 |
 |
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