I have had enough (experience) of how a system works. It works by subversion, a term by which I mean to bring my frustrations into light but more than that I want to express my agreement that this is how various components and subjective players of the system work to communicate.
The usual excuse is, this is how it’s all working. I want to take that as a clue, and tell you why it’s beneficial to see reason with this and bring out why scientific interest lies in seeing a better perspective than lose oneself in the quagmire of irrational reasoning.
Call it optimistic depiction of the dismal affairs of science. Now I might have expressed this at places that I do not believe in rationality as such, and I can not put everything I have ever said or remarked, into one place. I just can not.
(I can if you put me in a specialized office space, a palace in a woody springy resting. Thats just a pun I made to say its fairly impossible to write everything up, given our conditions. Enough will never be written.)
In what sense do I believe in rationality, I believe if something reflects rational thinking, its rational and we should appreciate such, despite of how it may be held ideal or unrealistic.
It’s not rational as such if one takes a realistic or subjective angle into everything, and call it rational. Some people say this is rationalizing, now this may be a pretty odd thing to hear, but I believe it is a good abstract analogy. There may be a little truth in it though that subjectivity leads to some kind of rational.
I think it may be termed as social rational.
I am by my own nature not a proponent of a social rational, neither am I any admirer of a social rational leading to a scientific base of societies. I am by my own nature a believer that scientific rational or cut the explicitness out, science itself is a rationale in itself.
Science has, in itself, plenty of self-sustaining skepticism and rationale of its own, by that I mean science is the leading buffer of both, skepticism and rationale, science exists on its own, by its own, not necessarily for its own, science is implemented for social consumption, but that’s not the inspiration, despite of its ideal inspirations, its useful and its efficient enough.
Science can not be and should not be rejected on a plain, it does not appeal to our philosophical taste or stand point.
If it can be (rejected), it is possible; we are not talking about science; we are possibly talking about suave wordplay or a rational understanding of something.
As I remarked above science reflects pretty many rationale off its own description, but that’s not why it survives. To make things more appreciable because there is a lot of epistemology enthusiasts who may be interested, science can go unnoticed.
A scientist can do something remarkable and then land himself to the trouble or need of describing the science, that’s when he understands science, before that he was implementing it.
So, it’s a process, a scientific one at that, like a physical or biological feed back system, such an understanding keeps growing and keeps challenging its proponent. If (s)he comes up with a certain understanding and faces a question in his mind, he may see more and come up with a little more understanding.
Understanding is a process of learning and unlearning (you may know already). What remains as a residue is the true essence. Everything else was scaffolding.
SO there is subversion in how we have formed and formulated a system to carry out our scientific goals, it’s a valid communication mechanism; at least I do not want to make a career in criticizing subversion.
We are believers of science and we will make science accessible to more people and some of them will work via subversion and give you a shoddy laugh and we may call it a humor.
There is a plethora of reasoning and plain rejection of a science basis of our world thinking, albeit it would be self-detrimental to those that think they can meddle with science and its ways.
There are no ways to start science with and it’s so uncorrelated and independent. There is unison; a rhythmic thinking of science and it creates many believers and competent practitioners at the same time, across different divisive boundaries.
We come across many abrasive thinkers who eventually come up as independent and unifying in their approach in doing science. I want to take a clue from such uncorrelated phenomena happening across the globe and call it science.
It then reflects all the essential ways of science. It reflects what are the true nature of science and what are its true interests. One of it is to keep it free from the clutch of a systematic prejudice howsoever socially and personally irresistible this may sound to be, it harms science, therefore it must harm our economic, social, cultural value system.
When we can keep our morale high because our ideal inspirations are met with fervor we know we have for ourselves made a better future, because science and its interests thrives on such.
M Dash Foundation: C Cube Learning 
Leave a comment