On transcending the limitations|
of contemporary science
As per your request, I've just started to peruse your new `Mindfield'
section. Your discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of contemporary scientific methodology is highly congruent with views held by both myself and my mentor, Dr. Stuart Piddocke, and these
positions are also mirrored and expanded on in my book, The Mind of the
Steward: Inquiry-based Philosophy.
I certainly agree with your point that scientific inquiry, when properly
conducted, is one of the best available tools on the planet, due in large
part to its open-minded, open-ended, and partially self-correcting (through
use of evidence), nature.
I also find quite plausible, for example, your assertion that current
science is severely constrained (quoting from your article):
You dare not come up with research results very different from those
which your funding sources expect! That is, if you hope ever to get any more
funding! This is a matter way beyond the problem of "departmental politics," way
beyond fear of "golden fleece awards." It is so pervasive in every field
of science that virtually no one has bothered to notice or remark it, and few are even
conscious of it until it is pointed out. This incredibly corrupting factor
also interacts with the other shortcomings of present-day science
especially the many regards wherein the ad hominem fallacy is engendered to make
things even worse.
I would add that, as Stuart has pointed out to me, real paradigm shifts or
truly novel theories seldom can originate from within Ph.D. or Masters degree
programs, inasmuch as the evaluation committee is *not professionally trained
to evaluate them* (since a new theory is by definiton new!). Moreover,
scientific journals also may not publish truly original work, even when done
by scientists, as it may fall outside the scope and evaluative competency of
Due to both the factors you cite, such as funding considerations, and due
to the inability to deal with new models, most Ph.D. or even professorial work
tends to be of the ordinary, or, in Thomas Kuhn's words, "puzzle solving" variety
of science, that is, science performed within the parameters of pre-existing
paradigms and theories.
It may, therefore, be no coincidence that the major theoretical
breakthroughs of the past 150 years generally happened outside established
universities. Darwin, Freud, Einstein, and Marx, for example, all did their
seminal work outside university environments!
Yours for significant novelty!
Blessings of light!