The Next Edge of Science
How science can discover what wise people know
Science plays a huge role in our world. It has brought a massive amount of benefits, and yet science itself sometimes seems stuck in 19th century traditions (Academic hierarchies for example), while 21st realities seem to demand new angles on this investigation of reality, as our understanding of it has changed.
5 new tenets for science as a whole.
There’s this stuff we all intuitively know, yet often hear scientists, big corporations and or politicians refuse to act upon, because of lack of ‘proof’. As if proof is the thing that makes things happen or is the only reason to act. Yes, I know, bias, racism, easy judgements and many other dangers are lurking here. But for a bit let’s investigate, what I’ll call here Common Sense Science. Simple thinking. Important Questions. Because some essential matters (ecological collapse, global warming, empty seas to name a few) can’t wait much longer for ‘proof’, or are in need of ‘proof’ not coming out of a corporate lab, protecting its interests. Common sense says protect nature as best as you can! I mean how much more must 7 billion people do daily before we truly admit something is deeply wrong with our ‘civilization’. Why then isn’t science saying the same everywhere?
Science is both such a blessing and at the same time such a risk. That has nothing to do with reality, but with the intention with which we relate to the reality. While there are scientists who stay stuck in old paradigms, that already have been proven (or caught in corporate interests), many others are waking up to new realities. (Take this small video as example how science education kills real science)
“Scientists are turning into shamans; shamans are turning into shamans.” Kenny Ausubel, Bioneers CEO and Founder
Here are my five new tenets for science, of which especially the first two can help advance science to be more in service of the bigger whole we are part of.
1. All scientific discovery and development has to take place in the wider context of whatever is researched.
2. Science should include experience as a valid form of research.
3. Science isn’t a religion. It’s questioning to discover.
4. It’s not about discovering the obvious, but the reasons why.
5. That it hasn’t been researched, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t true*.
*) Most scientists know this very well. Still this arrogance is part of the power Academics exert over others. As a result indigenous wisdom is discarded as superstition and laymen claims as opinions, until the scientists have proven it.
I think science (read scientists) has to take these five hurdles, to move beyond its current limitations. Thus science may help itself and everyone to grow to a next level, of which the first two are most essential and the second one, might be the most controversial. And all five may help science becoming something more healthy and human for all of us.
“A problem is never solved on its own level; being complex, it must be understood in its total process. To try to solve a problem on only one level, physical or psychological, leads to further conflict and confusion. For the resolution of a problem, there must be this awareness, this passive alertness which reveals its total process.” ~ Krishnamurti
1. All scientific discovery and development has to take place in the wider context of whatever is researched.
There’s a difference between ‘Scientific Research’ and what I’d like to call ‘Advantage Research’. Monsanto is famous for its Advantage Research. Their incredible great poison may kill all unwanted bugs and insects, yet they tend to forget to tell it may also cause cancers and kills insect life across the planet, let alone the bees, we desperately need. And that’s not even mentioning how it adds to soil depletion a huge disaster in the making. Our ecosystem is deeply under pressure, so any new scientific discovery needs to include a deep understanding of side effects of applications of newly found possibilities.
If science is all about the truth, on how it all works, then this truth needs to include damages done to the whole system! Not by forwarding an advantage to the one aspect an industry is waiting for. In this sense too many scientists have become minions of the capitalistic mindset. They only look, to their assignments, as to: ‘how will our organization benefit from this?’ and forget the cost for all others or society as a whole. It’s the same disconnection as portrayed in the documentary “The Corporation” where companies consciously disconnected their activities and products from environmental damage. Recently it came out the real cost of one hamburger may be over €200 dollars for us all, as in the costs of air pollution, transportation pollution, soil pollution, health troubles, government subsidies, disappearance of nature, etc not even talking about the suffering of the life stock in the bio-industries and unethical work conditions of the lowest paid workers. If that is true, then hamburgers are theft and torture rather than a great buy.
True science must start to include the whole picture as much as it can (read systems thinking/awareness) otherwise we must stop calling it science, but ‘advantage research’ or ‘profit engineering’. Here’s more on why this is so essential!
2. Science should include experience as a valid form of research.
My mother died recently. After a wonderful day at her hospice I went home to get the message next morning, come quickly. On my way to the station I heard her laugh in my ears and saw her move as a light into a bigger light. That turned out to be the exact moment of her passing. Millions of people have a similar experience with loved ones, or people they have a connection with. Yet science can research this, as we can’t predict these moments, nor recreate them. Thus it’s not researched, as far as I know. Millions of such stories point to fundamental different principles of existence, yet have no proven value. What is wrong with this story?
