Bastiaan van Beek

The essence of science

© Bastiaan van Beek 2019
bastiaanvanbeek@hotmail.com

No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written
permission
Inroduction

What is science?

Philosophy

Mysticism

Conclusion
Introduction

As I am very interested in science and the way it is functioning in society, I am very

concerned about how science is treated. With all my knowledge I am halfway to even be
able to be scientific, but with all my thoughts and conversations I have gathered enough
material to discuss science.

The subject I want to discuss in this essay is the essence of science. I would like to end
with a conclusion that gives a clear image of the essence. In between I will include the
subjects of what science is, giving a start in the understanding of it, philosophy, where I
describe how it is complementary to science and mysticism, where I describe how it may
affect science in a bad way.

The reason why I chose this subject is because I think science is not always understood
very well in society. Although in Europe, science is widely accepted, there is still much
misunderstanding. Outside of Europe science is less accepted and people think more in
religious ways. Generally, misconceptions about science everywhere exist. They may be
even used against science by dishonest people who don’t want science to make much
progress.
What is science?

Science is the systematic gathered, ordered and testable human knowledge and the
enterprise that organizes that knowledge. Science is often being confused with
independent theories that scientists create. Science is actually about testing. The given
theory of a scientist is to be tested. You can even say that science per definition is
science if it is testable and open for change. If people in general have the idea that it is
mainly about theory then it might let them doubt the credibility. Only theory should
mean that a scientist can make one, another scientist a different one, and which theory
is the most reliable would depend on the popularity, for instance. Then a theory can
easily be dismissed as ‘only just theory’. People will not have good reason to assume that
it is worth relying on. What actually happens is that theory gets tested and questioned.
And that is what many people in society often forget. Weither it is physics, biology,
neurobiology, sociology, musicology or mathematical science, they all work together to
make this process happening.
Philosophy

Although philosophy is not science, you can consider having a philosophical attitude
towards your actions and thinking as necessary for scientific activity. Only the
questioning of your own knowledge, as a scientist, is already essential in being scientific.
People like the scientifically-minded comedian John Cleese and biologist Richard Dawkins
say (in different words) that the assumption of being right when practicing science is
something to be critical about. And philosophers themselves are always question
assumptions. Therefore, science must do too, in my opinion. I talk a great deal about this
with authors, philosophers and scientists and they all agree. My favorite scientists Dick
Swaab, Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawkin actually say that honestly is necessary in
scientific activity. And honestly means to never build on assumption. Starting a research
with the assumption of something being in a certain way makes you already predicting
what the result will be, based on absolutes. Rather predict what the result probably will
be, while still letting it be open for change.

Philosophy also dicusses the ethics that are involved with science. Science tries to be as
ethical as possible but science can lead to unethical situations when used by people with
wrong intentions. This leads to another interesting topic of how scientists should deal
with ethics. One of the things some scientists do, is making progress, sometimes without
noticing the consequences of their actions and creations, resulting in not being sure if
what they have done is right. For instance, a scientist inventing a powerful weopon,
without paying attention to the possible goals of that weapon, when getting into the
hands of others, may find him or herself in a situation where the weapon is (mis)used for
destructive purposes.
Mysticism

How we human beings are attracted to mysticism is something that you can see
throughout society and history. Religion is an example of an organization that is dealing
with mysticism a lot and heavily relies on it. Faith is very often based on the unknown,
the unprovable. A mistake that is often made, is that mystical ideas are used as absolute
truths or even science. To believe something, without evidence, is as important for
religious people as real science. Or, perhaps it is more important to them. The danger of
this is that it is confused with science. Certain ideas are shown as if it is scientific. Or
scientists that have religious agendas use mystical ideas, mixed up with scientific ones.
This way they can create the illusion that everything they say is actually scientific,
although it’s not. Next to (also among) religious people you have people that are mainly
fixated on the unknown and the spiritual. They like mystical ideas as well, mixed up with
(pseudo)scientific ones. The danger is that real mysteries in the world, in the universe,
that scientists are working on to be explained, is mixed up with the unscientific approach
of mysticism and it is being judged in the same way.

You can see this very clearly with the author Deepak Chopra. He is gaining popularity by
writing about spirituality and alternative medicine. His debates with author,
neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris (ABC's Nightline, 2010) and Richard Dawkins
(Dangerous Ideas, 2013) show that Chopra confuses his opponents by using words that
are covered with obscurantism, mystery and the use of terminology, out of context and
uncleared. His words are very appealing to his readers and followers because they sound
good and are containing mystical elements, but actually are inappropiate and don’t mean
a lot. Apparently the readers of his books prefer good-sounding words, that actually don’t
mean a lot, over less good-sounding that are more truthful and honest.

In poetry, words are allowed to sound mostly beautiful and mystical (aside from that
they also may be meaningful), but it should not be allowed in a scientific context. I
believe that the beauty of the unknown and mysticims can exist perfectly in movies,
music, literature and art. Within science, the unknown is to be resolved in the known,
and in my opinion, that makes it beautiful.
Conclusion

Science must always be about seeking for the most probable truth. The methods of
science can reach that goal. A clear understanding of what science does and intends to
achieve is essential for acceptance. Understanding that it is in most cases done with
honesty and with the intention to explain the world, so knowledge is being spread and to
unmystify mysteries is needed. And yes, science has not yet explained everything, but at
least it is trying to. And is a beauty in itself. Dismissing it because mystery and the
unknown is considered to be beautiful is regression of intellectual being.

The fundamental and essential aspect of science is to clarify. And to wonder about
weither that clarification is right is philosophical by nature, and it helps to get to the most
probable truth. Knowledge is created. And tested knowledge, that is also testable, makes
society not only better, it also makes us human beings getting to a higher level of
understanding. That brings us back to the essence of science.