Year Four

Paideia this semester will do for me what it does best in general—provide an outlet for discussion. I am taking an extra semester and as such, need to better understand the side-effects for graduating with Paideia. Specifically, I also need to see about how my intercultural experience can be managed due to my delayed graduation.
That being said, I’d like to use Paideia effectively while I have it.
I plan to discuss my creative works project, of which I’ve done some refining over the summer. I’m going to create a survey which unveils bias over the scientific method in the modern day. In short, why science? Why data? Why does repetition itself act as what we call “evidence?” Much philosophy has been written on the subject, so finding such arguments should be relatively simple. The conclusion of course, is that it simply makes us feel good. We feel comfortable and at home in the world accurately measured by science.
As such, the masses tend to put a weight on science, exaggerating its domain into that of truth. This is for a number of reasons, not the least of which science has given us advancements—it is indeed what we think of when we call on “progress.” Tangibility has a great deal to do with this. When development comes in the form of the tangible, it can be quite literally moved around with relative ease. It is a quick fix, a catalyst for bringing the individual to a new stage of development.
I also think modern medicine plays a somewhat unique role in the idea of progress. Life is, on the individual level and thus in a profound way, all there is. When this is extended, whatever creates such an extension is naturally in somewhat of an awesome state. It lets more of everything happen on the level of the individual and then per generation.
And so, there exists a sort of blind faith in science by the masses. Moreover, any Biologist will tell you first that Evolution is just a theory. Then they’ll tell you scientists think it’s a fact. Such is the world of science nowadays. So much so that it is the norm for scientists to forget. They too almost always act within the mindset of the actions of science as those which ultimately lead to some version of truth, or at least, what is considered fact in their own minds. The technical side of theory gets pushed to the side in place of “evidence.” Importantly, however, theory is the more fundamental of the two. The result is the creation of an authority where one should not exist.
The biggest problem in this is that we’ve gotten pretty good at science. We’ve been doing it for quite some time and we’ve really improved at the act of measurement—the odd term “exactness.” We place massive periodic tables on our classroom walls. We consult endless archived lists of evidence. But it is beyond that. No longer do we have to experiment to know the acceleration of gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared. That’s been done already. It’s been “confirmed.” No scientist will tell you specifically not to go check for yourself. But no physics professor makes you experiment and prove such evidence for an exam. That would be silly.
And so we are at a point where it is thought of as over-achieving to return to the basis of science. More than over-achieving—it’s a waste of time. This, is ultimately the idea that intrigues me most and which I will spend much time discussing.