Science and mystery- Confessions of a scientist

"It has been my experience that these hours of perusing the water, here (on the shore) or while at sea--taking in the occasional bird or surfacing whale, watching light shift on the surface--induce an awareness of another sort of time, a time that fills an expansive and undifferentiated volume of space, one not easily available elsewhere. On those days, such a seemingly mindless vigil offers relief from the monotony of everyday experience." B. Lopez

"Art's underlying strength is that it does not intend to be literal. It presents a metaphor and leaves the viewer or listener to interpret. It is giving in to art, not trying to divine its meaning, that brings the deepest measure of satisfaction. The authority of art, its special power to illuminate, was partially eclipsed in Western culture by the Scientific Revolution... Its influence undermined by science's certainty." B. Lopez

"The history of the separation of art from the natural world and from the world of reason...these breaches have had a staggering effect on how humans grapple with their fate." B. Lopez

 I maintained a certain affinity for the Catholic faith long after the institution had repeatedly disappointed me. I believe it is because as opposed to some of the other mainstream Christian traditions, and despite all of its dogma, it allowed a space for mystery to remain. As someone who considers herself to have a scientific bent, I wasn't sure how to explain this even to myself. But I believe that this "added dimension" that Catholicism allowed for filled a gap that was missing for me. Science as a frame of mind and as a way to translate curiosity and imagination into knowledge is a noble calling, but true wisdom requires another way of knowing as well, another way of "seeing" and processing the world around us. The two ways working together create a certain synergy.  

Appreciating and noticing things as an artist as opposed to as a scientist enhances the way we learn about our world. People have different abilities in these areas. Some are more "intuitive" and may express themselves better through stories or art. They are using their brains to process information in a less conscious, less measurable way. I have a partner who can easily list the differential diagnosis from a list of symptoms and thinks in a very conscious, rational, bullet point way. My process has the same result but works in a much more intuitive, unconscious, "wordy" way. We get to the same endpoint, but we arrive there using a different path. People who are more artistic than I am process the world differently as well. They may use visual, tactile or audio imagery rather than words. They "see things" that I don't and express themselves differently as well. Although I would argue that if we allow it, if we are privileged enough to be able to take a step back from our everyday experience, we could all see things in different ways. And that despite our differences, we all have the capacity for wonder.

On January 23, 1960 Naval lieutenant Dan Walsh was one of two men to descend to the lowest depth of the Pacific ocean for the first time. "It was important to Walsh that a human being, not a rover or a probe, first saw the bottom of the Pacific. "You can't surprise a machine," he said to me. And it is this capacity to appreciate the unknown, to be surprised by it, he believes, that will set the human explorer apart from the machine. The moment of surprise informs you emphatically that the way you once imagined the world is not the way is is." B. Lopez   Horizon.

Captain Cook travelled the seas as an explorer. He helped open the door for the exploration of many parts of the world. "He spent his life charting raw space, putting down grids and elevations, but he also understood what could not be charted, the importance of the line that separated the known from the unknown. He understood what occurred in the silence between two musical notes.  He also knew, I believe, the indispensability of this." B.Lopez.  Unfortunately, many who "benefited" from Cook's knowledge did not share his insight. They did not share his appreciation for the unknown nor for the local knowledge that informed the relationship between that particular land and all of it's inhabitants. 

First the conquistadores came for gold, then the "Age of  Enlightenment" was ushered in and men debated whether empiricism (where the only path to knowledge is through experimentation and the senses) or rationality (where "rational thought" is a path to knowledge) or a combination of the two were necessary to understand the world. 

Some, like Alexander Humboldt, Charles Darwin, and Alfred Russel Wallace, for example, explored many parts of the globe in order to gain knowledge, (shooting and stuffing as many samples as they could "collect"), and changed the way we imagine the world. Darwin observed and elucidated the theory of evolution (as did Wallace), firmly pushing homo sapiens out of the limelight. Humboldt was a pre-environmentalist who really defined our role as part of a system of nature whose inhabitants all influence each other, as opposed to humans as separate from nature and imposing their will on it as a "divine" right. 

They did not lack for curiosity or imagination and they used these "western" methods to change our whole way of thinking. Unfortunately they and many others often disregarded, diminished and destroyed local knowledge, customs and mysticism in the process. Much was lost by glorifying "science" and demoting ways like art, storytelling and music that communicated both practical knowledge and a deeper wisdom. (Side bar, I would also argue that the more intuitive way of processing information is also a more  "feminine" style and women as a group were dismissed largely from the halls of science as inferior beings, "emotional" and incapable of the superior rational thought.)

 Today, many still become defensive at the idea of questioning the authority of science as a way to learn about the universe. Others push back against science because they "need" a stability and certainty that science cannot offer, while some push back because they feel the scientific establishment has become both dogmatic and presumptuous in claiming to be the only path to answers for the questions of the universe- Why are we here? Where do we come from? What is our role? What is the best relationship with the rest of the planet/universe? Some question the motives of the establishment (or "the elite") and fear they, the masses, are being manipulated.

