Philosophical Views and the Sciences

Written by Mathew Naismith

Because I’m also have an interest is the sciences, I converse with a number of science minded people, unlike myself I should say for the main reason I’m also into spirituality, philosophy, history and psychology. Most science minded people are into science and more science, it would seem all else is irrelevant for the main reason no other ideology is more logical and correctly accurate. Does this not sound simular to other dogmatic ideologies?

Religion can be dogmatic like this but science minded people just won’t see these similarities between their dogmatism and religious dogmatisms. Thank God not all science minded and religious people are this dogmatic within their ideological views and beliefs.  You might ask, where am I going with this? It seems to matter not what ideology you are into, if you are dogmatic about these beliefs you are not going to see any other view or want to change these views with the times.  Almost all ideologies have changed in time in some way, they have evolved however you still get people who are dogmatic within these old views and hang onto them no matter what.

If an old ideology still works why change it? You don’t but what you do is accept other ideological views that have kept up with the times.  Just because an old ideology still works doesn’t mean it’s the be and end all as I will explain further using science as an example.

Most science minded people do not like anyone pointing out where modern day science evolved which was from, philosophy and mysticism, obviously for a very good reason. They don’t want their ideological views assimilated with any ideology that isn’t logical and correctly accurate as there’s.  Again this mentality sounds so much like Dark Age dogmatic religion it’s not funny.

The question is now, how accurate is modern day science? It’s more precise than mysticism and philosophy but does this make it more accurate? I don’t know of any scientific endeavour that didn’t first of all evolve from a theory and a theory is a philosophical view/ hypothesis.  At this point of a theory we are using inductive reasoning which is of course what philosophy is about.

When does a theory become fact or accurate? When we use deductive reasoning to test a theory to become accurate/fact or not.  Deductive reasoning gives us more accuracy which is what modern day science people are about; to them this is what gives a theory a logical conclusion.  

For a logical conclusion to be made first it take a philosophical view to make a deductive reasoning from. If we only deductively reasoned we would have no theories to make such deductive reasoning from in the first place, in other words to give us this logical conclusion we first needed an illogical philosophical view.  We should remember here that nothing is logical unless proven to be truly accurate so when a theory is still a theory it’s still classed as being illogical however you can have a theory that is logical in content. In this case, a theory being logical or not, depends on one’s own perception of what theory is logical and what theory isn’t. How accurate would modern day science be without theories/philosophical views?  It wouldn’t be because it just wouldn’t exist, it needs theories/philosophical views for modern day science to exist.  

Modern day science endeavours can’t become accurate without inaccurate assumptions, what if these assumptions where wrong in the first place? For a good example of this, many science minded people believe/assume/theorise that the universe was created through a certain process like the big bang which by the way is only theoretical.  What if this theory is inaccurate, would that not make everything else that was created through this big bang theory inaccurate as well?  All science is really basing all proven science facts on an inaccuracy therefore science itself isn’t an exact science. 

Science has never been an exact science and to evolve in time like any ideology should never be deemed as an exact ideological view giving us facts instead of perceived facts.  Every ideology needs to give itself room to evolve, modern day science for many isn’t doing this because they deem it as an exact science, it’s the be and end all. The funny thing is science, in it’s many forms from when it evolved from philosophy and mysticism, has always changed with the times. Take mysticism, mysticism evolved into alchemy and then into modern day chemistry.  Look at modern day science, it evolved from basic science to many forms of physics today which a lot of science minded people denounce because it’s evolving in time.  Before DNA became known, if you went up to a scientist and started talking to them about DNA they would have just laughed at you because back then it couldn’t be proved. Science today has evolved to know better than to laugh at such things these days but it still laughs at anything that can’t be proven.

Just imagine if we all took this dogmatic stance and laughed off everything that couldn’t be proven today, we just wouldn’t evolve because it’s through these theories and philosophical views we have evolved, history proves this time and time again. New age spirituality/consciousness is very much like this, it’s full of philosophical ideological views but without these views we just won’t evolve.  

Yes to evolve as a species we need to push and pull, push old ideological views away to pull in new ideologies. This gives us reactions from this pushing and pulling effect which we have always done as a species.  The effect this is going to give us depends on if we are holding onto old ideologies that don’t fit within these new ideologies, the reaction from this is usually conflictive and again human history shows this time and time again.  The way around this is to accept these new ideologies and philosophies which is done by ridding ourselves of the controlling ego, once we drop the controlling ego acceptance isn’t going to be a problem.  If we can’t do this we are best to stop pushing and pulling altogether.