I heard this hinted on a few times before, but never a really good argument or reflection… How many people actually realize that science is only about and relevant to the past? The specific value of “empirical” or “evidence-based” science or theory should be enough to illustrate this key point.
Is it possible for any empirical science or evidence based theory to include the future? Therefore, wouldn’t the use of any true science or theory in the present in regards to being truthfully and justifiably confident about the future be a “pseudo-science”?
More or less for me, I could care less what people think about a science or pseudo science, they need to simply get down to what they are willingly able to admit to themselves and others about permanence and certainty, and your willingness to accept their shifts over time… your “philosophy” and “science” will emerge from there…
The reason why this would be valuable is because for some reason, the more science we do ourselves or read about from others (2nd and 3rd hand science), it only seems to give us more security in the present in regards to the future… because we think the more things remain consistent over time, the more likely they are to in the present and into the future.
Now this does present the opportunity for taking advantage of the confidence in an efficient manner, but it also presents a risk of catastrophic failure. The more you invest, the harder it will be will the bubble bursts… and it WILL burst at some point…
So this presents an interesting metaphor of every theory being more like a “ponzi scheme”, where the first person in who can convince others gets the most benefit, but the last person is pretty much screwed.
Also, you cant form a logical and rational statement to say that any science is valid in the present in regards to the future… because there is no way you can account for conditions in the present respective of possible futures.
Yet for some reason our minds can build up confidence and allow us to act as thought things really are stable enough, but I think this comes at the price of confusing it with valid and justifiable truth or proof or evidence of the past in the present in regards to a future.
The idea of the “emergent possibilities of the present” has been thrown around a lot which I think is good, but I think should be coupled with the implications it has on what we think is science or evidence based theory in the present. Is it possible to negate science in the present… meaning is there some part of a theory which we can do something in the present to cause an inconsistency moving forward? I believe there is universally one, and GODEL tried to show some of this in the Incompleteness Theorem, implying that no formal axiomatic system can be both complete and consistent (I see far too many people not break things down far enough… all too complacent not challenging). This to me means that if you believe something currently, or think things are “coherent to the facts” then you simply haven’t pushed things enough to illuminate the contemplated permanences and assumed certainties of the theory.
So at the same time it allows us to have confidence in the present (security) but also the capacity to break free of that security and move on. Currently I think there is renewed interest in breaking free, which I am excited about.
A lot of people might say that we act according to our culture, or that ...