I have three thoughts about this. The first is that by tying the idea of science to both the scientific establishment with its "publish or perish" tenure system,  and to the people who market the practical applications of science (business people, marketing executives, social media influencers and politicians who are trying to encourage us to give them our money, data or vote) we miss the point of how and why science is so powerful and so important. Second, by diminishing other "paths to knowledge" we have hobbled science, impairing both its ability to gain insight and to understand the "science" behind these other ways of observing our world. Third, science can be done by people who rely on intuition vs cold rationality but the process- the scientific method/experimental or mathematical data does need to be adhered to for a cogent "scientific" result. Science is not the same as art, though both have meaning and beauty. 

For many, their only experience with "science" is in a class or classes that use math and experiments to explain and collect data on things we already know. Even at higher levels of education, science can become more about churning out data to process and turn into a publication in order to secure or advance a career, and less about a wonder and awe at how the world works and a longing to move the bar closer to a level of understanding of the deeper questions. We are harried in our process and forget to stop and be amazed. There is a loss of an appreciation for the role of curiosity, the need for unbridled imagination and the relationship between and the necessary roles of both  science and art in the quest to understand the world we inhabit and the role we play in it. We have forgotten that children (my favorites) are the best scientists as they explore their worlds. (Why they need access to the natural world is a future blog I promise, but this is one reason.)

There are more and more people coming forward into the mainstream to reintroduce us to indigenous knowledge as one of these other ways to view the world. Some of these people like Robin Kimmerer and Diana Beresford-Kroeger are trained in both traditional science and in indigenous ways of knowing. They are not afraid to form a marriage of the two and we are better for it. 

There is newer knowledge about psychedelic drugs (ketamine, lsd) and their role in the treatment of depression. People who have experienced "guided therapy" using these drugs, including Michael Pollan for his last book "How to Change your Mind," describe the experience as a letting go of your individual self and being able to get out of the destructive cycles that limit how you imagine you are or can be. Hmm, sounds a little like the experience of sweat lodges or peyote maybe? Medicine people have been present in many cultures and have had some of this knowledge which we ignored.

Then there is Van Gogh. Sit for a moment (or many moments if you can) in Musee d"Orsay in Paris, revel in the paintings by Van Gogh and you can find another way of being. Van Gogh was of course, tortured in his mind and ultimately killed himself, but the visions he left in his paintings are magnificent. And he is just one artist in a world of artists, musicians and storytellers who better our world.

Then there is the color of Flathead lake in Montana's Glacier National Park, or the existence of a praying mantis, or the sound of a chickadee. Another way of appreciating the world is to take a moment and simply be in awe of it.

There is of course, science behind these other ways of seeing the world, these other ways of acquiring knowledge and of illuminating that knowledge for the world to see, but this is getting a little bit meta I think. - Future blogs will dive into what we know about consciousness and individuals.

 For today: 

The people who push back on the scientific establishment are right to be skeptical when they see fraudulent papers published and industry backed research, or politically influenced recommendations. But skepticism in it's purest form should actually power science and not be it's enemy. Science should reject dogma not create its own. This will broaden our knowledge and be more inclusive. And we will be earning the trust of the public when we need to use science to make broad recommendations. 

I will here defend science on two points with regard to public acceptance:                                                  1. Science will never claim to know everything about anything. We should and do say that we have shown things to be a certain way over and over but will never say always or never- yes even for gravity... Politicians (and others who stand to gain from it) use this to cast doubt on things that have been shown over and over -evolution, humanity's role in climate change, cigarettes causing cancer, vaccines, masks to reduce the spread of covid-19.                                            

 2. The public is fickle. They happily uses the smart phones and other technology powered by science while denouncing scientists when the science used to create the technology they love interferes with their "personal" or "religious" beliefs. And people balk when scientific knowledge is used for the common good, but is inconvenient (or sometimes hard)  or requires a small acceptance of risk (mask wearing, vaccines, avoiding travel avoiding gathering together, closing some businesses). This is frustrating.

This breakdown in any trust in science is currently causing huge numbers of people to get sick and die. And yet the fires of mistrust continue to be stoked (don't even get me started). This is not cool.

Your thoughts?

Peace out.

(Please vaccinate your children and yourself. Think of it like homeopathy- a small dose of the bad stuff to teach your body to fight off the real culprit. They are safe. They are safer than antibiotics. They save lives-maybe even yours.)

Suggested Readings: 

"Horizon" Barry Lopez 2018                                                                                                              

"The Invention of Nature" Andrea Wulf 2015

 "Braiding Sweetgrass" Robin Kimmerer 2015

 "How to Change your Mind" Michael Pollan 2018

"1493" Charles C. Mann 2011

"To Speak for the Trees" Diana Beresford-Kroeger 2019 

Spotify Playlist: "Science and Mystery - WordKnerrd blog #5"