Science thus far is all about the objective distance, which, we all know since quantum physics, doesn’t really exist. Still scientific approach clings with force to the 19th century rules of engagement. Universities hang on to clear cut subjects, while physics, biology and many more fields have started to merge and interact deeply. Universities still train personal disconnection towards whatever scientists research. And, yes, sigh, there are moments when emotional involvement does blind people to consequences, like the inventors of the atomic bomb discovered too late. Or when deep understanding of ecological connection and wisdom can only be found, when stepping into the experience. You are part of the world! The ecological complexity of interconnectivity, codependency of living systems is build up over millions, millions of years! It’s so vastly complex, that unlike clockwork, you can’t put all the elements apart and then think you can put it together again, or make your own complete version. The arrogance, or naivety of that thought is wreaking havoc on all the ecosystems on our planet. Industries progress on scientific assumptions here. Yet any wise person can tell you: Don’t destroy nature! Don’t interfere in the process as a whole. Trust all the wheels know their place and the process knows how to function best, when given space. Just google ecological collapse, results of over fishing & mono culture, disappearances of one species affecting everything, etc.
While many scientists keep on dissecting their objects, the immersed experience of deep involvement thus makes things visible (read experiential), which you can never discover when you don’t. See it like searching for the soul. Science can’t find it. Perhaps, because, maybe, soul, as any soul artist could tell you, soul only exists in quality of immersion and attention which you give to any given moment or expression. This suggestion may seem semantics. I can assure you, from having been there, it is something way beyond that, and no scientist can measure it, yet so many people physically experience it, much like birds can experience their destination with quantum physics. So to go deeper, see deeper connections, in quite a few area’s, you have to connect deeper, better, more personal, more human, more involved. And when you go there, you’ll see that bias, racism and quick judgement, fanatical religious convictions will also have vanished for consideration, systems thinking and common sense science and wisdom. And then, when universities and scientists would herald such an approach as being an essential step further beyond their ‘prescribed distance’. Perhaps then science can help raise damaging managers, politicians and unethical corporates to think again. Because, when everything is connected, science has not only to research how something works, but also how any change my impact the whole system around it. Something way too often is lacking with disastrous results in side effects, ranging from dead patients to damaged eco systems. So relate beyond observation and add attitude and intuition to relationships within the whole system.
Here’s a scientist explaining this very clearly. And here a guru and a scientist discussing the same issue in 2021.
3. Science isn’t a religion.
I’m sick of scientists claiming science itself to be true, and that my complaints are actually only about bad scientists. They have this almost divine notion of science as being pure and human weaknesses spoiling the source. Mmm. That’s what all religions claim too. And it kills the dialogue, and hinders progress beyond the current paradigms.
I once invented the ‘Gnome test’. Ask a scientist if we might research the existence of gnomes, unicorns or angels (any magical being you prefer)? Real scientists may say “Yes, that’s a possible idea!” Bad scientists will suddenly sound like the inquisition: “What nonsense! Such research for things that don’t exist is useless.” For them it’s seems science is like a religion with taboos. I personally think research on the existence of gnomes would be fun. It might discover nothing, but also it might discover a soft form of collective hysteria which makes certain people imagine gnomes. Or they’d find some people are sensitive to an energy we can’t measure yet. My wild guess is that there are energies with personality. That would blast quantum physics to a new level. For now the amount of scientists afraid to research super natural things or spirituality is huge. They so fear not to be taken serious ever again. And this fear hinders deeper essential understanding in what could help validate what ancient texts already have been saying for centuries.
Anyone falling into this trap turns science into a religion, and pollutes the essence: curiosity for how things really are. And this goes with shocks. The world is round. Earth revolves around the sun. Darwinism, Quantum Physics, AI outperforming humans. Every so often our world view is turned upside down. So then the world view what entails true science is a current paradigm too, not a universal truth.
4. It’s not about discovering the obvious, but the reasons why.
Quite a few times in my life I read in the paper about scientists discovering things almost everyone paying a bit of attention already knew. And the word discovering is used often wrongly. In many cases scientists just prove what already is clear common sense. When you search the internet for ‘most obvious science findings, there’s even yearly lists.
Two personal examples: I knew I could be aware I was dreaming from age 5. (I remember, years later, reading in the newspaper this was proven possible. I solved at 5 my nightmares this way, on my own. Several nights in a row I dreamed of Giants stamping around the house. Then I found out, by paying attention while dreaming: the steps they made where my own heartbeats sounding in my ear as it pressed on the pillow).
I knew animals had social consciousness from age 11, at a time when such an idea was still highly controversial. (I saw one dog offering smart care to another without human help. My grandparents had almost 200(!) Dachshunds. Here an old female dog helped an old male, with lame front legs, around the house, by offering her back to wriggle his upper body upon, so they could slowly walk together to other rooms.) People like Frans de Waal have been hugely important to see that most mammals have a social consciousness. Perhaps we need more investigation into the wisdom of common sense and ask kids what they see and know.
