Does science require a soul?

[grmorton]

I have been absent but not absent thinking about the world we live in. In this thread I am posting something I have worked on for 6 months. It began when my preacher son sent me a quotation by my favorite liar (go look up the frog and princess episode) Richard Dawkins. Dawkins made an interesting point which set me to thinking about things. I don't want Jorge involved in this thread if I have any say about it. He never adds anything substantive. Anyway, I will see if this will fit into my allotted number of characters. I will discuss the Newtonian view first. In a second post I will discuss the most often claimed escape clause to the Newtonian problems--quantum mechanics and show why it won't actually allow escape from these problems. I will watch and see what stones are thrown my way.

Free Will, God and Scientific Knowledge

By Glenn R. Morton copyright 2016

I will show why the classical material position that there is no free will leads to a refutation of science. I will then show that the addition of an entity outside of our universe allows scientific knowledge to be trustworthy. Then I will show why quantum mechanical indeterminism does not allow escape from this problem and finally show a second problem that quantum mechanics causes for the acceptance of scientific data and theories.

Definitions

Materialism is the view that there are no causes except material causes in the universe. Laws of Physics describe these causal relations.
Scientism is the view that scientific study of material causation is the only way to true knowledge. Science studies causation and is the arbiter of what is real and what is not real.

Logic, which includes mathematics, is the only valid methodology science uses to determine material causation.
Neither materialism nor scientism would accept immaterial causation or invalid chains of logic.

Free will is only an issue for something that possesses a Mind. Daniel Dennett says:



For the purposes of this discussion, free will is a voluntary intentional action. Intentional action requires an 'intender', something that intends the action to happen. That intender seems to be our conscious mind. When I leave my house, all my neighbors can observe my body getting in my car and starting to drive off. That is objective knowledge. But what they can't observe is my intentions about where I am going to go. My intention is subjective and known only to me. It is a real but unobservable thing. The neighbors can't see my intention to go to the store to buy habanero peppers. My intent to buy habaneros is not random in the sense that the thing I am going to buy changes every second on my trip to the store.

Why science needs a soul (Newton first)

Assumption 1. Properly derived chains of logic and mathematics allows no contradictions. (If we deny this assumption, then we have no means of gaining knowledge. Consider the case of a contradiction which allows anything to be proven. (search 'John is a wise fool')

Assumption 2. Matter follows the rules of logic and mathematics revealed to humans via the scientific method.. (This seems to be an observational fact. This is the assumption that physical laws we have discovered govern the universe.)

Conclusion 1. Therefore the true view of the universe is logically consistent and allow no contradictions. (To deny this is to say that logic and math don't govern the universe. If they don't then what does?)

Assumption 3. Atoms are part of the universe.

Conclusion 2. Atoms in our bodies are governed by the laws of the universe.

Assumption 4. Atoms are required to follow those laws. For atoms and molecules, there is no escape from the inexorable dictates of the laws of the universe. (One can't deny this if one accepts assumption #2 and #3)

Assumption 5. Our bodies and brains are made of atoms which follow the laws of the universe. (The materialist assumption)

Assumption 6. Our mind or set of mental states is an epiphenomenon of the arrangement of matter in our brain.

Explanation: Mental states arise from a collection of atoms organized in a particular pattern entailing our knowledge, experience and memories beliefs, all of which follow the laws of the universe because the underlying matter follows the universe. (Given that each of us have different memories and experiences which can only be encoded in the brain via different arrangements of matter, this seems easy to accept).

Conclusion 3. Beliefs are mental states and arise in the epiphenomenon of the matter in our brain from the particular arrangement of the atoms in the brain which follow the laws of the universe. Beliefs, memories, experience etc are entirely due to an arrangement of matter. (This follows from assumption 5 mental thoughts are the state of the epiphenomenon of matter).

Assumption 7: Actions arise from pre-existing mental states. One thinks of an apple before reaching out taking one and subsequently eating the juicy fruit.

