Writ on this date, a Friday, the Tenth of December, in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Ten:
Most ordinary science depends on a causally deterministic view of nature–but there have been logically based developments in our modern era that challenge that view. The Heisenberg (1901-1976) Uncertainty Principle (which I’m sure you’ve heard of but probably don’t understand–I know I don’t) expresses that the position and momentum of a subatomic particle cannot both be known with certainty at any given time, since the process of measuring either will always alter the other. Nature at its deepest, darkest, most fundamental and essential levels is thoroughly indeterministic. Also, cognitive styles and practices of the known physical sciences affect everything the senses perceive and even the nature and extent of the senses themselves. This said, it follows that nothing can be said to be absolute in science, and therefore we only make scientific assumptions based on probability, which is not necessarily what once was thought.
Science is still important, however, but only in that it is in support of the philosophical practice. Philosophy is important because questions that are open–not having a corresponding answer–can potentially lead to answers of other questions we’re asking. This is essential, I believe, because that is how we grow.
The only one concrete requirement for science? The construction of theories. And yes, the theories might be tested to determine whether they can be proven or are a falsehood, but the very fact that it starts with an unknown and deals mostly in realms inherently unknown is testament to the proposition that science (physical, science, quantum, etc.) is at its very core, an unknown itself and thus we cannot reasonably allow for its conclusions to be taken as doctrine–through science, we can only say for certain that something is probable, or likely to occur, or it isn’t; and therefore, nothing is absolutely certain.
Science also claims to assess the purposes and the causal steps to a given phenomena, natural or artificial, but this also is an example of wrong thinking. The layman thinks science is juts “if A, then definitely B” or “if A, then logically B must follow,” but all is not that simple. What is really at the heart of the matter is whether science can explain the relation between A and B in a completely satisfactory manner. This is very rarely achieved seeing as to how our faculties for reasoning allow for the rules of logic to go on almost ad infinitum. If this than that. If A then B. However, B can be a conduit to C. Unless C is nonreactive to A.
Science seems to be a perspective relying on ones research but can vary base on the individuals involved. Ones natural thought process can be punitive when directed towards specific ideology on how things around you mechanize and thus creating findings and or conclusions influenced by the self conscious mechanics to the person in question.
