Science and Uncertainty

“Religion teaches society to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

This phrase is a bloodhex wrought in word warlockery and goblin worship. Science ‘understands’ reality by reconstructing it in a simulation pre-committed to explicability, generating conclusions analogically. ie. reality¹ = that which we can understand² → we understand² reality¹

Even good science doesn’t understand; only explores. Besides, the REAL world is implicitly unintelligible to man’s feeble mind, and to accept this is to acknowledge the highest truth we are capable of grasping— FLEE from the neurotic self-placation of concocted ‘understanding’.

This coup against Truth flows from man’s breathless FEAR— of uncertainty, of ineluctable ignorance… but most finally of God, and our inadequacy in his shadow. But man IS inadequate— immeasurably so. By man’s very finitude he is made infinitely inferior to the infinitude of God.

Rather than accept his station, man does all he can do: redefine reality in analogy + simulacra, words + metaphor (every word is a metaphor). He refactors the terminology to self-aggrandise: Yes, we are certain about the nature of reality, since reality is comprised of that which we are certain of.

God is Beauty, Strength, Health, Wealth + Harmony idealised. His very image strikes existential panic in the resentful man the same way an incel is stricken by the ideal Beauty of a passing girl. Presented with its ungraspable antithesis, ugliness shrieks; a vampire in sunlight.

So u see, contained in this neurosis is a rejection of everything which constitutes flourishing. Beauty casts ugliness in its shadow; to look from above is necessarily to look down one’s nose. And man, having styled himself master of reality, hates to be looked down upon.

But I marvel at the Beauty of God’s nostrils. I love to be looked upon by something so beautiful; I reach upward, stretching to meet Him. I know He won’t come down to meet me, else he would not be God.

The fundamental attachment of scientism is not to Truth, but to certainty— a small box which Truth cannot fit into. No fact whose mechanism is inexplicable can be considered ‘scientific’, and so nothing inexplicable (a category including everything valuable) can be known by science

Certainty PRECLUDES Truth— any concrete assertion (science’s sole currency) can be shown to rely on either circular reasoning (gravity pulls objects together bc such is the nature of gravity), regression (molecules made of atoms made of…), or an axiomatic terminus (big bang)

any metaphysical argument is either circular, regressive, or axiomatic— scientific assertions are the same, only disguised as observations about the material world. Eg, The Big Bang is an axiomatic argument whose logical terms are projected onto materiality

A good heuristic is that something is TRUE precisely to the extent that it DOES NOT makes sense. Words are blunt objects to paw at Divinity, groping at a statue of Her in a dark room… I believe that when u die + ur consciousness dissolves, the lights in this room flicker on.

Science (like any form of measurement) is only useful in constructing a simple model of reality from which to make predictions. On God’s death rationalism came to replace Him, to replace reality. An atheist will say that the all Truth is scientific (reality is ‘made of science’).

Besides, when science is deprived of metaphysical authority it is revealed to be simple empirical observation, the normal mode of operation for any human.

Science and Myth

The first principle of a ‘purely rational’ worldview is that nothing means anything, and that the real is co-extensive with the explicable. It has no attachment to Truth whatsoever, only to certainty— this is its only significant difference from a mystical worldview.

Science is every bit as mythical as religion. To capture a mystical/enchanted phenomena using scientific terms is to recast a story about “beings acted upon by Gods” into a story about “matter acted upon by forces”. The difference is that the latter characters are uninteresting.

The final conclusion of science is to show that it was a pointless endeavour to begin with. Any purely rationalistic interrogation of the universe must eventually discover that it can go no farther, and arrive finally at a negation of its fundamental rational axioms. This is because any possible discovery such a method of inquiry are already contained within its very precepts— investigate the world using a schema which accepts only mechanistic material causation as sound data, and one discovers that the world is purely material, and operates causally and mechanistically. This is shown most clearly in theoretical physics, a purely abstract systematic science relatively unbound from observation in comparison to the natural sciences. It is the first of the sciences to conclude that at bottom, the universe does not operate on rational principles.

