Writer's Block: Proven by Science
Aug. 12th, 2009 09:42 am[Error: unknown template qotd]
I believe this to be a very disingenuous question, since the universe is not divided into "scientific" and "unscientific" things. Certainly everything has an explanation in the natural world. Whether that explanation is one that is verifiable by the highly specific objective structure and necessarily limited methods of recordable observation that we currently have technologically available to us; and whether that explanation is one that fits in with our current paradigm of natural understanding; is another question entirely, and one that any student of the history of science should not be too quick to answer.
Our understanding of what constitutes "science" can change hugely from one decade to the next, let alone from one century to the next, and what seems inexplicable to "scientific explanation" today may be the basis for the next scientific paradigm tomorrow.
I believe this to be a very disingenuous question, since the universe is not divided into "scientific" and "unscientific" things. Certainly everything has an explanation in the natural world. Whether that explanation is one that is verifiable by the highly specific objective structure and necessarily limited methods of recordable observation that we currently have technologically available to us; and whether that explanation is one that fits in with our current paradigm of natural understanding; is another question entirely, and one that any student of the history of science should not be too quick to answer.
Our understanding of what constitutes "science" can change hugely from one decade to the next, let alone from one century to the next, and what seems inexplicable to "scientific explanation" today may be the basis for the next scientific paradigm tomorrow.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}