Reply to comment

I've been thinking about loopy science, particularly the lack of truth. After years of a rigorous science education, I have a hard time believing there is no such thing as truth in science. It's hard to let go of the all the textbooks and experiments that defined my knowledge of science. But I do believe a lot of what we consider factual in science is in the actually process of “getting it less wrong.”

Scientists essentially try to understand the natural world in terms of schemas, when in reality the natural world is often too complex to be simplified. I think that as scientists uncover more of the complexities of their subject they are going through the process of "getting it less wrong." At the same I feel like scientists will always be in the “getting it less wrong” stage and never understand everynatural phenomena perfectly, because nature has some sort of inherent infinitecomplexity to it. I think it is because of this infinite complexity that it is hard, if not impossible, to find truth in science.

Thinking about truth in science has led me to think about truth in more philosophical terms. What is truth really? Does truth even exist? If everything we know as reality comes from our brain and nervous system, how do we  know what we perceive is actually reality and not out brain making things up? I don’t know, but thinking about things like this makes my head hurt. 

For the record, I'm on Dickinson's side of the fence at the moment. I think our brains are complex enough to create complex emotions and our "inner mind." However there are some aspects of life that I have a hard time fitting in Dickinson's picture. For example, I'm not sure how a mix of chemicals can lead to creative thought, like abstract painting, or how another mix of chemicals can lead to consciousness and self-awareness. These are some things I'll keep in mind during the semester.