Well well, just to oppose my last opinion, I will explain exactly why the problems appear on science, which was the reason of writing the last post. In other words, I will explain a bit of this huge emergent mechanism called Science.
Summarizing, the last post was about 2 things, one is the lack of ingenuity and the other is the lack of integrity. And both of them was questionable respectively on the grounds that people in general do not wish to work with imprecisions and to unite or approve the union of knowledge (because of lack of knowledge itself).
But those things are slightly explained if we think of Science as a mechanism, trying to survive the huge amount of garbage it receives day after day. And it is not about being logical, it is about surviving the intense flow of knowledge.
So ingenuity is very similar to absence of knowledge, which makes it sound like the garbage, so it normally does not pass the filter. Simple like that. Although, if you are powerful enough, you can make people hear your ingenuity or garbage (as we have to learn a lot of unuseful and sometimes even illogical knowledge). Here I am complaining again... hehe. But, dont take those complains in vain, I salient those points in order to bring a solution to all of them altogether. I made a proposition before about a new type of educational institution, but it still has some problems, which I wish to rewrite in the next 20 years and make it solve all those "complains".
This way, the ingenuity could only be passed to Science homeopathically in a logical darwinistic way (a way focusing on the survival of Science and on the maintenance of its represented logical properties).
And what about the lack of integrity? Well, the Science survives by use, not only by logical sense. We normally cannot reason under things and arrive at a common conclusion (maybe it is a lack of educational processes, but I am assuming this as an axiom here), therefore everything is built with comparisons. Which makes more important than logic, the ability to integrate the science with our own results.
That is, the fundamental basis of Science and somewhat invisible, is the communication. Exchange of information and not logics. Therefore, a small lack of integrity comes in exchange for easy communication. And the integrity is done by Reviews, instead of astonishing papers with groundbreaking logics (which are rare and more often than not mere false presumptions).
Science is but a natural emergent mechanism with the objective of surviving while uniting a logical ground among all his fields and subareas. Its fundamental pillars are, rather recursively the communication logics themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment