It was a photo of a plaque on which were written a number of scientific statements intended to give perspective to the reader. I'm not sure where it's from, or who took it, but the final statement was strikingly... well - ironic. So much so that I laughed when I read it, but not because it was funny.
Here I mean "ironic" not in the wryly sarcastic way it's often used, but more like this: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs
But before I get to the punchline, let's define some terms so we know what we're talking about here. I'll post the photo below, but first let me point something out. Or, ask a question really. What is science?
It's likely that the answer would vary depending on the frame of reference. Who I'm asking. What their field is. Where I'm asking. But broadly. Generally. What is it? How would you define it?
Very broadly, very generally, let's ask our long-dead but still relevant friend Merriam Webster. Here's what he (or his ghost) has to say.
Science. noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Good. Broad and general definitions. Thanks MW. Please note some important consistencies. First, that science deals with knowledge. "Well, duh." But second, it's not ALL knowledge - at least not all at once. A body of facts, a system of study, a branch of knowledge, or knowledge of facts/principles which are gained through systematic study. And Third - most of the time this deals with the physical, observable, natural world.
(Math, you could argue is an exception, but basic math still operates as a representation of the physical world. i.e. the number 2, while an abstraction and conceptual, still represents the concept of 2 of some thing. So does E=mc2)
In other words, we know a broad definition of science is that science is knowledge narrowly defined. It peers into the world for answers, but it does not stand on the edge of a canyon at sunset taking panoramic photos, then heading home. No. It goes down into the canyon with specific questions. How was this formed? What kind of rock is this? How deep and wide and old? Then is asks more questions based on the answers to its questions, drilling deeper and deeper. It builds a picture of the canyon by looking closely at its parts - it's physical, observable, testable parts. Science, at least as I learned it, seeks to be objective. It describes objects and the processes that govern them. Agreed?
But hey - weren't we talking about some funny plaque about 20 minutes ago, or something? Oh yeah. Back to the plaque. Let's go line by line, then I'll plop in the pic.
Line 1: "You are 1 person out of 7 billion people.
Is this testable and observable? Can I show this to be objectively true? Yup. Hard to count, but possible.
Line 2: "on 1 planet out of 8 planets"
Yup. Testable, observable and objectively true. (sorry Pluto, you're out of vogue)
Line 3: "in one star system out of 100 billion star systems"
Again- yup. Harder to count, but observable.
Line 4: "in one galaxy out of 100 billion galaxies"
Yup. Ok.
Line 5: ... well - read it for yourself.
"and you are enormously insignificant"
Here is where I laughed. I did.
First - and this is enormously petty - but I don't think you should say something is enormously insignificant. Utterly or ultimately maybe. How can insignificance be enormous? That's as dumb as calling something "enormously petty." Petty things are small.
But, more significantly; Is that last line testable? Observable? Empirical? Does is deal with systems governing the natural world or the nature of the physical world itself? Nope. It's a value judgment. It's a statement of worth and relationship. It doesn't belong at the end of that list. To say that we have no significance at all is far too broad.
This is a value statement. Speak of mass, or electromagnetism or gravitational pull or chemical properties when you speak of my significance and I will concede. We're not physically significant relative to the incomprehensible scale of the universe. But value statements are subjective, not objective. There is a story going on in value statements. There is a subject and some consciousness that forms/comprehends a relationship of some kind to it.
The author seems to think little of me - he tells me that I am enormously (snicker) insignificant. But I don't believe him. He doesn't believe it either, otherwise why design, build and post a plaque saying so? If I am completely insignificant, why even pander to me by trying to convince me of it?
And consider the marvelous significance of our ability to even do science, and understand physical laws! That physical matter can be so organized and structured that it becomes aware of itself and desirous to understand and make use of the properties of matter is incomprehensibly significant. It dizzies one's consciousness to consider that fact alone. Self awareness? Goodness. Is there any other place in the universe where this happens? That we can even consider this questions is remarkable!
The invocation of the word significance (or really, ANY words) itself is a robust objection. Language!? Now we're beyond a single self aware consciousness and on to interaction and communication between ourselves and others conscious 'matter.' Have we observed any other matter in the universe that willfully tries to communicate with other sentient matter? Only here. If someday we found conscious life elsewhere, would that be insignificant? And to apply the word significance means that it's not simply transfer of data, but evaluation of what data is of more importance to us.
Ok - enough. But when I see things like this I laugh first, then shake my head. I love science. It's been an incredible tool for understanding the nature of the world we live in. The knowledge of what the world is like gives us incredible capacities to make use of it, to enjoy it, to preserve it. But science makes a lousy worldview. And it makes a lousy standard for human significance. And there's where the problem lies.
As a basis for making value judgments and moral decisions - science is insufficient. You cannot scientifically derive meaning, beauty, love or happiness from the physical world because they are relational, conscious-driven concepts. They are real AND they are non-physical.
There are many to whom science becomes their religion - where only the physical world exists and is our source of origin and purpose, but this means they must find a way to explain emotions, a sense of meaning and personal consciousness from only physical/chemical means. They will deny their own humanity in the process.
Either our consciousness and internal lives will become a physically pre-programmed robotic response, or they will become illusions - tricks of our physical mind which are in fact unreal. Lose your will, or lose meaning. Either one reduces us to rubble. There is no meaning, or love, or purpose, or consciousness in a physical-only world. Only chemistry and physics.
But no one can live like that. The author of this sign probably looked up to see the billions of billions of billions of stars and felt real, non-physical mind-blowing awe, began thinking about his place in the world - and got it wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment