. Yeah, its helped abit. Yeah, its done damage. Yeah, its come up with new points of view. Yeah, its done all that . . . I know.
But it still has come up lacking . . . horribly lacking.
It seems to me that what made the ‘scientific era’ so special was not science in-itself but the possibilities of what could happen. Being brought up in that era, and looking back on it, I must admit that that was the fascination and intrique of science. What it really did wasn’t as big a deal as what we thought it could do. In other words, the what-can-be-imagined seemed more important than the what-was-created. This gave the scientific era this quality, in a way, of a drug, a ‘high’, to speak, which many of us were under. I can remember many of our faces, wide-eyed with the possibilities of what could be (a trip to mars, a machine that can make breakfast) or what could be discovered (the genetic code, life in outer space).
Really, it was an era of mesmorization.
It’s claim of ‘absolute’ knowledge has failed. It does not offer lifes answer, it did not explain life, it did not save the world, it did not make life better. In many ways, it just created a bunch of ‘new things’ in life. Some of these things were good, some were bad, and some we’re not sure of.
A lot of these ‘big’ claims of science were primarily stated in reaction to its dispute with Christianity. It was the Great Science/Religion Dispute which, now, looks absolutely ridiculous. In fact, its laughable as far as I’m concerned.
The question of God? . . . What was that about? Mr. Science prooving that god does not exist . . . and with logic!
That’s a good one . . . maybe he could do an experiment or two?
And does the “truth” of science really explain life? Not really. Sure, it may explain aspects of it in an abstract way (for those inclined to the University and years of education) but for the everyday human person, scientific “truth” means very little.
Yeah, it left life dry and lacking . . .
One of the failures of science, I think, is that it wasn’t ‘human’ enough. It did not reflect human reality, which happens to be the reality we all live in. It gave a good description of abstract reality though . . . but how many of us live in that?
In many ways, one of the reasons why we are in a ‘post-science era’ is because of its failure on the ‘human level’. So what they can create a bridge that spans the Pacific Ocean. So what they can detect life on mars. So what they can make a cell phone thats so small that it can be implanted in your hand. So what they can have a microscope that can see a virus. So what they determine the metabolism of a cell. So what they can dispute god’s existence. I mean . . . really . . . so what. These are all fine and dandy . . . and may, perhaps, have a good use . . . but they’re just ‘facts’ and ‘things’. Life . . . human life . . . do not revolve around these. Human life needs more . . . much more . . . and that’s where science failed.
I can remember when science practically offered itself as a new religion, that it would find the answer and explanations of life.
These are big claims . . .
None of it ever happened. Even the facts it found weren’t as impactful as it seemed. All this knowledge and, really, who cares? No one that I know sits and talks about scientific knowledge and facts around the dinner table. No one that I know views life as ‘scientific facts’. No one that I know uses ‘scientific facts’ in everyday life. In general, for most people, ‘scientific facts’ go in one ear and come out the other.
Science has failed to “satisify” the ‘human question’ in life.
What’s interesting is that, in the scientific era, we had things, such as science, claiming to answer the ‘human question’ in life but in the ‘post-science era’ there isn’t anything that seems to be even attempting to be promoting an ‘answer’. There’s nothing to “save” us, not even a capitalism or communism. Its as if everything is quiet . . . no “answers”, no anything. All that there seems to be is consumerism and economy chugging along . . . yeah, buy this, watch that, make a phone call . . . yeah, yeah, yeah. Another new product . . . another new advancement . . . whoopi!
It’s like we’ve become caught in the gears of high world consumerism in the ‘post-science era’. In some respects we’ve become enslaved to the produce of science, of what it created. Science, as an answer, has failed but its creations live on . . . enslaving us. So now, unstead of governments controlling us, we have the multitude of scientific inventions controlling us . . . and with unbelievable power!
There’s nothing you can do about it either . . . go and try to fight it.
This gives the ‘post-science era’ a quality, to me, of an unhuman world, full of machines, chemicals, and other produce of science that fullfills humanities basic needs, like food and clothing, and even satisfies little petty wants, like novelty or amusement. But it leaves everything else lacking. In other words, it leaves a partially complete world, of a ‘half-done’ world creating ‘half-baked’ lives. I see, in actuality, a world in want. In other words, a great poverty . . . a new type of poverty . . . of the ‘human in life’ . . . the ‘human question’ isn’t even addressed.
It’s nice and dandy to have refrigerators and digital clocks but without the ‘human’ there, what’s the point? This is the basic argument I have said for decades, one that usually fell on deaf ears . . . or was ridiculed. Our life, I maintained, is about the ‘human’. We are human! To create all these machines and such and forget the ‘human’ is to, in a way, turn your back on life, regardless of how “amazing” these things are . . . but, yet, that is what we did.
From where I stand, ‘human life’ seems very fragmented and incomplete . . . we’ve lost so much in the name of progress.