As a ‘way of knowing’, Science is extremely peculiar. It embodies elements both noble and deadly. It has deeply affected our ‘world-view’ ( who[what] something ‘is’ or ‘does’ ) in ways that would be extremely useful for intelligent collectives… and are just as devastating without a trustworthy enaction landscape.

For many, the rise of science as an ‘identity/meaning’ authority has been, again, both absolutely crucial, and deeply catastrophic. This latter problem has many branches, but the one that most concerns me is the way our experience of science may denude the living world of meaning and accessible relationships… partly by posing these as ‘fundamentally mechanical’. This is a strange exchange of being (and relationships) for function, and in human minds, this exchange is deadly.

Science has also become something of a religion in some cohorts (scientism).

I feel that we must make a distinction when the findings of science overcome their appropriate scope ( in our minds or thinking — in our cultures or activities), and begin ‘replacing’ what was once alive with models, incomplete technical facts, and projections that deprive our experience of nature and identity of its natural and necessary dimensionality.

I will also briefly mention the fact that data doesn’t tell us what it means — meaning emerges only in the aftermath of purposeful intention, narrative-making, and all kinds of activity that science itself has little if any solid grasp upon. More simply: the findings of scientific research are interpreted by people … and this interpretation involves science, but cannot be (and nearly never is) ‘objective’.

One question I chase around this topic is simple: what aspects of being human or having minds is science ill-equipped to inform us about … or dominate? I imagine a man trying to fall in love scientifically. Or dream scientifically. I imagine a person who ‘only sees what science has revealed’… and the blindness that would therefrom ensue…