Those still resisting this idea, often do so for economical reasons, or the refusal to see humans as much less unique than we believe. Thus in a research the interests of the researcher and or their backers have to be taken into account as well. Science also provided ‘proof’ for the following: smoking is healthy, fracking is okay, polluting rivers is just a small side effect, etc. We know it’s lies, and we are being told many similar ones. And yes, we must be aware all sides can play that game. But as said, common sense says: don’t damage the eco system, make it grow better! Any demand for proof of this idea, is most likely to come from corporate interests, hindering all action to stop damaging industrial activities, who then can continue damaging the whole and make only a few much much richer.
5. That it hasn’t been researched, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t true.
So science is sometimes less smart about what actually happens and is already clear for everyone with common sense. Yet, at times, scientists seem to think the observation only counts, when it is proven by science. On the one hand, yes, the obvious can hide big surprises. But, on the other, scientists can also be blindly arrogant in claiming: “Sorry, if we’ve haven’t proved it, so your observation doesn’t count.” I once heard the story of a woman who had a strange condition, and was referred to a science laboratory to find out more. They said, “What you have doesn’t exist, because. it. hasn’t. been. researched.” What a crooked entitled logic. So she wrote a book about it. And then later heard her own doctor refer her to her own book for advice, because now it ‘existed’.
And for anyone ever reading popular science. Have you noticed how the actual scientific questions that can be proven get smaller and smaller, and the importance of the speculation derived from it bigger and bigger? What can be researched or proven is much smaller in scope, than what the essential questions are. To me it seems science addresses less and less, while the frustrated researchers then end up bombarding us with their opinions anyway. This led to the huge downfall of social sciences, as many laboratory tests had way too little correlation with real world complexity.
Something like quantum physics reads closer to literature than science, because of its speculative nature. Thus they break their own rule, that the unproven doesn’t count. Clearly it counts when a scientist says it. And that too is part of the arrogance. They build big theories based on small tests, and then wonder (or not) why so many business turn their theory into business models taught in many MBA’s.
Perhaps they should rather question how they too, can get back to asking the big important questions (like the ancient philosophers), rather than getting tied up in the nitty gritty, well funded miniature questions. I argue it keeps them away from making a fuzz for all those parties that currently benefit from the technological advancements without questioning the side effects too much. Yes, scientists too, are prisoners of the ‘system’. That too should be addressed, when doing ‘science’.
Final word
Science more and more sees how everything is relating to everything else. Now if this discovery is true, then action must be taken to act more in agreement with these new understandings of reality. I know financing is a big part of the job. But being financed to create a bigger burden on the whole is being accomplice to a crime. Perhaps science, like so many already do in the climate change discussion, should find ways to not compete to get dubious grants. They should collaborate towards a system where faulty investigations become harder. And perhaps scientists who yet haven’t done stuff like dancing, smoking a joint, or come down from their ivory tower should start to do so. Life is waiting. And it needs your participation.
Dear scientists, I invite you. The water is ready. Dive!
Comment of the Sage: “The edge of quantum physics means we are involved and no true objectivity ever exists.”
Comment of the Fool: “I rather stick to telling huge rooms full of students how they should change, because it pays well and keeps me safe from actual scary experiences like feelings.”
Addition
The following is a reply by a friend on a forum about educational transformation, entailing next steps to take. @Hai-Dai from Bali.
Dear Floris,
I’ve carefully considered the paradigm shift in science you proposed, and I believe it’s both ambitious and necessary. Here are some concise thoughts on how to start making this vision a reality:
Building Consensus
It’s essential to bring together diverse stakeholders — scientists, policymakers, industry leaders, and community representatives — to build a strong foundation of support for these new approaches.
Educational Reform
Updating educational curricula to include interdisciplinary studies and methodologies that embrace a broader spectrum of knowledge is crucial for nurturing future scientists who can thrive in this expanded scientific landscape.
Funding Adjustments
Encouraging funding bodies to support projects that consider the broader societal and environmental impacts could really help pilot these ideas into mainstream research practices.
Ethical Overhaul
Revising ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks to accommodate broader research impacts will ensure our scientific endeavors are responsible and reflective of our values.
Collaborative Initiatives
Strengthening collaborations across different sectors will enrich scientific research with varied perspectives, enhancing its relevance and application.
Review Mechanisms
Implementing regular review processes will allow us to refine these new practices based on real-world feedback and expand their application effectively.
Public Engagement
Enhancing communication with the public is crucial. It can help demystify the changes in scientific practices and illustrate their relevance to everyday life.
Each step is pivotal for transitioning towards a more inclusive and responsive scientific method. It’s a challenging journey, but the potential to profoundly impact our approach to science and its role in society makes it incredibly worthwhile. I look forward to seeing how these ideas evolve and take shape in the scientific community.
Best regards and cheers.
Hai-Dai (educational professor living and working on Bali)