How to make knowledge:

  • Pick method of investigation (write algorithm)
  • Plug in real data (while discriminating based on data format accepted by algorithm)
  • Wait (for data accretion to satisfy all avenues of inquiry)
  • Method finds that its precepts == outputs

Method and Tradition

Attachment to method in science kneecaps man’s greatness. The better u understand its fragile, paranoid+constrictive ‘method’, the more obvious it becomes just how advanced humanity could be if science were ideal wild west of thought, anarchistic and devoid of universal method, promoting indiscriminately the greatness and ascension of man, his power and flourishing.

Science’s dogmatism far outstrips that of religion. The foremost scientific principle, that any new inquiry must be grounded in the framework validated by previous findings, is corrupt + dogmatic, strangles the darwinian selection mechanism which could make science powerful, preserves the more popular theory, not the truer one.

Unimpeded by method, an idea is true because it works— it is correct to the extent of its functionality. This is the way that man evolved his senses, faculties for simplification and organisation of chaotic data. Remember: man’s reason is but another of these senses, as physiologically contingent as any.

The scientific criterion for ‘truth’ is mechanistic intelligibility: If an observation cannot be explained mechanistically it is not scientifically true. It’s ‘unscientific’. Worse, the only acceptable explanation is material causation (which, beneath its veil, is only an all-too-human reliance on narrativity)

In this way, the scientistic weltanschauung DEMANDS meaninglessness, and the psychological profile of the scientist exposes this as his original aim. Once meaning and enchantment are drained from phenomena, once it is stripped bare of mystic knowledge… this void they call scientific truth, Enlightenment.

This reveals the question of science as a psychological + anthropological one. Investigation into the scientistic psyche a far more rewarding endeavour. What psychosexual developmental error, what delusion dominates u so that u get off on intellectual submission, self-subversion?

Scientific obsession w causality doesn’t enrich knowledge, only impedes its development, for an observation must be ‘understood’ (read: wrangled into cheap syllogism) before it can be built upon. Result is not objectivity, but amplification of man’s most embarrassing blindnesses.

The logic of tradition does not suffer this blind spot: It does not demand to know why something works, for the proof of an idea’s truth is efficacy; its longevity is a function of applicability… a far better definition for truth than one contingent on rational intelligibility.

When unmoored from guiding purpose, science angles at removing human subjectivity to create pure information by aggregating data gathered from the experience of fundamentally non-rational animals— There is no reason that this data should be considered any more objective than the individual nodes from which it is aggregated. To the contrary, it exaggerates and deifies man’s deepest irrationality: his fetishisation of reason.


Science:

  • Explanation = proof of conclusion. method = paramount authority. applicability = not considered.

  • Truth contingent on explicability by material causation.

  • Consensus = universal truth, inevitably superseded despite resistance.

  • knowledge immeasurably stunted

Tradition:

  • Longevity (effectiveness proxy) = Adequate proof

  • No claim to Truth as such, only ‘what we do’, ‘what we have long done’, ‘what has worked’.

  • Conclusion constantly massaged, iterated infinitely w/o established method, invites supersession.
  • knowledge flourishes

Traditional practices arise naturally from global-scale decentralised render farm composed of communities of amateur experimenters continuously testing ideas simply by living life. Those who are wrong die. Those who are right survive. Truth serves life, don’t u know? In fact, there IS no scientific ‘tradition’. With its veil lifted, the scientific process is haphazard, unmoored from purpose and disjointed in time.

The Paradigm Shift

-paradigm arises by consensus, validity of subsequent findings hinges on agreement with prevailing paradigm.

-inevitably findings in tension with paradigm accrue, inviting new theories to explain outlying evidence.

-New paradigm arises by consensus, achieves status of ‘truth’. repeat. All worthwhile scientific discoveries are made on the basis of intuition, and all current governing frameworks governing scientific inquiry were founded on deviation from what was once considered scientific truth.