Sceince is a game. And as a game, it is a Judeo-Christian game. Like
it or not, that is the way. If you don't like the science game, play
another game, e.g. joga, religion, myth, etc. I mentioned several
times that science is an institution, and as an institution, it is
peculiar to Western culture. The main function of the science
institution (here I disclose my Modernist, functionalist self) is to
produce knowledge. However, science is not the only
knowledge-production institution. Myth and religion are example of
other social institutions that produce knowledge.
Science is endemic to Europe and North America, after the
Renaissance, at the time of Modernity. In the Twentieth century, it
spread all over the world. At that time, science has developed
prestige and everybody wanted to do science and present
himself/herself as scientist. Even the magicians. By the way, Magic
also produces knowledge.
I don't see any reason to hybridize science with other forms of
knowledge production. Such hybridization will be counterproductive in
terms of assumption about the nature of the world, knowledge, and
method. In this regard, I can not accept attempts to subvert science
by eclectically adding new elements that are incompatible with the
main principles of science.
So, what koalas, what bears, what little girls you are talking about?
If you want to do magic, you welcome. Do it, produce knowledge, be a
Harry Potter. As you see, magic still has millions of followers in
Europe and produces billions of dollars. I have no problem if someone
is writing about magic and doing magic, and opening magic schools. We
as a society are at the verge of getting into this magical way of
escaping from our daily and future problems. By the way, Europeans
did that staff with magic several centuries ago. Then Christianity
took a stand against magic and put hundreds of people on the stakes.
Then Science took revenge over Christianity.
Europeans lived in the bush and ate raw meat until 15 centuries ago.
Science is not the perfect solution, but please, show me a better
one. What pulled Europe ahead of China was Science. Europe was far
behind China. The European barbarians didn't know what to do with the
Roman cities and simply destroyed them in order to vent their
frustration with their own backwardness and inability to create.
However, show me which other mode of knowledge production offers more
reliable information, more inquisitive power, and better
understanding of the world. Other systems have contributions here and
there, but as a whole the risks of following these systems far
outpace the benefits. One day we may learn to levitate and would not
need aviation. But until then, the key world is airplane, not the
magic rug of little Muck. And like it or not, without science you
would not gave Boeing and Airbus. You will travel on your little
rags, on donkeys. That said, I would like to emphasize that I am not
Positivist, although I bear some influences from Positivism, and as
you notice, use some of its concepts. It's about developmental rudiments.
By the way, some of the terms and references are used loosely. You
might object that usage, but try to keep with the spirit of communication.
Kind regards,
Lubomir
|