cogito ergo. . uhm... What?

Der Doctor is in Da House! Or he was on this topic back in his school daze 'tany rate, at which time he chose to take to task teh Science, as well as its more (IMO) obfuscatory opposite in the arena of Explanations, Religion. It seems that the good Dr. Zaius has a bit of a problem with how both of them utilize the Unknown as a source of their surety.

Hmmm... Perhaps a wee example is in order.

95% of what is around you is unobservable by any form of scientific instrumentation, according to science. Our model of the universe only accounts for 5% of what we can observe with any instrument known to man.

It is not a matter of some unseen force might be possible in your mind or imagination - it is a matter of some unseen force must exist, or science itself is talking through its hat.

This substance could be anything; we don't know what it is. This would mean that it is entirely possible that a vast portion of the universe may be made of large quantities of invisible Cheez Whiz - Or to use a phrase that might have a bit more irony, according to the Big Bang Theory, it is possible that at this moment that we are surrounded by "invisible pink unicorns."

Well, say I in my atheistical indignation. Poppeycock! Balderdash!! Gibbering Ginormities!!! You're misapprehending what it means to be seen! Science can undoubtedly be utilized to observe the unobservable. It just needs, for soothe, to utilize that most imaginative of unimaginary artifacts of existence; Mathematics. With numbers, which can never lie (though paradoxes might they multiply,) one, or any, and eventually many, an otherwise unobservant assayer of the modes and forms of empirical reality (errm, toi et moi, et al who would for that matter) may decipher and discern at both the most microscopic and creatively cosmic of levels that which is both true and sound and inevitably to be found to be the whole, wide, vast and sure expanse of All Reality.

We just ain't gonna do it before Tea*

And yet, I am just a softy. {sigh} There's little, . . hell, who am I trying to kid? . . There's no chance of me using said tool on my own. When it comes to math, I'm quite illiteratively, all thumbs. None the, others can, have, and will do so further in the future, and folks such as I are generally able to follow along. At least we are when given respect for our intellectual limitations, rather than the abusive utilization of those same which the Religionists must employ in order to survive despite their delusional, though often sublimely beautiful, drivel. That's simply part of the nature of teh Science. It takes Training, and dedication, but not even a scintilla of teh Faith is required. (Though, for folks in need, such a thing has inarguably proven helpful in getting us through some rather tight spots. Again, at least IMO.)

Whilst scientists, like Shamans and Witches and Priests (oh my!), are merely human and, thus, subject to each their own quirks of personality in the exposition of what they've experienced relativistically as individuals, the by laws of Science have evolved in gross opposition to the essential elements of Religion.

Religion says that no knowledge is new. Well, if it is, then it supports (somehow, don't know. we'll work that out later) the previous Gospels (Edicts, Prophecies, What have yous) which were laid down and set forth in the Past. If it contradicts what has been established, then it is wrong. (Even if we change our minds later, and forget to tell you, but instead just act like we'd always known and had said this all along.)

Science says that knowledge is available, if we, or any sentient beings, can develop the methods and tools necessary to ascertain it.

The most fundamentally hallowed proposition of Religion is that Truth® has been revealed in the past.

The most elementally important tenet of Science is there is always more to know.

Ahhh, well. As I commented on the good Dr. Zaius' site, "There is no God. Science doesn't say so. I do... " The ellipsistical is, as I hope I've established in this rather manic** rant, essentially unimportant. But if you got a kick out of reading my rejoinder to the Doc's post, then I highly recommend clicking on over to read this post's impetus.

And, regardless of disagreements, whether well-writ or poorly, I do gladly say "Thanks Doc!" for giving me blog fodder for a drizzly Sunday afternoon.

* Eh, I think I've a British reader or two left "in da house". (Alright. Enough of that phrase. Promise.)

** I used to be fairly certain of it when I'd say that I'm not manic-depressive. Just madly so. Que sera, sera, eh. I've always heard that the manic phase was, despites its desperate after-effects, a state of high creativity. Maybe assuming such proportions to my situation will help to me gettin' my lazy arse to writing more stuff and more frequently. Please, don't to be counting on it. Hmmm, or ag'in it, for that matter.

{-;