Conclusion 4. The previous chain of logic shows therefore, that actions are based ultimately on the laws of the universe which admit of no contradiction or escape. A murder is nothing more than the actualization of the thoughts and intensions in the mind of the murderer which were caused by the particular arrangement of matter in his brain, which was caused by the laws of the universe. (follows from #7).

Conclusion 5. Actions have no escape from the inexorable demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter which underlies the mental states. Therefore, actions have no free will. The mental state is caused by the arrangement of matter, and the action is caused by the mental state. The individual is forced to do, believe and experience what the patterns of atoms in his brain require, and those atoms, in turn, are required follow the laws of the universe.

This position is best summed up by Dawkins:

Source: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It's not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I've ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn't seem to make any sense. Now I don't actually know what I actually think about that, I haven't taken up a position about that, it's not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism. What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, "Oh well he couldn't help doing it, he was determined by his molecules." Maybe we should... I sometimes... Um... You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won't start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that's what we all ought to... Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is "Oh they were just determined by their molecules." It's stupid to punish them. What we should do is say "This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced." I can't bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood.

© Copyright Original Source

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

Let's extend this reasoning a bit. If conclusions #4 and #5 are true, then it seems the following must also be true.

Conclusion 6-1. then the belief that we have or don't have free will is held, not because of evidence but because of the arrangement of the atoms in the brain.

Conclusion 6-2. The belief in the efficacy of logic is held, again, not because it is actually efficacious, but because of the arrangement of the atoms in the brain. We can't actually know if logic tells us anything true because it is an arrangement of atoms and molecules which force us to believe in the efficacy of logic.

Conclusion 6-3. Belief in atheism, theism or pantheism, scientific theories and love for family and everything we think we know, are held not because the person believes or loves, but because the arrangement of atoms require said beliefs or love. Evidence does not enter into the equation here.

Conclusion 6-4. Therefore, reality cannot be known because each and every belief is held because of the arrangement of atoms which require us to believe and 'know' what we know. We do not independently confirm scientific data or hold a single opinion that our molecules don't force us to hold. Evidence is meaningless.

Conclusion 6-5. Our memories don't represent actual events but are forced upon us by the atoms in our brain being arranged in a particular pattern which followed the laws of the universe. Our parents might not really have existed. The past scientific experiments we use as the building blocks of science might not have ever been carried out but merely be an arrangement of matter in our brain. Truth is a meaningless concept, since every belief and action is predetermined by the arrangement of our molecules.

Conclusion 6-6 Science is impossible; knowledge is impossible; history is impossible. Science, knowledge and history cannot possibly be proclaimed true because it is the arrangement of atoms in our minds that makes us hold that the facts of science, knowledge and history is true, not the data.

As Tony Rothman and George Sudarshan say:



Paradox 1: If science is impossible, as conclusion 6-6 requires, then assumption 2, the assumption that observational physical laws govern the universe, cannot be held to be true. Knowledge of those laws arise from science, but if science is believed only because of the arrangement of atoms in our brains, then there is no validity to the laws of science. And because of that this chain of logic fails because science must be true for this chain of logic to be true. But if this chain of logic is true, science is impossible.

But, if we change assumption 6 and say:

Assumption 6a Beliefs and judgments about data arise from analyses accomplished by an non-observable entity, i.e. a soul, which is not rooted in our observable universe, and thus not constrained by the inexorable demands of the physical universe. This entity may be rooted in dark matter or some other substrate which is unobservable. That entity is free to consider all the information, and choose the appropriate position. The information is then transferred to the observable world and the atoms put into appropriate patterns for those beliefs.

Conclusion 3a. Beliefs held by the individual, are not caused by the arrangement of matter in their brain but are the result of actions and beliefs accomplished by another entity based in some other substrate, i. e. dark matter, immaterial soul etc. The particular arrangement of matter in the brain is logically later than the decision-making event.

Assumption 7a. Actions are the result of decisions made in the unobservable substrate which is free of the laws of the universe. As an aside, Libet's experiment which purports to show that consciousness is not involved in decision making and thus claims that we have no free will, might be explained within the framework presented here. The unconscious mind IS the unobservable entity in action. It makes the decision and transfers knowledge to our bodies.

