close
more_vert

Steve, I think maybe you've got me wrong (it's not diffficult!)

I actually love scientific enquiry,and my point about science 'becoming' nature was a positive point, and we share the same 'anti-closed mind' sentiments I think. Science is an incredible creative process, not just there to 'explain away', 'cos labelling things can negate them, and forget that we are in a cosmic flux at grass roots, and the participatory role of experiment and observation is a process that causes change also. Something reductionist science and especially biologists has/have largely failed to address.

In short I'm for discovering more, not less, but I can't honestly see how far science can expect to go if it doesn't begin to apply Goethean-strength observation regarding cause and effect, and the most important of any consideration, before application, is to ask "then what?" at least 20 times.

I feel the urgent need for quantitive, analytical science to work with the science of wholeness (as per Goethe) both being true, and both being non-comprehensive on their own. In adopting this approach we can come to know and understand more inclusively. The whole not being the sum of it's parts etc.

The will to power is the essence of nihilism, someone once said. It's true!

I think I should leave all the speaking from 'this side' to Mr. Gray, because he says it much better than I could (but it's sooooooo tempting to get my two penneth in :-)

You have both said something which hits home with me. There are extreme scientists and extreme non-scientists (the New Agers I usually bash all the time), but they aren't the only ones.

What you have to remember about scientific advancement is that it comes from observation and speculation. Scientists have to come with some pretty far fetched theories sometimes before finding the reasons behind something.