Rabelais makes his good giant Gargantua say this magnificent aphorism: “Science without conscience is only the ruin of the soul”. We are not omniscients, nor omnipotent. Quite the opposite is often true. Rabelais the Ceptic is the founder of modern skepticism. He castigates those who deny human limits.
Hénaurme Rabelais
From a modest condition, Rabelais is the thinker of finitude. This philosophy of finitude is the opposite of that of Pascal who defends a weak human nature, but aware of its weakness. On the contrary, Rabelais rejects the knowledge of the ignorant in order to better honor knowledge, the key to ultimate wisdom.
Pascal thinks small, Rabelais cultivates haenum. Nice word from Gustave Flaubert. With him, énorme becomes the emphatic Hénaurme, with a capital letter please. He imitates the exaggerated pronunciation of the precious, and points out the extent of human stupidity.
This aphorism is one of his most beautiful finds. It comes from a long and edifying letter that Gargantua addressed to his son Pantagruel in the book of the same name, undoubtedly his masterpiece.
Hénaurme Flaubert le minuscule
Science and Happiness
«Did science promise happiness? I don’t think so. She promised the truth, and the question is whether we will ever be happy with the truth,” writes Émile Zola. We would like it to be like this again… Since Zola, science has even renounced the truth. Its thing now is dogma.
Science, especially the human sciences, has become a religion in which mandarins take the place of bishops. The so-called human “sciences” have no science other than the name. They have become literary genres and their pseudo-theories, tired fictions.
Science is best when it works for the good of all. It is also necessary that the researchers are sincere, that their bosses are open, that it only serves knowledge. When it turns into dogma, is it still at the service of everyone?
Science and Destruction
Albert Einstein designed the theory of relativity, he posed the famous equation E=MC2, without suspecting that his work would lead to the atomic bomb. A scientist once invented dynamite. Repentant, this pacifist invests part of his profits in a foundation. His name was Alfred Nobel.
Did their science lack conscience? No doubt. Yet there are other ways to flout the scientific ideal, more devious and more dangerous too.
“The scientific method consists, roughly speaking, in the application of rigorous principles of mathematics and logic and in the deduction of solid conclusions from a set of postulates. The first step of the scientific method is to find some facts through observation and experiment. The next step is to classify and relate many facts into a single general expression, which is then called a law.”
That is what Linus Pauling, the Nobel laureate in physics, says. And Rabelais would agree with him.
Science without conscience is a soul’s decay.
“Did science promise happiness? I do not believe that. It promised the truth, and the question is whether we will ever make happiness with the truth,” Emile Zola wrote. We would like it to be so again …
Science is at its best when working for everyone’s wellfare, when researchers are sincere, when it only serves knowledge. But when sectarian dogmas petrify it, is it still useful for anyone?
As Albert Einstein conceived his Theory of Relativity, as he wrote on his blackboard the famous equation E=MC2, he didn’t guessed his work will introduce nuclear bomb. A little sooner, another scientist invented dynamite. Feeling sorry, he invested a part of his huge benefits in a foundation; his name was Alfred Nobel. Did both of them make science without conscience? It is possible. There are other ways to betray scientific ideal, less spectacular, but more dangerous.
Some of them are hardly noticeable in the every day life of a researcher. “Scientific method consists, roughly, to applicate strict mathematic and logic principles and to infer solid conclusions from a set of postulates. The first step of scientific method consists to find some facts through observation and experience. The next step consists to class and connect numerous facts in one general settlement we called a law.” said Linus Pauling, Nobel prize in Physics. Rabelais would certainly agreed.
But this perfect method is rarely used. In numerous disciplines, scientifics have no choice but to enter a sect, with total submission to main stream theory. If they dare to refuse, they will get nothing, neither job nor grant. Choosing between science and survival is quickly done for those guys. Desolating application of struggle-for-life theory, one day these followers will become the new priests of main stream religion. And they will continue an even more rigid, more powerful sect.
The integrist darwinians make a good example. But the case of Altamira and its cave paintings offers another illustration. Both cases, and others, show how power may corrupt a soul. What is the use of such precise instruments and complicated analysis if results are fake to fit the dogma? Do they need such precise datation methods if the most useful consists to give the datation found in main stream books? What is the meaning of research, if its only work consists to copy master’s pages?
Scientific method demands a total honesty and respect of data. Nevertheless, some scientists ruin their soul by dissimulating facts and discoveries menacing the established order. Happily, some of them do resist. They produce their proofs, expose their doubts, and try to publish their results. Step by step, they collected facts, emitted hypothesis, verified their theories. On their conscience science can rely. This website is their tribune, to welcome them is our pride.
Therefore science doesn’t mix with morality. To loose conscience doesn’t mean to quit ethics. It is different, another way to face the world. We figure the universe out such a narrow-minded way. Its uncompleteness is the major point of contemporary thinking, refusing irrational field. Mister Researcher, don’t leave your brain outside the lab, you may need it in your work. As a result, our right brain is atrophying, according to Dr Morse. And this a big problem.
Who cares about it, since nobody uses it? Actually, why do we ignore half of our mental potential? Should we be afraid of being too smart? Those of us who use a little right brain are the artists, designers. Those who use a lot of right brain are healers, seers, shamans. Those who rarely use the right brain are all the others. And it’s killing them. Why do we have a right hemisphere? Just for show? To describe his ability, the shaman will not speak of the right brain, but the “left side”.
For him, the brain plays a secondary role in the activity of the mind. As he spoke of the whole body. The right side of the brain becomes the left side of the body because the brain is the opposite of the body. The left side, or the nagual, the door is open to all possibilities. The pure creativity. The power shrinks. The key to the Akashic records and intuitive knowledge. Why deprive ourselves of such an asset?
Accordingly, our consciousness of the world is incomplete. And our science is flawed. Without resources of clairvoyance, scientists are deprived of the best assumptions, and persist in looking in the wrong place. Fifteen years ago, a Soviet oceanographic mission came to get a large pyramid engulfed at the bottom of the Channel. They surveyed off the Scilly Islands, but in vain. If they used clairvoyance, they would search the French shore, where they should find the pyramid.
When you don’t know what you are looking for, no chance to find out.
This false science imposing its dogmas and errors is worse than ignorance. It offers a sad collection of clichés and mistakes that the average man -scheduled to be stupid- buy cash. The important thing, after all, in this temple of profit is to sell. If the devil is in the details, he is especially pervasive and universal, mouth full of hatred, blowing his relentless string of hazy theories on human smallness, on our ape origins, on foolish hope or submission.
Cowardice, hypocrisy, conformism, cynicism, tribalism, sexism, selfishness, pride, conceit, stupidity and total lack of respect for science are the main qualities of the modern scientist. Young people, if you do not have all, forget the scientific careers.
Let’s say the truth ever since the Lie is constantly widespread and by many: in the press and books, school and university, and everywhere it exerts its influence.