The Need for Deep Sobriety in the Sciences.
While, alcohol consumption among scientists can be just as high as other professionals, a blog for another time, I explore in this blog another issue. If you read my first blog on deep sobriety then you know that I am talking about sense addiction and (particularly for the purposes of this article) addiction and reactivity to biases, judgement, and personal perspectives. This is where the scientific culture is in serious trouble.
Talking with PhDs across various fields (from philosophy to behavioral economics to engineering) one of the big issues in the graduate departments is politics. In graduate departments, where the pursuit of knowledge and exploration should trump petty fuels, power-plays and sexual improprieties, sadly, this is not the case. Many PhDs, while grateful for their achieving their dream of learning and advancing their particular area of study, regret the extraneous human failings of smart people with bad behaviors tainting what should be a challenging and wonderful program of study. What is going on here?
Of course, human beings are imperfect creatures, but something more implicit must be addressed. Firstly, the ethos of the scientific field and their supportive academic departments needs to change. Presently, whether intentionally or implicitly, the scientific ethos follows a kind of Ayn Rand assumption of rugged individualism. Think of the quintessential scientist. What comes to mind? Perhaps a scientist in a white lab coat hunched over a microscope confirming or denying their stated hypothesis from a demonstrable test. They make great strides alone blazing the trail less trotted by their peers. They have the eurakas, that change the name of the game. If we stew long enough in this individualistic perspective then a narcissistic and egotistical character may arise.
As many scientists know, the practice to humbly caveat their discoveries and claims to particular circumstances and contexts. This leaves open the possibility of new evidence overturning long held theories making the ideal of scientific practice inherently sober. Therefore, the trouble roots in the slippery slope of the dysfunctional individualistic perspective and how it can shape character in unforeseen ways. It is a wrong and damaging assumption that I do science when, instead, we do science. In fact, I suggest we take out boundary of self-reference all together in regards to scientific progress. It is closer to the point to say that scientific endeavor is emergent.
Let me give you an example. If a doctor’s son dies that morning, undoubtedly, this would that effect the quality of his practice for that day. If you are in a depressed mood, this would effect the mental endurance and creative robusticity for solving a problem. The idea that a scientist’s rationality divorces from all other influences, when you stop to think about it, begs serious reconsideration. A wiser course of action lies in the understanding that because life operates interdependently, nurturing one’s intrapersonal, interpersonal and environmental relationships directly effects one’s work life because such a pursuit bleeds into everything. Waking up to the interdependent nature of life is a deeper understanding of deep sobriety.
Sobriety awakens one’s awareness of interdependence. A sobering alcoholic realizes how his thoughts, feelings, and behaviors were deeply self-centered. Becoming sober allows that delusion to fall unveiling the damage of that kind of thought/feeling/behavior to those around them. It is, well, a sobering realization. Scientists unknowingly can become drunk on the spirit of individualism where my pet theory and power leads to the misuses of power.
To correct this tendency, I humbly request a maturing of the scientific practice. This is what I am calling scientific practice 2.0 or the skillful practices methodology. This methodology constitutes the emperical practice of the scientific pursuit with the needed intrapersonal maturing of a Dharma practice. I choose the core buddhist practice (especially early buddhist practice from Gotama, the Buddha, himself) as the spine and foundation of the subjective practice because of the methodologically naturalist resonance which it has with the scientific practice.The presencing practice of Otto Scharmer’s Theory of U connects both practice perspectives in an eloquent feedback loop of wiser discovery.
I hope the reader and those in the Deep Sobriety community begin to see how broad this conversation casts concerning deep sobriety. Sobreity from alcohol and drugs (while very important) is just the first step towards a wiser and more skillful way to live.
