11-11-2024, 06:44 PM
Some points I was thinking about:
Additionally, two points now: First, science will always have frontiers, and areas beyond itself that it is blind to. Currently, I think one of those is what can be called "magic", including non-local, acausal, and fundamentally unobservable phenomena. I think in 100 science will have a better understanding of those things that we can only imagine vaguely right now. If you want to see where science will be in the future, look at what it insists now doesn't exist, yet persists culturally. Second, "science" in a larger sense has been used historically as a weapon and tool, much as rhetoric has. We can perhaps peek behind the curtain somewhat and see how this is done, now that a post-truth modern context is available for discussing such things. No one's head is going to explode at the idea of an intractable ulterior any more, right?
- This "magical infusion", of the inexpressible transcendental overlay upon the tangible, is not something that is only seen in the works of the "great" (famous) scientists. It's something that permeates the practice of science (and the arts too! as if there's a difference!) at every level.
- "Science", as a larger cultural phenomena does not equate with "the work of scientists", perhaps in the same way that "The Military" does not equate with "the work of soldiers". We can look at the larger whole as an emergent phenomena (the beehive).
- It's counterproductive to get too focused on who is in MagicianClub™ and who is in ScienceClub™. Dichotomies don't help, and often only fuel sociological projections. Specific examples to help explain can be good though. There's lots!
Additionally, two points now: First, science will always have frontiers, and areas beyond itself that it is blind to. Currently, I think one of those is what can be called "magic", including non-local, acausal, and fundamentally unobservable phenomena. I think in 100 science will have a better understanding of those things that we can only imagine vaguely right now. If you want to see where science will be in the future, look at what it insists now doesn't exist, yet persists culturally. Second, "science" in a larger sense has been used historically as a weapon and tool, much as rhetoric has. We can perhaps peek behind the curtain somewhat and see how this is done, now that a post-truth modern context is available for discussing such things. No one's head is going to explode at the idea of an intractable ulterior any more, right?
