Science that is inclusive
There is a kind of frostiness between science and the unscientific, that takes the shape of snootiness, dismissiveness to superiority or patronisation, with the so-called unscientific being at the receiving end most times. Scientists have the tendency to dismiss everything ‘unscientific’ as preposterous and illogical and hence undependable and unfit for use.
Instead of splitting into two classes – scientific and unscientific – it would be more worthwhile if we saw it as ‘adequately explained’ and ‘not yet adequately explained’. Science is ever evolving as Einstein (is claimed to have. Only Einstein can come back and confirm his having made it since there are so many quotes which are attributed to him without proof or evidence) stated, ‘science is but the existing state of knowledge of nature’ and will sure bring within its fold more and more currently unexplained aspects of nature which may have alternative explanatory routes than what science follows as of now.
Things like intuition, premonition, astrological predictions, prejudices, tradition, sixth sense, occult sciences, lunacy and planetary influences and even many branches of medicine and traditional cure are currently deemed or dismissed as ‘unscientific’. For all we know they may be in the same state as earth being spherical but dismissed as superstition before Aristotle, Eratosthenes, or Pythagoras (take your pick) reasoned it out. And many such things which are today considered scientific have come after much agony and punishment to the discoverers from the church, orthodoxy and existing beliefs and their champions or those who stood to lose their status.
With a dismissive attitude and binary outlook unwittingly science and scientists may themselves become the new tormentors (like religion, royalty and vested interest were in the past) for faster discovery and assimilation of currently unexplained events or phenomena into the ‘scientific’ fold. A cross fertilisation of ideas between science and current un-science may lead to many beneficial outcomes which may otherwise be lost or postponed. If the church was dismissive of science before, it is increasingly the other way around now.
Noted mathematician Ramanujan purportedly left behind 147 theorems for which he could not provide proofs or had no time to write before his demise. If deductive reasoning is a primary weapon of mathematics, it is unbelievable that someone had the time to reason it out and write out the theorems but no time to write out the proofs. If one reads Hardy’s account of his association with Ramanujan clearly, Ramanujan wrote them down as it occurred but skipped many steps in between which he wasn’t himself aware of or in a position to explain. Do we dismiss his theorems as preposterous (until each one is proved) particularly when some 47 of them have been proved in the last 100 years? What status does the unproven set enjoy? – unscientific or scientific? How and who are we to conclude that the unscientific (like intuition, forewarning, sixth senses) will not one day be proven like Ramanujan’s theorems, causality explained, and embraced within the fold of ‘science’. Or science itself will get redefined and one of its main pillars -cause-effect- loses its primacy.
Its time science and rationality shed their snootiness, we shed our dismissiveness and arrogance to whatever we consider ‘unscientific’ and replace it with curiosity and respect facilitative of smoother and faster integration. There is a need for a healthier dialogue between the conflicting bodies to understanding what is and how it occurs and how to use them for our collective benefit.
Respect need not imply blind acceptance. It can lead to search for solutions by both factions by making use of tools and techniques known to both. It might involve adopting alternative routes to proof and acceptance that somethings may be beyond proof or at least as per existing methods. A worm’s eye view, a bird world view and snakes perceptual aids need not be same as mankind and a shift in definitional scales may break many existing notions and ‘prove’ unaccepted ones. Attempts to prove might also result in proving the opposite and setting at rest false notions. Responsibility for proof and disproof could be equally shared. The faster science and rationality expands, the domain of ‘unscientific’ would only shrink faster. Even if it is vast, the accretion to the bank of unscientific is slow and unlikely to gain momentum.
Such an approach and attitude towards the currently not adequately explained occurrences or phenomena might hasten the process of unravelling the secret, mystery, enigma or plain ignorance behind them and bring them into usable body of knowledge with or without safeguards and caveats.
Church ‘and’ science can achieve a lot more together than church ‘versus’ science. There is no need for science to become the new church.