Regular readers of this blog will probably be aware that I am not entirely enamoured of science. I think that science needs critics who are NOT religious fundamentalists. I hope that, in my small way, I can fulfil such a role. Science looks to me very much like a sociopathic form of autism that is able to organise itself into a culture the way that ants or termites do. But I have to sigh when I realise that even such an opinion is expressed in terms that have been made available to us by science. Science is in many ways the art of definition, and it seems to define our modern life in many ways. Perhaps for that reason, I feel a kind of duty to know a little about it – as well as a kind of morbid curiosity – and I read the journal The New Scientist whenever I have the time to do so.
Often, just looking at the cover of The New Scientist, or more accurately, reading the headlines of the stories within, is enough to send me into a black mood for the whole day. How to get rid of unwanted memories. Upgrade your brain to the new super-smart. These are not verbatim, but they are, in fact, the substance of some of the headlines. Reading such as these, I feel like they might as well be saying, "How to annihilate the few remaining traces of your humanity in three easy stages."
Is science all bad? People want to know that you're being fair and balanced. Very well – science is good in so far as it has helped us escape some of the tyrannies of religion, and in so far as it might help us to deal with global warming. However, science has its own tyrannies, and its squabbles with religion are really the squabbles of evil brothers – squabbles I would rather not take sides in. And as for global warming – I think we should remember that it is science that has created the problem in the first place, especially in its alliance with capitalism (yes, science is oh-so-impartial).
One of the latest headlines on the cover of The New Scientist is as follows:
"Vice Buster – one pill to stop you smoking, drinking and getting fat."
For some reason, when I read this headline, the following words popped into my head:
"One pill to rule them all and in the darkness bind them."
I am beginning to see science as the truest form of black magic. Newton himself was a practitioner of the dark arts.
Isn’t science just a natural extension of human curiosity? Do you think we should stop trying to understand the world around us? I had hoped that your “fair and balanced” section might have mentioned the advances in medical science that have reduced human suffering enormously (and could do even more if religious dogma didn’t keep blocking sensible euthanasia legislation). You say you are not an atheist so (again, in the interests of balance) shouldn’t your earlier posting of gruesome pictures showing “the appliance of science” also include the works of God such as cancer, leprosy, tsunamis, earthquakes etc? As for global warming, yes it is a by-product of the combination of science with capitalism but this ultimately feeds our own selfish desires for consumer goods and an easy life. Science is not the only villain here. We are all responsible, even those science-hating artists who use internet blogs, thereby using up the earth’s resources and consuming power and therefore fossil fuels. And, of course, the climate goes through natural cycles of change anyway which we will have to cope with at some point (if the human race lasts that long). Maybe “God” will help us out with those.I share your sense of wonder at the mating leopard slugs on LIFE IN THE UNDERGROWTH, but unlike you I give some credit to the SCIENTISTS who studied the animals, the SCIENTISTS whose principles created the cameras that filmed it and the SCIENTISTS who devised the television system on which you watched it. I agree that the combination of science with capitalism has caused huge problems but what better alternatives are there? Communism? Fascism? Theocracy? No thanks!
Hello Robin. Thanks for your comments. All fair points. I suppose I’m not at my best at the moment, because I’ve just come back from the pub. The concerns I express are genuine. Being balanced isn’t always constructive, I think. I hoped by my statement that “I have to sigh when I realise that even such an opinion is expressed in terms that have been made available to us by science” to express the fact that science is already very much a part of me and what I do. My views about science very much represnent an internal struggle. In many ways I am much more of a rational “scientific” person than I wish to be. However, the concerns I express above are concerns that return to me continually. I don’t feel entirely certain about any of my opinions, but, if such thoughts and feelings are so recurrent I think they deserve to be expressed in some way. I don’t realy wish to go back to a time before science so much as I wish to outgrow the present age in which science has become such an unquestionable authority. I know that religion still wields a strange, anachronistic power in many ways, but we do live in an age where ‘scientific fact’ is believed to be a natural collocation.I think where I probably make a mistake is that in being so negative I invite opposition, but my concerns are genuine, and I do believe they are important, and I even believe that such concerns are undervalued, or not valued in the right place or by the right people. I do honestly think that we are on the brink of sacrificing our humanity entirely. If it’s a question of choosing between the two, I would rather sacrifice science than humanity. Perhaps it is not, but… artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, genetic engineering. I really think at some point we have to say no and look for some other way to live our lives.I hope this serves as some kind of answer to your comments.
