thethinkertank Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 Yes I know, science as it exists today is fundementally a provable entity. You have facts and causes and observable effects etc. However this is far too rigorous for human beings. We deserve better! What science should be like, is a thing like chess. You dont need to prove chess, you just follow the rules and you either win or lose. Can you prove the Ruy Lopez is a good opening? No you cant. Cant you prove a fork or a pin? Yes. But if people only followed the forks and pins chess would be such a limited game. With no grandmasters and the level of ability would stagnate at around average. Yet people are grandmasters because they follow not only the provable but also the speculations. There were Grandmasters like mikhail Tal who literarily played the most unscientific unprovable moves and yet the won games time and again. Science is like chess only limited to forks and pins with observable causes and effects. No wonder innovation and theories have stagnated today. Because speculations dont count. I have half a dozen brilliant nobel prize winning speculations on all areas of science, (that I would have indeed won nobel prizes for had this been the relaxed science era of 1500AD) Of course I couldnt verify them but who cares, they sound good and make sense to the wholy illogical human subconcious! Isnt that what science ought to be? Oh well, you bigwigs go back to playing fork-n-pin chess, while I soar towards Grandmastery in science. You can say what you like, but I'm a scientist alright. And so are all of you, that part that you discarded of yourselves in middle school when precision begged to differ with your deeper scientific selves. -4
Recommended Posts