An Argument With Myself–Jens Lekman

 

NPR’s To The Best of our Knowledge has a series of episodes about science and meaning. Sounds good but if it’s anything like the Can Science be Sacred episode I just listened to, I don’t need to listen to anymore.

Firstly, the question is misleading, do they mean can science be sacred in the sense that some truths can be held without being questioned? That is true to a certain extent of axioms in math and is also true to a less formal extent of some things scientists believe without being familiar with all the evidence for it. The philosophy behind science–and let’s be clear I’m talking about the philosophy, not necessarily the way it’s always practiced–is that nothing is out of bounds for questioning so science can’t really be sacred in that sense. Thankfully, that isn’t where the went with the show.

Instead, they ask whether a sort of spirituality can be found in science. The answer, I think, is clearly yes. The EO Wilsons and Carl Sagans of this world are a testament to that although what can be called the spiritual side of science is often ignored by most. This podcast does a terrible job, however, at exploring this topic and thankfully they posted links to the individual segments of the show online because only the first is worth listening to. The second segment has some pseudo-scientist botanist talking about trees by spewing a bunch of too-vague-to-be-useful inanities about trees including such medical advice as playing with black walnuts can protect children from leukemia for up to a year. Whoa! That is beyond crazy. I’m sure she means well and there’s no harm in playing with black walnuts but there’s no evidence whatsoever for that. Stick to the first segment which includes both EO Wilson and Stuart Kauffman, both of which have, I feel, made important contributions to making science more ‘sacred’.