Conclusion 6-1a. If this is true, then the belief that we have or don't have free will is held because of Logic and evidence, and because of decisions made by the unobservable entity which then encodes an appropriate arrangement of matter in our brains. Libet's electrical potential comes into play here. The encoding of our brains is a result of the decisions by the unobservable entity, NOT because the atoms in our brains constrain us. It is the freedom of the unobservable entity based within dark matter or classical soul, which allows us to truly be free.

Conclusion 6-2a. Belief in the efficacy of logic is held because logic works, not because we are forced into a belief that logic works by the arrangement of our atoms.

Conclusion 6-3. Belief in atheism, theism or pantheism, scientific theories and love for family and everything we think we know, are held because an entity free of the inexorable demands of this universe's laws allows a free decision on what it chooses to believe. The person believes or loves, based on the evidence he has at hand. Evidence and data are extremely important.

Conclusion 6-4. Therefore, reality can be known because each and every belief is held because of the free consideration of evidence which is weighed by use of logic and math which actually works and is not forced on us by the arrangement of matter in our brain We can and do independently confirm scientific data or hold opinions that are well considered.

Conclusion 6-5. Our memories do represent actual events because we are free from the forced mental states the materialist position requires. Our parents did exist. Past scientific experiments we use as the building blocks of science were carried out. Truth is, if not absolutely obtainable, at least assymptotically obtainable.

Conclusion 6-6 Science is possible; knowledge is possible; history is possible. Science, knowledge and history can be proclaimed true because data is actually examined, and an efficacious logical chain is applied to the problems at hand.

Conclusion 7. Scientific and historical knowledge can be real if and only if there is an entity free of the laws of the universe which can examine the data and make a free unhindered, unconstrained decision.. The materialist position is self-defeating. Our choice seems to be between having no basis upon which to believe anything is true or having a soul.

[Yttrium]

Wow, I'm so used to seeing you challenge YEC types that it seems strange to see you effectively challenging Naturalists.

As far as your argument goes... sure, works for me. I would point out, though, that there is a lot we still don't understand about subatomic particles. They don't always do what we expect under normal physical laws. Such strangeness is why we have Quantum Mechanics. So I may not be convinced by your argument, but I do like the idea.

[klaus54]

Define "soul".

[shunyadragon]

Even though I am a theist I do not accept this argument for the necessity of the "soul." It is a similar problematic argument for the necessity of "God." This argument requires front loading to many assumptions.

I will comment further in detailing my objections based on the assumptions of the argument.

[grmorton]

Part II continued from first post


Does Quantum Mechanics allow escape from this conundrum?

First and foremost, quantum is often claimed to be the source of our free will, but as John Searle notes:



Given that randomness or indeterminism is not equivalent to free will, it is clear from the start, that quantum mechanics or even chaos theory, can't provide an escape hatch to the problems above. Determinism leads to a lack of free will but indeterminism does not lead to free will necessarily.

I want to repeat an earlier paragraph here--micro-self plagiarism if you will: For the purposes of this discussion, free will is a voluntary intentional action. Intentional action requires an 'intender', something that intends the action to happen. That intender seems to be our conscious mind. When I leave my house, all my neighbors can observe my body getting in my car and starting to drive off. That is objective knowledge. But what they can't observe is my intentions about where I am going to go. My intention is subjective and known only to me. It is a real but unobservable thing. The neighbors can't see my intention to go to the store to buy habanero peppers. My intent to buy habaneros is not random in the sense that the thing I am going to buy changes every second on my trip to the store. The intent is constant. Thus, Searle is correct, randomness is not the same as free will. The question is, did I go voluntarily to the store, or was it of necessity?

It is the wave nature of the quantum equations which creates the indeterminancy. Waves interfere, creating an interference pattern where probabilities of finding a particle at a particular position varies in a predictable pattern. These patterns extend to infinity.


