Heads

Head 2.1: The Scientist

Scientific method forms the basis of this head. The method can be explained quite easily. First observe as closely as possible the phenomena you wish to investigate, recording all details that you feel to be significant. Then come up with a theory that fits with what you already know to explain it. Then test the theory. The experiment can be seen as the basis of science. Basically you observe two events that are identical apart from one variable. For instance to show that all objects fall to the ground at the same rate of acceleration irrespective of weight you drop two objects that have different weights (the variable) but otherwise seem identical in all features. You then measure the rates of acceleration. Only two restrictions apply to this method. Firstly experiments must be repeatable by others, this maintains the integrity of science. Secondly all explanations must be in terms of causal mechanical occurrences, in other words explanations must deal with purely physical events, concepts such as "will" or "desire" have no place in science as they are not observable (except to the person who desires) or capable of being integrated into the mechanistic description of the universe.

Science has one huge advantage it: it works. It seems to describe most of the universe pretty well, as should be expected of anything based so strongly on observation.

It does however have one major problem. Consciousness. By this I mean your subjective experience of what it's like to be you. Science at the moment cannot explain how consciousness arises, and for the last century has basically attempted to avoid the entire issue. The early behaviourist's claimed that THERE'S NO SUCH THING but this point of view soon collapsed into it's own absurdity. Modern cognitive science attempt's to reduce it to intelligence, which has nothing necessarily to do with consciousness in the sense I mean. An intelligent being with no personal point of view can be imagined.

Neuroscience probably will eventually explain how mechanical interactions in our brains give birth to consciousness but what science can never do is explain what it's like to be conscious. This leads science into a tricky situation as science depends on consciousness, who takes all these measurements if not conscious beings? As a consolation to the scientists I must point out that no other analytical technique can explain the feeling of consciousness. Shamanism can illustrate it but not show how it happens and science can (perhaps) explain how it happens but not illustrate it.

Further Reading

• Daniel Dennet: Content and Consciousness
• J. R. Searle: The Rediscovery of Mind
• Hume: A Treatise on Human Nature