| I get to read a lot
of books by other authors, and have learned that not all of them make it
perfectly clear where they're coming from. I have been guilty of that
myself and, from trying to decipher it in others, have learned to make an
effort not to hide that in my own works. You'll find me, starting now, to
be plain and outspoken, but determined to not be out-talked. Lots of
people won't like that. I find that makes us even, in most cases, and
something new for me to learn in just a few. I am, to put it plainly, a
progressive secular person who prefers Natural Realities to the Artificial
wherever a choice can be made, but realize
Artificial Realities
are necessary because, too often, no choices exist but from amongst those
we have, as human beings, created.
So, if that is true, why do we have so many variants of
reality and, if they are real, why all the arguments about them? The
answer, as the graphic
 shows,
has little to do with what's true about them, but is because we each have
a unique view of the world from where we stand and, although it might all
be the same world, it does not look the same to all of us. Its
temperature is not guaranteed uniformity all over its surface, it contains
mineral matter richly deposited in its soil some places, and scarcely
available at others. A sailor will see a world very unlike that a
landlubber enjoys, a woman sees and experiences a world unlike a man's, an
alcoholic street person's world will be quite unlike that of a nun or a
monk, and entrepreneurs will take stands vastly different from those of
factory workers. Imagine yourself in a lush jungle, and then on a dry,
sandy, dune-covered desert where winter winds blow dust, not rain. See?
World views come from all those kinds of sources, and
more, which makes them undependable as sources for defining reality and
THE TRUTH for everybody, but also makes it true they should not be
devalued as sources of truth for those for whom they would apply. That is
why, when somebody tells you, "…that is true for me…" they are telling you
about their worldview, and nothing about anything real, but of their
perceptions of reality as inherited from their circumstances.
That is Why Science is So Important:
As the foregoing description of WorldViews shows, with all of the
variations of viewpoints, some way had to be devised to enable those who
truly care, to ascertain what is best to believe, what idea is most
certain of being true, and what to expect for results of various modes of
living—and for a myriad of other purposes.
Science draws upon the only
source of information that, using a tested method honed to perfection over
a span of decades, provides a view that is the same for us all. Anyone
using this method with any amount of correctness will come up with answers
very similar to anyone else. Anyone not using
this strict method is not practicing
science. Period.
This way of understanding the failure of WorldViews to
provide other than the most fundamental, local knowledge, also highlights
the importance of science, without which our world could not support the
vast numbers of us treading about all over its face now. Where science is
at the forefront and allowed its freest rein are those places where
survival is the most dependable and of the highest order. Where science is
rigidly controlled and limited in scope by any form of political pressure,
poverty, starvation, disease, and more threaten life in such prevalence
and depth we can barely imagine such squalor. Compare the United States or
Canada with, say, Afganistan immediately post-Taliban or, if you blame us
for the destruction, during their reign.
What is there about the practice (not necessarily the
philosophies derived from it, which may not be strict in their adherence
to principles) of science that enables it to make such a vast difference
in numerous human lives? Understanding what science is, will help to
provide an answer to that question: Science is not a holder of a World
View (which is why I said science-derived philosophies are not included in
this discussion); science is a method of inquiry concerning the
world, through which we hope to arrive at tentative answers we can find
some way to demonstrate as correct, or use to gain a sense of direction
for achieving correct answers, which can then be applied to the betterment
of our existences. Science cannot provide answers for questions which go
unasked or for claims that cannot be tested, nor can anyone else—but, we
act like we expect that from it!
It is not hard to observe that, whatever their World
View, the apostles of all the various creeds seldom hesitate to point it
out when science appears to verify some small portion of their claims,
even those who deny it has any value otherwise. Those people ought to
hurriedly change their mind if their faithfulness at upholding their
WorldView would suddenly require them to abandon all of science's
advantages: To remove all plastic products from their lives, all manner of
fresh and stable foods, all transportation beyond that provided by animals
(including the wheel), most of the materials with which their edifices
were constructed (and their homes), most of their medicines, the books
(other than hand-written on hand-made materials… No!—that came to humans
as a result of scientific endeavors, too!) by which they were educated,
most of the manner in which they were educated, most of the food they have
ever eaten, most of their existences beyond bare survival, including the
clothing they wear. All of that would have to be given up or given back
and, more than likely, those denuded and homeless people would quickly
perish. It would make a great scientific experiment in order to verify any
questions about science's worth to us all.
This, I hope, serves to define my attitude, and reasons,
for writing
Reality 101.
Return to
Newsletter
number seven |