Thanks for your reply. It’s interesting that many of my favourite artists have expressed anti-science views. In some cases (Algernon Blackwood and yourself) it is at least an informed viewpoint whereas in other cases (Arthur Machen and Robert Aickman) it seems to be simplistic prejudice based on ignorance. I love the films of Andrei Tarkovsky and David Lynch but I shake my head in despair when I read Tarkovsky thinking he’s disproved one of Einstein’s theories or David Lynch claiming that Transcendental Meditation centres will bring about world peace. I’m tempted to wonder whether the artistic temperament goes hand-in-hand with a distaste for rationality but one could cite a few counter-examples such as the arch-rationalist H. P. Lovecraft and, possibly, T. E. D. Klein. Personally I make a big distinction between the world we live and act in, and the world of the imagination inside our heads. In the former, science and rational enquiry seem to me to be the best way to guide our understanding and our actions whereas in the latter we are free to explore any irrationalities and fantasies without dangerous consequences. My problem is when “intuition” and “feelings” overcome rationality as seems to be happening now. You fear the advances of science but I wonder if a flight from rationality is already taking place, particularly in America where the average person in the street doesn’t believe in evolution and many seem to think that David Blaine has genuine magical powers. J. G. Ballard describes this state of affairs very well in the excellent new book of interviews “Conversations” published by Re/Search books. Here’s a quote which really struck a chord with me: “One senses that the Age of Reason has now begun to fade. Because most of the appeal by politicians, church leaders and the like, when they address their congregations, is not to appeal to reason any more, but rather to emotion or evangelical ideas about a “better world”.” This is all underpinned by the entertainment business, particularly in American television and Hollywood movies where problems are rarely solved by reason but by “following your heart”, “having faith” “believing” etc.
Yes, I suppose where my views are not clear are the areas you describe. When I lived in Japan I found that I valued reason more than I previously believed. Now that I have returned to the West, I find I despise reason more than I expected. I do value powers of analysis, but they are not an end in themselves. The situation in America, where there seems to be very little analysis by the general population of what their government is doing, distresses me greatly. In fact, it’s almost as bad here. There’s very little in it.I think in some ways it’s a question of temperament. I do seem to be very analytical in my nature, but I have never got on well with a scientific approach to life. That may sound contradictory, but I’m sure that, as a living person, you know life is contradictory.Even at school I disliked science so much that I managed to cut all my science classes even when, in normal circumstances, it would be compulsory to take at least one. This was not even because I was bad at science. As a matter of fact, I came top of my class in physics, and close to top in biology and chemistry. I even remember my physics teacher asking me to stay on in physics because there are so few with a real aptitude for the subject, and he thought I was one such person. Still, I have always found science distasteful somehow. It makes me think of arrogant colonials dismissing all native customs and beliefs as ‘mumbo jumbo’, and emotionally illiterate doctors bullying their wives by telling them they have emotional problems and so on. It really does not agree with me, I’m afraid.In other words, I’d rather be deluded than champion ugly scientific beliefs. I would rather be wrong than steamroller over anything that makes life worth living.
Hello quentin,I find this conversation very interesting because you will know that I have contributed my own comments (expressed my views, I mean) on this matter (Science) over a long period of time. quentin, you and I had, at one time, quite a ‘discourse’ going, on this very topic. I only post a ‘comment’ now because I have just read your blog, and see that you have returned to this subject, and I also see Robin’s response. A stimulating discussion.Regardslokutus