The analogy of a person opening their eyes is often used to show that they have just gained some fundamental understanding, as if to say that their eyes are a conduit for reality to filter through and eventually land somewhere in their mind. It is the opposite to being closed minded, and I think that this is where I can finally shed some light on the matter of why a scientific person is not closed minded.
Today in my tutoring session I had an “Oh!” moment along with one of my tutees. They had just realized that there was a simpler way to approach binomial expansion and it was beautiful. I saw her eyes explode and her lips formed that o form. It was brilliant, and the best part was, I didn’t really do anything except stand behind her and ask her a question… “Why is that a 2?”
This question, Why, is fundamental to our understanding of the world. We, as human beings, are not always satisfied with just understanding that something occurs. We want to know the inner workings, and in some cases the outer. Reality exists, doing binomial expansion even without our understanding. We are gifted with this beautiful contraption between our ears and it is able to, wait one second, I have a song to share…
But the brain does much more than just recollect
It inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes
it generates abstractions
Available here: http://www.symphonyofscience.com/
Our brains continue to leave scientists baffled and astounded when breakthroughs are made. They are extraordinary, but I am on the wrong tangent.
The previously mentioned “Oh” moment struck me as interesting and reminded me of a discussion I had about the scientific method with a theist, of no note. The jerk was unwilling to concede, arguing that the fact that I am looking for evidence from the natural world to change my opinion cut off vast sweeping planes worth of evidence. The problem is that what we use the word evidence to describe is naturalistic in nature. No psychic has ever been put on the stand for anything; we don’t accept god’s word on any trials outcomes; we don’t even care about dousers inability to find water as evidence for anything other than their failure to show us that it works.
Everything we know and can possibly experience has to be naturalistic in nature, and that applies to everything else. We have a few concepts, such as numbers or algebra, which aren’t exactly the same thing as a chair in the middle of a room. They may not be physical, and note this distinction. Gravity is not something you can hold, but it sure as hell exists. Oops, another culturally rooted phrase affirming hells existence, sorry folks.
When someone poses a supernatural, and just to avoid being labeled as being exclusive, claim they are by definition going against every bit of science that exists and has been vetted. They are opposing our understanding of the natural world. They are saying, for instance, that despite our inability to show that they work under any laboratory conditions, in spite of the fact that testing it doesn’t really provide any benefits or reason for it’s role in our universe, we can thus conclude that dousing is absolutely not real. We can’t be expected to just throw out all of the other examinations of dousing, regardless of someone’s emotionally charged opinion about it.
Science does not care about emotions.
Science could not give less of a fuck about opinions.
Science won’t lose its mind if you expand your knowledge.
Science will only die if you choose to be ignorant, and enjoy your bliss.