Beginner's Heart

Beginner's Heart


theories: empirical and not-so

YouTube Preview Image

Total science nerd here. I  adore science. Really — every year I buy the Best Science Writing 20-whatever. Or else my husband gets it for me as a present. :) If I had my life to redo, I’d probably be a scientist. Or at least write more about science.

Which may be why I’m ambivalent about the above animation. Like many, I believe Stephen Hawking is a great mind — but there are some pretty obvious holes (and no, I’m not punning on the infamous black kind) in this short.

First of all, this is a theory. And here’s where we begin to have semantic issues. The word ‘theory’ pivots on two separate ‘meanings’ in science. Ergo the conflict with creationists over the ‘theory’ of evolution.

It’s not hard, actually, to untangle the semantic snafu. Gravity is a theory just like evolution: empirically derived. Meaning, folks used observations to craft it. They saw things drop. Experimented with dropping them. Measured time, distance, all that stuff. Same with evolution. People find fossils all the time. Including ones that prove pretty indisputably the interconnections on the tree of life.

evolution treeAn aside: no scientist says men ‘descended’ from ‘monkeys.’ People share with all primates a long-ago common ancestor. We also share a common ancestor with all other mammals. And, ultimately, with all life on the planet. Kind of a nice Buddhist thing to think about…:)

But back to the point: the difference between Stephen Hawking’s ‘theory’ and the theory of gravity or evolution is that Hawking’s theory is NOT arrived at empirically. In other words, his theory is internally rigourous, IF you accept his premises (basically Hawking radiation & his description/ definition of a singularity). The other stuff he bases it on is pretty commonly accepted. Maybe not verifiable — borderline empirical — but far more mainstream. Kind of like the way we accept certain ‘theories’ about the centre of the earth. No one’s been there, so we don’t know. But we’re pretty sure of certain things about it — like magma, the magnetic core — they fit what evidence we do have.

That’s the rub. Creationists say there’s only a ‘theory’ of evolution. The term in their sense — theory — means ‘you don’t (and can’t, really) know this.’ But actually? We have evidence. Fossil evidence. There is incredibly strong empirical evidence to support evolution; about 97% of scientists say it’s so. In 2006, only 600 scientists signed on against Darwinism, and this from a pro-creationism source. There is NO empirical evidence to support a creationist world view, any more than there was for a cosmology of Greek gods.

Are you bored yet?earth on turtle back

Because this has a point, and it’s about beginner’s heart. We often want to believe things — it’s called attachment. And, sometimes, faith (still a kind of attachment :)). But seeing is a form of believing. The Buddha was a skeptic, dismissing the whole discussion of an afterlife and/or reincarnation until we got our heads around the lives we lead here. Now. Remember the part about it all passes…?

So yes, I follow science. And I’m a tad insulted when people who don’t say, “Oh! You BELIEVE in science.” Well actually? There’s no ‘belief’ involved. The sun rises and it sets. The earth revolves around the sun, which thus rises and sets. And we are not carried through the void on the back of a turtle, which was once a popular belief throughout the world. You can SEE these things. It takes far more ‘faith’ to believe in not-science. In other words? You believe in whatever isn’t science.

This matters because as long as people feel they can do whatever they want — think: priests who molested children, nursing home workers who abuse their patients, criminal politicians and bad teachers and whomever… — and receive absolution from their guilt? They’ll continue to do it. And as long as science is sidelined by religicos, we’ll continue to pollute the planet, citing not-science to excuse the change in climate. After all, it’s all only theory, right?

My beginner’s heart is trying hard to breathe through my frustrations w/ anti-science folks. I’m sure this is good for me . But I’m not so sure about the planet…



Previous Posts

day 21 of Thanksgiving month
Today a very simple gratitude, but profound. Music. That ineffable language writers have tried to capture for centuries. Working to replicate its nuance, the way it creates dancing in the bones, melancholy in the he

posted 9:01:39pm Nov. 21, 2014 | read full post »

day #20 of Thanksgiving month
 It's an older picture, but still appropriate for today's post. Because here's my gratitude today: my grandson recognizes me! Before you think I've totally lost my marbles, let me explain. My grandson is only 18 months old next week. I haven't seen him f2f for the past 4 months. And despite grea

posted 7:04:57pm Nov. 20, 2014 | read full post »

day #17 of Thanksgiving: drive, she said
Americans take our ability to drive ourselves wherever for granted. I'm probably the only person I know who didn't drive until in my 20s. Yes, I 'learned' to drive. Took the test at 16 (the legal age when I was

posted 5:32:53pm Nov. 17, 2014 | read full post »

day of Thanksgiving #16: tech support (and privilege)
My computer has been wonky for weeks. By wonky, read: slooow, hanging, programs crashing. A pain, in other words. Enter tech support, AKA my beloved. Who often can merely walk into the room and broken electroni

posted 4:14:28pm Nov. 16, 2014 | read full post »

day of Thanksgiving #15
Central heat. That's today's gratitude. Now, some folks may think that's NOT an everyday kind of thing to be grateful for. But that's my point -- we use it every day in winter (those of us who are lucky enough to

posted 7:29:28pm Nov. 15, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.