In short, the scientific method is good enough for a number of things. Sucks at poetry,

In short, the scientific method is good enough for a number of things.
Sucks at poetry, awful at history, terrible at describing experiential things and not very good at engineering – since engineering doesn’t require theories, just something that works, but it benefits from scientific input.

The growth of Scientism as a 21st century religion has been working though. I was caught up in it for a while. Now I find it to be “good for what it’s good for” but I don’t expect everything out of it like I used to. It’s straight-jacketed by the same methodologies that make it powerful. Falsification is one of its most powerful methods (thanks Popper) but that has its limitations as well. But if there was a perfect system that covers everything, it’s likely somebody would’ve come up with it already. Billions of people over several thousands of of years of civilization, all with the same cognitive capacities.

But… not yet. I like the growth of our technology though. That stuff is fun. It’s why I give gold stars to engineering; they make the cool toys both for us to play with AND for scientists to play with. The scientists can tell us good useful stories about “how things are” that sound a little better than some of the stuff we heard before.

Still haven’t found ultimate answers though. So, I remain agnostic and skeptical – even of my own skepticism [which is why I allow myself to believe certain things as well]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 − four =

Leave a Reply