another theme related to what follows: theme 7A:  MYSTICISM    

another theme related to what follows: theme 1A:  HUMBLY UNSURE                              

************************************************************************************************************

February 2, 2025      Questions, Scientists, and Seekers

by Stephen P. Cook

 This newspaper has wonderfully named columns. Perhaps “Science Works” is one, but I’m not entirely satisfied with it.  It was inspired by a Carl Sagan statement paraphrased as “Science works. If there was something that worked better, I’d be for it.” And thoughts of a conversation: “Science works. Oh, you don’t think so? Let’s talk about that smart phone you carry with you…”  But “Science works” implies that science is about solving problems and definitively answering questions—and that’s only partly true.

 Before explaining, two column names deserve recognition. Judy Bluhm’s “Around the Bluhming Town” is cute, but what follows was inspired by Paula Hewing’s “Living in the Question” column. This could name a forum for discussing BIG questions and, in seeking answers, celebrating “the going” rather than the “getting there.”

 Science builds on establishing the truth of “testable”statements—ones that can be shown to be false—so why am I directing attention to questions that may have no answers?  Because science is more than testing hypotheses related to narrowly-defined questions. In the largest sense, science can be thought of as “a methodical search for Reality.”  If forced to identify an ultimate goal, one might say that—in its quest to formulate “a theory of everything”—science is seeking an answer to “What is the basis of Reality?” 

 As both scientist and seeker, I often feel I’m “living in the question.” Given that many scientists are atheists, people sometimes assume I fit into this “box” and don’t have a spiritual side. I correct them, but note I broadly define spirituality as “the domain at the intersection of what both our thinking heads and our feeling hearts tell us is fundamentally important.”  Scientists tread cautiously here: we’re taught to leave emotions behind—imagine putting them in a box before entering the lab.

As an astrophysicist, working in my “lab” involves acquiring, measuring, and analyzing images of eclipsing binary star systems. Associated publications are typically about distant stars: right now I’m trying to answer questions about a faint system 2500 light years away in the constellation of Draco. I find this work exciting and love it. But I also have more “down to earth” / “making the world a better place” interests— and publications of an entirely different nature.

Rather than being stereotypical emotionless robot-like creatures, scientists are people with feelings. And those feelings can steer them toward problems deemed worthy of attention.  Thus I’ve long been working on what I see as a valuable tool for understanding human behavior: a worldview theme-based framework for characterizing worldviews—both of individuals and society. [Aside: your worldview is about your beliefs, your values, your answers to life's big questions— including where you come from and how you fit into the bigger scheme of things— and where you look to find meaning in life.] Many people have contributed to the current version of this framework—which is built around 104 worldview themes. Behind these are thousands of definitions, hundreds of thousands of words—and countless labels…  

 …Which brings me to Paula Hewing’s January 17 column titled “What’s in a label?” The “seeker” in me—the guy seeking answers to big questions—identifes with much of it. She writes, “We want to know the world and ourselves. But has a label ever done that? How could it? A label is still a removal, a designation made from a place of removal.” This suggests there’s another way —besides analysis / meticulously labeling / breaking everything apart— to gather data regarding “What is the basis of Reality?” I most notably traveled this path decades ago. One transcending peak experience was spurred by a rock music infused climax on a big screen movie. I came away from this, and another fleeting “cosmic consciousness” moment, thinking that I’d seen behind the illusion of separateness and experienced a transcendent unity / mystical oneness.

 Out of this eventually came words that describe one of those 104 worldview themes: “Mysticism.” And a realization: before any theory of everything will be believable, scientists must first answer the question, “What is consciousness?” I can imagine students of consciousness like Hewing, “inner space” explorers, neuroscientists, academics— like Julian Jaynes, whose 1977 book “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” is still hotly debated—and quantum physicists among those contributing to this effort. 

 The quantum realm is where thinking of discrete objects, labeling and precisely locating them is impossible. Given only mathematical descriptions are possible, some say trying to extend quantum concepts into our everyday world is “quantum flapdoodle” nonsense.  But are physicists who argue that certain quantum processes require consciousness wrong?  No one knows.  We need more people seeking answers to big questions; more humility; more “Honk if you’re not sure!” bumperstickers; fewer people proclaiming— without solid supporting evidence— they’ve found answers.

****************************************************************************************************************

comments? put Worldview Watch #79 in subject line and email   feedback@projectworldview.org