Science has paradigms, too

Yesterday I was following a big debate on the web about the claim that school doesn't teach us enough about how to distinguish science and good reasoning from fluff, unscientific mumbojumbo or pure fraud. I agree with the notion, no question about it. But in the debate, there were quite a few comments which portrayed science as a paradigmatic system that leaves out something. Not quite so sure what to say about that.

Comparing science with religion there are some obvious differences. In science things are pretty much open for debate. You can try to topple any theory, but you're going to need some proof. An opinion is just an opinion, there's got to be serious evidence. In religion, this isn't the case, more or less. There is some room for debate (consider the relation of church to gay rights, for example). And there are some acceptable arguments, like the Bible, for example.

Religion has a clear paradigm. In Christianity, it is the Bible and other texts from the past. The paradigm includes the idea that religion makes sense (even though not explicitly rationally) and is useful. In science there are paradigms too. Scientists always assume, that for something to exist it must be measurable. If we accept the fact that telepathy is a good explanation of our world, it must be measurable in some way, for example by putting a telepathic person in a room and making him move objects that are not going to move in any other way.

Now the realization that science has paradigms as well is very important. That so, because the paradigmatic foundation always has to leave out something. The paradigm of linear causality leaves out phenomena that work (or could work) with nonlinear causality. It's very hard for me as a scientist to accept, but this is the only logical conclusion. It is possible that there is something outside the world of science. I'm not saying that there certainly is, I'm just saying that it's possible.

One final note: all the above does not mean that science doesn't work. Science is about linear causality and probabilities. When linear causality can be established between two events, it is almost sure that it will go as it's supposed to. But I guess there's always a tiny chance of God intervening...

Clean(s)ing the mind

To my horror, I've actually found this period of cleaning my apartment quite inspiring and refreshing. Throwing away bagfuls of paper and making room for more books (and more papers as well) is somehow symbolic. Like throwing out old "been there, done that" -ideas and replacing them with new ones.

The whole mind-cleansing project is still going strong, albeit with a little less momentum than during summertime. Alas, I still have to take care of my responsibilities regarding my studies, and cannot commit myself to full-time philosophic meditation :D Well, to be honest, I've really liked my autumn courses so far: maths, probability & statistics, German, automation technology and work psychology. I find it a good mixture of different kinds of things, with all their different paradigms.

For example, on mornings I attend math lectures, where everything is determinate, and a result of a certain case is completely derivable from the premises. Whereas in psychology, you can only make statistical guesses, but cannot really make any forecasts on a single case, say, the behaviour of a certain worker, for example.

Outside school, I'm still trying to wade through that book about history of ideas, and also reading a bit on the American food industry. Oh, and for a snack I read Paulo Coelho's Zahir, which I found as inspiring as his books before.

As a final note, I'll encourage you to think about something regarding your own personality:

Name the three subjects, you've hated most at school. Why those? What kind of contact (if any) you've had with those in the past few years? Has your attitude changed in any way? Should it?

I'll reveal my own answers next time :)