......E..........C..........A...........B.......D <----Options for each peak
............................*
.................* ....... ***.........*
..... *........ ***.......*****.......*** .......*
.....***......******.....*******.....*****......** * on to infinity --->

Source: Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, Quantum Enigma, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 184

"In his rigorous 1932 treatment, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann showed that quantum theory makes physics' encounter with consciousness inevitable. He considered a measuring apparatus, a Geiger counter, for example. It is isolated from the rest of the world but makes contact with a quantum system, say, an atom simultaneously in two boxes. This Geiger counter is set to fire if the atom is in the top box and to remain unfired if the atom is in the bottom box. Von Neumann showed that if the Geiger counter is a physical system governed by quantum mechanics, it would enter a superposition state with the atom and be, simultaneously, in a fired and an un fired state. (We saw this situation in the case of Schrodinger's cat.)"

"Should a second isolated measuring apparatus come into contact with the Geiger counter-for example, an electronic device recording whether the Geiger counter has fired-it joins the superposition state and records both situations existing simultaneously. This so-called "von Neumann chain" can continue indefinitely. Von Neumann showed that no physical system obeying the laws of physics (i.e., quantum theory) could collapse a superposition state wavefunction to yield a particular result."

"However, when we look at the Geiger counter, we will always see a particular result, not a superposition. Von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer doing something that is not presently encompassed by physics can collapse a wavefunction. Though for all practical purposes one can consider the wavefunction collapsed at any macroscopic stage of the von Neumann chain, von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer can actually make an observation."

© Copyright Original Source

Quantum cries out for the soul. If the observer arises solely from the arrangement of matter in our brain, then it too should be governed by the laws of physics and go into that infinite chain of quantum entanglement von Neumann speaks of. Something must exist outside of the laws of physics for the laws of quantum physics to have collapsed wave functions.

Because of this, all the problems noted above apply to the quantum world as well. But quantum adds another problem, it is the observer problem. The observer determines what he will see when he sets up his equipment. An experimenter wants to know if 2 billion years ago, a photon of light went on the right or left side of a galaxy as a particle does or around it on both sides like a wave. The experimenter's choice of what equipment to set up determines what he will see. If he sets up equipment designed and determined to detect waves, he will see all photons going around both sides of the galaxy. If he sets up a photo-electric set up which detects particles, he will see the photon on one side or the other of the galaxy. The photon seems to obey the choice of the experimenter, and thus its behavior is determined by the experimenter who wasn't even living at the time the photon passed the galaxy. Further, if the choice is made via a system like that described above, the choice of what to see is as determined as what is seen. But the choice of the experimenter is what determines what is seen. As Rosenblum and Kuttner say.

Source: Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, Quantum Enigma, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 174

"Though it is hard to fit free will into a scientific worldview, we cannot ourselves, with any seriousness, doubt it. A. Hobson's comment seems apt to us: "Those of us with common sense are amazed at the resistance put up by psychologists, physiologists, and philosophers to the obvious reality of free will."
"However, as we have seen, in accepting both free will and the demonstrated quantum results, we face an enigma: the apparent creation of reality by conscious observation. Moreover, to avoid the enigma by denying free will, we must also assume that the world conspires to correlate our choices with the physical situations we then observe. While in classical physics free will is a benign problem, quantum mechanics forces us to consider such human aspects intruding into our physics. According to John Bell:

'It has turned out that, quantum mechanics cannot be "completed" into a locally causal theory, at least as long as one allows ... freely operating experimenters.'

The creation of reality by observation is hard to accept. But it is not a new notion."

© Copyright Original Source

Why does the world correlate the behavior of a light wave two billion years ago, with the conscious choice of equipment today, and do similarly if the astronomer chooses to observe photons? Philosophically one could say that the equipment acts like a filter to filter out what isn't chosen. This is like putting on horizontal vs vertically polarized lens'. One only sees half of the photons when either filter is used. In this view, the quantum observer is only seeing half the action with his choice. A different choice sees the other half of the action. But that requires an objective reality, something quantum has claimed to deny.

If we human observers create our own reality, then again it is hard to see how knowledge is truly being gained when we do an experiment. We get what reality we create. Does that make it true? Kitty Ferguson says:

Source: Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004), p. 28- 20

"If we as observers manipulate and even create reality on the quantum level, what effect might we be having on the universe as a whole? It is Wheeler again who presents us with a mind-boggling suggestion. Perhaps it may be impossible for a universe to exist without observers. Does it follow that the universe did not exist before there were thinking beings in it? Does it follow that our observations create a history of the universe before our own appearance, a history that in a certain sense did not exist before we began to ask questions about the early universe? What meaning does our expertise and our technology have if all we are able to do with it is discover answers we are creating ourselves? And if we become extinct, will the universe vanish?"

© Copyright Original Source

Ferguson states quite clearly how quantum fails to give escape to the problem that our knowledge is not really knowledge. If there is no free will as defined for classical physics, then the outcomes of all experiments are all predetermined and nothing is actually varied, and no knowledge is gained. But if we try to escape this problem by incorporating quantum, we find that determinism still reigns and we bring a different problem, that of the observer creating (determining) his own reality. If we create our own reality, can we say that there is an objective reality which is defined by scientific knowledge? It appears that we can't say that.

If we create our own reality, solipsism lurks nearby. How can anyone know that what a scientist says about the experiment he performed is the description of an actual experiment rather than something we created in our own minds? Nineteenth century Idealism and modern radical nominalism believe that reality is entirely mental, and statements emanating from quantum tends to be consistent with those solipsistic views.

So here is where we stand with regard to scientific and historical knowledge:

In classical physics, "If every event is determined by every preceding event, then the concept of free will is meaningless, as is the notion of running an experiment, which presupposes that conditions can be varied. Yet, if the experimenter's very actions are predetermined, then nothing has been varied and no "experiment" has been carried out." Rothman and Sudarshan (see above)

In quantum physics:

"What meaning does our expertise and our technology have if all we are able to do with it is discover answers we are creating ourselves?" Ferguson (see above)

If I am creating my own reality there is no way to determine if I have free will and freely determine my reality or whether I am required to determine the reality chosen because the quantum decision-making process described above requires me to perform action D or some other action. But one thing is certain, the reality I create doesn't necessarily have to have any reality other than in a mental state (a Cartesian, I create my reality therefore I think. If I think, therefore I am). This mental state which is commonly called consciousness is the soul.

Paradox 2: If Quantum is correct an observer/intender is absolutely required. The intention of the observer to observe the quantum system is not observable and is thus outside of the scientific methodology. Furthermore, the observer's choice of what equipment to set up means that we create our own reality, including quantum mechanics as part of that reality. If we create reality then there is no reality to the multiple historical experiments suggesting quantum is true because we created that as well. This means that we create the reality of our science; the reality of our history (and the scientific experiments reported in historical scientific journals), and therefore, quantum can't be correct because it requires a set of objective experiments as the basis upon which Quantum is held to be real. If the experiments are not real or objective, but are created by the observer, quantum can't be true.

But if quantum is not true, then reality isn't generated by the observer, and the experiments used to support the truth of Quantum, as also real, and quantum is true. And we go round and round between this and the above paragraph.

Escape

Materialism and scientism create the two paradoxes mentioned. Both paths lead to a self refutation of science and history. If Quantum is true, then quantum is false because quantum's historical experiments are a created reality. They aren't real. So quantum is wrong. but if quantum is wrong, the experiments are real and quantum is true.

To escape this trap, it seems to me, requires a super observer--God. If He is THE observer, then He sets the reality and human observers, having a soul, and thus free will, will see what He has set up as objective reality. This allows scientific knowledge to be real and what we are doing is discovering what God did. To use Rothman and Sudarshan's terminology, God is the defect in causality required to verify causality.

Classical knowledge requires a soul; and a quantum world requires God or there is no true knowledge.

I want to end this with a quotation from an Electrical Engineering book I once read:

Source: L. Solymar and D. Walsh, Lectures on the Electrical Properties of Matter, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 59.

"I just want to mention Berkeley who maintained that matter would cease to exist if unobserved, but luckily there is God who perceives everything, so matter may exist after all. This view was attacked by Ronald Knox in the following limerick:

"There was a young man who said, 'God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad.'

Berkeley replied in kind:

"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by Yours faithfully, God."

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

I have been absent but not absent thinking about the world we live in. In this thread I am posting something I have worked on for 6 months. It began when my preacher son sent me a quotation by my favorite liar (go look up the frog and princess episode) Richard Dawkins. Dawkins made an interesting point which set me to thinking about things. I don't want Jorge involved in this thread if I have any say about it. He never adds anything substantive. Anyway, I will see if this will fit into my allotted number of characters. I will discuss the Newtonian view first. In a second post I will discuss the most often claimed escape clause to the Newtonian problems--quantum mechanics and show why it won't actually allow escape from these problems. I will watch and see what stones are thrown my way.

Free Will, God and Scientific Knowledge

By Glenn R. Morton copyright 2016

I will show why the classical material position that there is no free will leads to a refutation of science. I will then show that the addition of an entity outside of our universe allows scientific knowledge to be trustworthy. Then I will show why quantum mechanical indeterminism does not allow escape from this problem and finally show a second problem that quantum mechanics causes for the acceptance of scientific data and theories.

First problem. The existence nor non-existence of free will is at present is inconclusive as far as the present knowledge of science. There have been some that have proposed the existence of free will is problematic based on limited recent research, but recent reviews of this research bring seriously to question the conclusions.

There was a thread on this I may retrieve and reference. I believe the best you can conclude by our present knowledge is that we have a Will, but it is not necessarily free.

[grmorton]

Yttrium, I don't agree with YEC, but you have an AMERICAN right to believe what you want and to teach your children whatever you want. No one has a right to force you into conformance with them. That is fundamentalism, even if it is scientific fundamentalism.

[grmorton]

First problem. The existence nor non-existence of free will is at present is inconclusive as far as the present knowledge of science. There have been some that have proposed the existence of free will is problematic based on limited recent research, but recent reviews of this research bring seriously to question the conclusions.

There was a thread on this I may retrieve and reference. I believe the best you can conclude by our present knowledge is that we have a Will, but it is not necessarily free.

Then shunya, I suggest you didn't understand what you read.

Shunya, instead of stating your view, tell me what assumption in the argument above, you disagree with. That is the proper procedure. to merely state your opinion is a form of childhood play called parallel play. Parallel play pays no attention to the other person

[Yttrium]

Yttrium, I don't agree with YEC, but you have an AMERICAN right to believe what you want and to teach your children whatever you want. No one has a right to force you into conformance with them. That is fundamentalism, even if it is scientific fundamentalism.

Um... true? I'm not sure why you're bringing that up now.

[grmorton]

Bringing it up because of your comment

[Yttrium]

Bringing it up because of your comment

[Roy]

Yttrium, I don't agree with YEC, but you have an AMERICAN right to believe what you want and to teach your children whatever you want. No one has a right to force you into conformance with them.

Do your children have the same right?

[grmorton]

Do your children have the same right?

Yep, but none of them became yecs because they saw how much I struggled with the conflict between my science and my faith. I have a grand-daughter who I think is likely to become a YEC. I will influence her, but it is her decision.

[shunyadragon]

Then shunya, I suggest you didn't understand what you read.

Shunya, instead of stating your view, tell me what assumption in the argument above, you disagree with. That is the proper procedure. to merely state your opinion is a form of childhood play called parallel play. Parallel play pays no attention to the other person

Respond later when I give it more thought.

[rwatts]

....

Great question, but yer post is too long for me to read Glenn, being lazy and all that. However, for what it's worth after having glanced at the first few lines ...


I think science needs a myth, a set of principles and ideals which it claims to strive for, but never actually reaches. These principles and ideals are ones we think make sense in this modern age - truth, objectivity, skepticism of authority, non-bias (other than bias as a BS filter), reasoned discussion and debate, etc.

And of course as a part of all this, there needs to be a sense of wonder and awe, and a sense of humility in that for all our knowledge, there really is so much that we simply do not know, knowledge with could completely undermine our most cherished ideas.

An appreciation of a philosophy of science and an understanding of the history behind various scientific ideas feed into this.

Without this myth, science definitely lacks a soul.

With the myth, there is always hope?